Reply
Mon 21 Jan, 2008 09:13 am
Someone should ask Obama about his association with his spiritual advisor who is a supporter of Farrakahan and all he stands for. People are judged by they company the keep.
Sure, however, he did it after it became politically expedient.
The Clinton campaign is clearly taking some of its cues from the last two Bush campaigns. Refusing to answer questions in Iowa was one example. Attacks using un-truths and half-truths is another. The victory road for the Republicans in '08 consists of McCain (who has some independent appeal) winning on the Republican side and Clinton winning on the Democratic side after using dirty tricks to beat Obama. Independents, faced with two pro-war, establishment candidates go with the preceived straight shooter and McCain is president.
au1929 wrote:Someone should ask Obama about his association with his spiritual advisor who is a supporter of Farrakahan and all he stands for. People are judged by they company the keep.
I'm still trying to find out why Obama has an Hispanic nanny for his kids and not a black woman.
( And of course there's still the 3 locks on the front door of his house in Hyde Park in Chicago.)
au1929 wrote:Sure, however, he did it after it became politically expedient.
What does that mean?
He did it after a bunch of emails made false claims... wonder if you got one of them?
engineer, I worry a lot about that exact scenario.
Miller wrote:I'm still trying to find out why Obama has an Hispanic nanny for his kids and not a black woman.
( And of course there's still the 3 locks on the front door of his house in Hyde Park in Chicago.)
Because he hired the best candidate from the applications available instead of blindly focusing on race?
But what is "known," exactly? That at one point Obama's pastor (not Obama himself, for example) gave an award to Farakkhan? What's so awful, there, that it needs to be brought up in some sort of preemptive strike?
Eh, I know I won't get anywhere with this. I've answered the implication for anyone reading along, I know that au1929 doesn't like Obama and that's his prerogative. So, moving on.
engineer wrote:Miller wrote:I'm still trying to find out why Obama has an Hispanic nanny for his kids and not a black woman.
( And of course there's still the 3 locks on the front door of his house in Hyde Park in Chicago.)
Because he hired the best candidate from the applications available instead of blindly focusing on race?
And how do you know this? Did you apply for the nanny postion, yourself?
Miller wrote:engineer wrote:Miller wrote:I'm still trying to find out why Obama has an Hispanic nanny for his kids and not a black woman.
( And of course there's still the 3 locks on the front door of his house in Hyde Park in Chicago.)
Because he hired the best candidate from the applications available instead of blindly focusing on race?
And how do you know this? Did you apply for the nanny postion, yourself?
My question mark at the end implies that I don't know this, but certainly the original post implies some sinister motive, so I looked at the same fact and suggested a non-sinister motive. In fact, both of us could be wrong and I assume you will choose to believe either or neither as you choose. In the best of worlds, you might even think the issue is too trivial to even occupy your thoughts.
engineer wrote:The Clinton campaign is clearly taking some of its cues from the last two Bush campaigns. Refusing to answer questions in Iowa was one example. Attacks using un-truths and half-truths is another. The victory road for the Republicans in '08 consists of McCain (who has some independent appeal) winning on the Republican side and Clinton winning on the Democratic side after using dirty tricks to beat Obama. Independents, faced with two pro-war, establishment candidates go with the preceived straight shooter and McCain is president.
Checkmate. Hillary is the Republican's best hope.
Let's see if I understand the contention.
1. A bunch of emails are circulating stating misrepresentations and falsehoods about Obama and Farakhan.
2. Newspapers publish the misrepresentations and falsehoods.
3. Obama issues a statement correcting those misrepresentations and falsehoods.
4. Some people thank him for making his position clear.
And he is faulted because he made the statement after the newspapers published the misrepresentations and falsehoods?
What was he supposed to do to correct those misrepresentations and falsehoods, Au1929 and when should he have made his statement?
Miller, do you have an link to the information source for this story about the nanny for the Obama children? I'm interested in reading about it.
Also, since you mentioned it, could you give a link to an information source about the three locks on the door of his house? I'd like to read what that is all about too.
sozobe wrote:au1929 wrote:Sure, however, he did it after it became politically expedient.
What does that mean?
He did it after a bunch of emails made false claims... wonder if you got one of them?
engineer, I worry a lot about that exact scenario.
What was in the email? I googled and can't find anything.
Thanks for the links. I assume the 'email' was a reprint of Cohen's opinion piece in the Post? There's no mention of any of this on Obama's website that I can find, although he does mention and debunk other emails that have related to his schooling and religion.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace