Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:49 pm
blatham wrote:
Obama at Saddleback Church... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/02/obama/

finn

Perhaps your argument would be more compelling if you were speaking of a Board of Directors considering candidates for CEO or a school district considering choices for superintendant or if you were searching out a new mechanic.

Blatham - take a moment and look at what you have argued. Do you really mean to suggest that the President of the US should not be judged by the same attributes as those judged of CEOs and school superintendants?

What are you arguing, that the President should be judged by the attributes of Warren Beatty or Jack Nicholson?

Your obviously sneering disreagrd for an executive "mechanic" in the role of President is blatantly percipitated by your desire to see a novice like Obama occupy the Oval Office, and in stark contrast with the arguments you have made against the competency of GWB.


What set of personal and interpersonal qualities, talents, intelligence and experience a person might demonstrate is quite different for such positions than for president. Particularly when a corporation, for example, or a nation are at a critical juncture. And surely the US is at such a point.

What an utter crock. You who, for years now, have argued with your fellow Lefties that GWB is an incompetent boob, now chooses to argue that competency is secondary to the requirements of the position.

Bill offered up the example of Reagan, an ex-actor, accepted by Californians as a reasonable choice for governor and then by Americans as a choice for President. Or one could look at Arnold presently. From Canada, there is the example of Pierre Trudeau...a writer, traveller and general bon vivant with a short time in government but with immense talents and intelligence who went on to become one of the two or three most important leaders in our history. Or, one could consider the case I think is most appropriate...Lincoln. When he arrived here in New York and gave his speech at Coopers Union, he was without the sort of background you seem to consider necessary. Accounts of that speech, written by the New York press of the time still absolutely thrilling to read. The exceptional qualities of the man were evident immediately and with clarity from that single speech.

Again what an utter and self serving crock. Let's accept that all of your examples are truly equivalent to the superficiality of Obama (and of course they are not), all this might possibly suggest is that one should not rule out a novice for high office. It, in no way, suggests that a novice is best suited for high office, and this is what you and (incredibly) Bill are suggesting.

America is now, and has been for a while, deeply divided within itself. Continuation of that self-destructive dynamic moving into the complex and dangerous future we all see ahead would be tragic. Another divisive leader like Bush has been (imagine Gingrich as president now!) who moves to that divisiveness out of electoral strategies or out of us/them ideologies will take the US in a direction towards self-destruction.

And Obama is the Uniting Savior? Based on what? Your desires? It is incredible to me that you might be so desperate as to annoint Obama as the Mahdi. This urge is sweetly innocent, but dangerously naieve.

There have been few points in American history when you have so needed a leader who can inspire - through charisma, integrity and intelligence - Americans to come together. Not to mention, a leader whom the rest of the world can understand and respect. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Iraq but a fundamental one is that America cannot continue to operate as an arrogant bully with the expectation that this will bring more positive consequences than negative.

This is your personal left-wing bias at play. We had a Jack Kennedy and first of all he wasn't the leftie you lefties remember him to be, and secondly, he wasn't all that much more than a charismatic figure. With each passing year, history is able to shed it's addiction to his Glamour and consider him for the leader he actually was---or wasn't.

Be careful of what you wish for. Charismatic leaders: Hitler, Mao, Huey Long, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, etc etc etc. If the position has no actual power than inspiring charisma is perfect, but that ain't the presidency of the US.


Furthermore, you really do not make an accounting of how broad (across party/ideological lines) Obama's appeal is, suggesting that it is limited to folks on the "left". Earlier here, I've quoted people like David Brooks and Pat Buchannan and David Gergen and others who have acknowledged this man's gifts and potential. That is the typical understanding from thoughtful folks on the right. They often point to Reagan as well. It is only the folks who are deeply invested in republican party dominance or in a bastardized and impoverished modern "conservative" ideology who will proceed to ignore and refute what everyone else sees.

The ultimate crock. Brooks, Buchannan and Gergen have not come forth in support of Obama for president. They have recognized his talents. So do I. He has tremendous potential, but potential never automatically equates to performance.

You are like a giddy teenager drooling over the latest pop star. All you can argue is the man's charisma and "potential."

The notion that "thoughtful" folks on the right buy into Obama is so ridiculous, it defies a thoughtful response.

Your response is the perfect example of an, otherwise, thoughful individual abandoning his intelligence and logic to the thrill of a good talker who has a hell of a smile. You betray yourself with this mania.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:51 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
We have already had a Black president: Bill Clinton.


Good grief!

Someone has actually vomited this idiotic nonsense!

That it was Roxxy is not surprising.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:54 pm
blatham wrote:
Is the site "ignore" function coming soon? (we pray).

Until it does, everyone, please put LSM on manual 'ignore'. Whatever her motives for involvement here might be, the consequences of her involvement are universally without positive value.

Good piece in (I think it was) the NY Times this morning on how Obama's potential candidacy has effected everyone else considering a run.


And yet you find it impossible to ignore her comments.

Somehow I doubt that you will ever avail yourself of the "ignore" button if for no other reason than you could never deprive yourself of perceived material to illustrate your brilliant wit.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 09:54 pm
JPB wrote:
I'm starting to become a groupie.


Indeed.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Dec, 2006 10:03 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.
Point well taken... but not everyone watches debates. Perot obliterated his opponents (doubled his polling numbers), but only a fraction of the voting public watched it.


Point well taken?

When will the hysteria cease?

Who has seen Obama debate an opponent of high skills and regard? He ran away with the election for his current Senatorial seat.

Obama clearly has a natural eloquence. It is (obviously) a formidable talent, but to assume that it will triumph in a debate is to display an ignorance of the dynamics of public debates.

Neither McCain nor Gulliani are slouches when it comes to public rhetoric, and both have far more gravitas than Obama. Does anyone really think that either of these serious men might find themselves spellbound by Obama's toothy smile and measured cadence?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 05:13 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
When will the hysteria cease?

Good question; it's certainly one that had come up in my mind by the time I'd gotten to this sentence of yours. I think it will take a few more months to process the results of this year's elections, or perhaps a few months away from A2K altogether, before we can see any return to the more restrained kind of sneering that we were already familiar with. Right now, there is definitely a sense of hysterical hyperbole about the venom. Just sour grapes, the effect of which will ebb away again? Or is it irrepairable?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:03 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
We have already had a Black president: Bill Clinton.


Good grief!

Someone has actually vomited this idiotic nonsense!

That it was Roxxy is not surprising.


Common ground - I too believe this to be idiotic nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 07:29 am
The National Journal released a new Washington Insiders poll of 70 Congressional lawmakers and 150 political insiders on who they think are the likely Republican and Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election.

Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Evan Bayh
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Bill Richardson
8. Joseph Biden
9. Wesley Clark
10. Christopher Dodd

Republicans
Ten persons as well

Source: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1208nj1.htm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:25 am
finn

A satisfactory explanation for your talk-radio response to me isn't immediately evident. Maybe nimh's post offers a good possibility. Along with your information/opinion diet, of course.

I'm not sure how many times over the last few years you and others who support Bush (and some magnitude of continuing Republican/new conservative dominance in US politics) have written here "Maybe when the Democrats do X and Y, then they will cease losing elections". If that "X" was something like "field more candidates who attend church", then that one got done. If the "Y" was something like "support the war" or "stop derogating Bush" or "acknowledge the natural evolution towards a proper understanding of governance" or "stop being liberal" or "ignore the rattle on Ann Coulter's ass"...well, none of those got done.

And the Dems won the senate and the congress and more governor's mansions since god knows when.

And then Ed Meese and James Baker come along and SPANK GEORGE'S BEHIND IN PUBLIC for being a juvenile yahoo who borrowed the country for Saturday night and smashed it into the highway median. And they spank your ass and Hannity's ass IN PUBLIC for being 100%ers - unsophisticated, poorly educated, easy-answer-craving, division-promoting, authoritarian-cheering, ideological dipshits (approximately).

Tough tittie to you. The movement you favor is collapsing in on itself now and because it was as hollow and mal-intentioned as your response above.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 09:35 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Finn,
I follow your "it's not always the most popular guy who gets the job done" logic on this one... but submit that on occasion; it is (See: Ronald Reagan). The attributes you scoff at may well prove to be the defining qualities of a great President.


Perhaps, but what are the odds?
What precisely are the odds any potential President will be great?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
1. As you know; it is in no small part his inexperience that attracts me, being quite tired of watching business as usual. I can't be alone in desiring a change from the bipartisan old guard BS I've watched since birth.


So your logic is here is a babe in the woods may f**ck everything up but at least it won't be because he his an old fart? Since when does youth = performance or inexperience = virtue? You are allowing a credible disatisfaction with the Old Guard stampede you towards an incredible affection for the New and Unproven Guard.
No, I'm not. To the extent I've read and watched Obama field questions; he strikes me as an honest man who, given the opportunity, would make decisions based on what he thinks is in the country's best interest... rather than Party loyalty. I get the same feeling thus far from both Giuliani and McCain so it has less to do with youth and inexperience than it does with my impression of credibility. Antonym-like candidates would be Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. They represent what I would consider to be the Old Guard, and I therefore would not like to see either become President. Independent critical thinking ability and a reasonable expectation of a desire to put the good of the people above that of the Party is what I long for in the oval office. I simply don't believe that the standard government resume is necessary to this end, and moreover believe said standard resume tends to pollute the virtues of your average politician (forgive me if that last part is the understatement of the decade).

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
2. Those same attributes, even if they only serve to garner popularity, can still be used to force handshakes across the aisle and maybe even get something meaningful done. If, and it is a big IF, he could get approval ratings from the nation as high as he does in Illinois, you would see bipartisan cooperation, whether his adversaries liked his prize winning smile or not.


Bipartisan cooperation is a canard. To the extent it has ever happened, it has been within a government controlled by the (White Male) Establishment. Take a look at the Baker/Hamilton Commission. It revels in its bi-partisanship and it takes comfort, behind the scenes, in its Establishment origins. Except for his Houston roots, Baker is the quintessential Establishment magnate. The difference between today and 40 years ago is that Southerners can compete with Rockefellers and Cabot-Lodges for primacy in the Establishment. Baker is The Establishment Man!
Again, I give you Ronald Reagan. When a President's approval rating reaches a certain plateau, it becomes political suicide for the nominally partisan, who lack a solid footing in Congress, to join the hyper-partisan in opposition for the sake of opposition. Even the hyper-partisan tend to swing like a weathervane when confronted by popular opinion (See: John Kerry).

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
3. One need not be a world traveler to realize the consensus of world opinion of our current leader is just about as bad as it could be (though I'm crossing my fingers that statement doesn't jinx us :wink:). This has to be considered when accessing the relative lack of global cooperation we currently receive. Again; these same attributes could play a major role in reversing this trend.


What? Who gives a flying f**k about the world consensus on our leader? Frankly, the more Europeans support an American candidate for President, the more I believe they should never be given the office. The interests of these fools is only partially aligned with our own, AND there is no shortage of European idiots who don't care about common interests and want to dis America because it is America.
I give a flying f**k, and you should too. I whole heartily believe that much of the world's opposition to pressuring Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il etc., is do in no small part to Bush's inability to sell it. While I am sure no one wants these madmen in possession of dangerous weapons, I am equally sure that much of the opposition to collective bargaining strength stems from Bush's lack of tact in seeking it. There is considerably more anti-U.S.-President sentiment than there is anti-American sentiment in the world... and a more charismatic leader would inevitably change this.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sony's Betamax was considered by many to be a superior technology to JVC's VCR. Doesn't help, if you can't sell it. Sometimes it is the most popular guy, who gets the job done.


This is such an inconsidered and superficial reason to support Obama that I cannot believe that you have advanced it. Even assuming that "sometimes" it is the most popular guy who gets the job done, is this a reason to support the most charasmatic guy? The very use of "sometimes" suggests that you appreciate that popularity equalling effectiveness is a crap-shoot. Is that how you intend to cast your vote?
I haven't yet decided how I'll cast my vote. Thoughtful Conservative thinkers I respect (like you) will have ample opportunity to illuminate the errors in my opinions between now and Election Day. At the same time; I'll learn a good deal more about each of the candidates as they come further into focus. That my initial opinions of Obama are positive, and to a degree superficial, in no way should be considered indicative that other considerations won't apply. Predicting a potential President's performance is always a crap-shoot, and I suspect I put more weight on personal integrity and cooperation-inspiring-charisma as opposed to professional experience than you do. The man who gets my vote will be the one who inspires the most confidence in consideration of a wide range of attributes... those you scoff at included.

(Next Post)


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.
Point well taken... but not everyone watches debates. Perot obliterated his opponents (doubled his polling numbers), but only a fraction of the voting public watched it.


Point well taken?
Yes, unlike our current leader, Obama has a exhibited an extraordinary ability to think on his feet.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
When will the hysteria cease?
What hysteria? My recognition of Obama's solid speaking skills doesn't make me hysterical.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Who has seen Obama debate an opponent of high skills and regard? He ran away with the election for his current Senatorial seat.

Obama clearly has a natural eloquence. It is (obviously) a formidable talent, but to assume that it will triumph in a debate is to display an ignorance of the dynamics of public debates.

Neither McCain nor Gulliani are slouches when it comes to public rhetoric, and both have far more gravitas than Obama. Does anyone really think that either of these serious men might find themselves spellbound by Obama's toothy smile and measured cadence?
I would agree that McCain has demonstrated an ability to measure his responses and avoid traps like pre-poisoned wells in argument and overall comes off as quite competent when blindsided with questions. Giuliani on the other hand; is sometimes a bit too quick to answer (or too slow to think) and I've thus seen him look quite uncomfortable and less believable when confronted by unexpected questions. On the other hand, Giuliani delivers a pre-written speech with far more Charisma than McCain could ever muster. Obama, from what I've seen, is considerably better in both scenarios than either of them and I think it reasonable to predict this would be demonstrated in debate. Style may not trump content, but it would be foolish to underestimate its importance in assessing the relative effect in a Presidential debate.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 04:53 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The National Journal released a new Washington Insiders poll of 70 Congressional lawmakers and 150 political insiders on who they think are the likely Republican and Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election.

Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Evan Bayh
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Bill Richardson
8. Joseph Biden
9. Wesley Clark
10. Christopher Dodd

Salon adds a word of caution about this ranking; it reminds us that just one year ago, the same National Journal ranked George Allen as the Republican front-runner of the 2008 presidential cycle; and that "back in 1990, two years before Bill Clinton won the White House, the leading Democratic contender was Mario Cuomo".
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:10 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I wish he had a different name. The one he has sounds like something somebody made up. And Barack rhymes with Iraq and Obama rhymes with Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I think the bigots will have a far greater field day using that to create negative image than Obama's race which I do not think is a problem at all. Colin Powell's postives were as high as anybody in the first Bush administration and Condi Rice's favorables are higher than anybody else in the administration now.

I think we're mostly past race issues as qualifications and yes, I agree there are more voters who will vote to prove that than there are bigots left to make problems.


I've been thinking about the name thing too. All I can say is, it's going to be really interesting to see if something so remarkably shallow can actually be used against him effectively.

When the Fox news pundits start trotting out the "Are you going to vote for someone named HUSSEIN?!" attacks, I shall watch with bated breath to see if a certain type of voter falls for it. It will be fascinating, if only to see how I handle the depression as I come to the horrifying realization that functioning people who walk among us are dumber than I ever thought possible. <shiver>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:26 pm
cyphercat wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I wish he had a different name. The one he has sounds like something somebody made up. And Barack rhymes with Iraq and Obama rhymes with Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I think the bigots will have a far greater field day using that to create negative image than Obama's race which I do not think is a problem at all. Colin Powell's postives were as high as anybody in the first Bush administration and Condi Rice's favorables are higher than anybody else in the administration now.

I think we're mostly past race issues as qualifications and yes, I agree there are more voters who will vote to prove that than there are bigots left to make problems.


I've been thinking about the name thing too. All I can say is, it's going to be really interesting to see if something so remarkably shallow can actually be used against him effectively.

When the Fox news pundits start trotting out the "Are you going to vote for someone named HUSSEIN?!" attacks, I shall watch with bated breath to see if a certain type of voter falls for it. It will be fascinating, if only to see how I handle the depression as I come to the horrifying realization that functioning people who walk among us are dumber than I ever thought possible. <shiver>


As I noted earlier, a Republican strategist pulled this one on Hardball (I think it was) last week. Earlier here on a2k, Just Wonders tried it as well. It is, in my opinion, the very worst sort of divisive, hate and stupidity promoting bigotry. I think any instance of it ought to gain an immediate response...letters, email, phone calls of the seriously angry sort to the offending media outlet.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:33 pm
blatham, I disagree. They should already know better. Nothing less than a 100 percent strike of their program is enough.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 08:40 pm
nimh wrote:


Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Evan Bayh
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Bill Richardson
8. Joseph Biden
9. Wesley Clark
10. Christopher Dodd


Any other choice ...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 10:27 am
That theory about bigots voting for Obama to "prove" something doesn't hold water for me. How would one "prove" something with a secret ballot? No one will know who they vote for but themselves - and we've already seen how misleading it is who they say they vote for.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 10:36 am
Actually, remember that in the last elections who they said they'd vote for and who they actually voted for were quite closely aligned. (Deval Patrick et al.)

I agree that the prove something part doesn't really make sense though.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 10:44 am
I can easily visualize some of the dummies I know personally, calling Obama an agent for bringing Muslim terrorism into the mainstream, or something of the ilk. How widespread and how much accepted overall, I can't guess.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 12:22 pm
edgar, There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 12:50 pm
blatham wrote:
It is, in my opinion, the very worst sort of divisive, hate and stupidity promoting bigotry. I think any instance of it ought to gain an immediate response...letters, email, phone calls of the seriously angry sort to the offending media outlet.


I wish people would respond angrily, but I suspect most people watching the type of political shows that do that kind of thing will not even question the tactic. It's practically what those shows are for.

I was planning on just sighing and bitching about it to no one in particular, but instead I'm going to resolve to do as you suggest if (when) I hear that start up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 110
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 09/02/2014 at 10:37:15