• He refused to meet with Mayor Willie Brown during his first two years on the Board of Supervisors.

• When the Board put forth a resolution commending San Franciscan Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, for being elected House Minority Whip and being the first woman to hold that position, Gonzalez was the only board member who voted against it.

Oh and he also helped pen this New Year's message with Ralph Nader -

"Do you really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful is going to change? This has to stop. It's that simple." That is our simple New Year's message for 2008. Millions of Americans will be watching Iowa and New Hampshire to determine whether the Democrats will propose meaningful change. Hillary Clinton is an unacceptable candidate to large numbers of independents, Democrats, and third party members. As of last June, more than 150 top corporate executives had raised money for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Who Business is Betting On, Fortune Magazine, June 26, 2007. Fortune also reported "safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc.," and that she touted "what is probably the broadest CEO support among the candidates," even more than Rudy Giuliani. The Nation magazine reported Hillary Clinton's "advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists." Hillary Inc., June 4, 2007. If Hillary Clinton prevails, millions of Americans will look elsewhere for change, or stay home. It's that simple. Happy New Year. - Ralph Nader, Rocky Anderson and Matt Gonzalez

I proud to be an American, I am even more proud to be a San Franciscan. San Francisco Values are American Values. If the rest of the country were like SF, we wouldn't be in this mess. We preach and live tolerance.

His article has nothing to do with whether he is or is not going to endorse Raplh Nader. His article is about what Obama has done and how he has voted and what he has said.

Can we just once have a discussion about Senator Obama that is about Senator Obama? Not but, but, Clinton. We heard that nonsense nonstop from Bush supporters every time anyone criticized him.

Why did Obama vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005? Why did Obama vote to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward? 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. Why did he do that? And all the other questions raised in the article no matter who the dickens wrote it for crying out loud.

It's your site and you're totally welcome to run it how you wish and to convey your opinions, but talkleft has recently become the default site for instapundit and other conservative blogs when they want the "democrat" opinion. Why is this? Simple, they like linking to you guys because you hate Obama and they want people to think that all Democrats don't trust Obama (hate is a strong word, but I see no other appropriate word given your crusade against him).

I find it doubly ironic that the same day Obama is criticized on this site by BTD for "not building the party" (based solely on his personal opinion that Obama voters aren't real democrats, just a personality cult), we get this article praising the opinion of someone who left the Democratic party and ran against one of the most liberal wings of the Democratic party in the country.  And in fact, if you read the article closely, this green party candidate is mad at Obama for votes that almost all match up exactly with Hillary's position as well. In other words, he's mad at the Democratic party's positions and Hillary's positions, which makes this a particularly weak measuring stick if we're talking about this as evidence of why to support Hillary.

E.g., the first votes he mentions are:

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.

Isn't that also true of HRC?

Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005

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.

HRC also supported Lieberman in the primary!  She didn't endorse Lamont until after Lamont won the primary.  Same with Obama.

So, on all these issues (I stopped reading after this far) Obama and Hillary are the same.  So, that's a strike against Obama?  

And, FWIW, Lamont is campaigning now for Obama.

So -- I don't get it.

PS: Why does the author leave out other stuff, like, say, that Clinton actually co-sponsored the most recent bill that would make flag-burning illegal.

there's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, and it clearly appeals to a fair chunk of people. of course, to be blunt, almost any change from the present group would be welcome.

as well, the article isn't about sen. clinton it's about sen. obama, and the perception he's pushed during the primary season vs. the author's perception of his actual senate record. i'm not certain how this makes it a "bad" post about sen. obama, other than that his supporters disagree with the author's conclusions.

For instance, when I myself (either sincerely or to prove a point) have said I would not vote for Obama in the General Election, none of my fellow Clinton supporters supported my opinion on that, and a few have told me to just shut up.

Some have also understood the point I'm trying to make and then they also tell me to shut up.

I am glad that he and I still think alike. I supported Edwards, I can support Clinton, I cannot support Obama. I am headed for Nader unless there is a Clinton miracle.

There is critical analysis of Obama here, and on other sites.  There are also nasty smears.  Some posters here are unrepentant about there willingness to attack Obama by whatever means necessary.  

But probably with more "un-progressive" examples.

Don't get me wrong, as I have said before, I don't find either candidate to be true progressive.  And I don't find either candidate to be much different from each other.  Obama is to the left of Clinton on a few issues, Clinton is to the left of Obama on a few issues, and on the rest they are almost identical.  

Obama believes US forces (approximately 60,000 troops) must remain in Iraq to stabilize the region.
he has voted to approve every war appropriation
voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act
campaigned for Senator Joseph Lieberman  (challenger: anti-war candidate Ned Lamont)

 Obama voted with the GOP to pass Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):  "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."

Obama sponsored National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005: requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and  apologize,  then limits patients' economic recovery.

Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872, which 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. In addition to allowing  American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties, the billObama opposed would have 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.

Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol.  Corn is an energy-intensive crop to grow and ethanol  isn't a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006 that would have established a national universal health insurance program.

The AP reports that, "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."

Obama won just six counties: Humbolt, Tahoe, Marin, San Francisco, Ventura and Santa Barbara. He lost the other 53 counties.

Matt Gonzalez is not some guy in San Francisco. He is a former candidate for Mayor who won 47% of the vote running a campaign that was grass roots and truly progressive. Gavin Newsome won 48%. Matt was the President of the Board of Supervisors and he represented a district that is mixed racially. SF is only 8% African-American but his district was easily twice that. He is well-liked in San Francisco. Matt attended Stanford Law School. He eschewed working for big name law firms, instead he worked in the Public Defender's Office.

Here is a bio:

And how you do answer the other really popular San Francisco treat, Gavin Newsome? Obama won't allow his picture to be taken with Newsome. If this is unity what does disunity look like?

Newsome gave us gay marriage or is at least trying. But as January 1, 2008, 49 square miles of the United States has Universal Health Care. Newsome did that. SF has a universal health care insurance program. That's leadership. He has been at the front of transportation issues, labor issues. He is a progressive and yet Obama won't have his picture taken with him. Why?

link