Reply
Fri 25 Apr, 2008 06:29 am
Yes, Obama has a few "friends" who are shady. So too does his opponent, Mr.s Bill Clinton. They both have plenty of baggage to carry around and I would enjoy seeing Obama attack back.
http://prorev.com/hillaryfriends.htm
I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.
You?
If I were planniing to run for President of the US, I would have to evaluate my relationships and get them into the open quickly so as to avoid any rummaging around by the media.
Then I would weigh the virtues and vices of those relationships on my campaign and either embrace or move away from them. A phone call would be an easy solution. "Hey, this is McGentrix and Ias you know I am running for President. You are a lightning rod for bad press so I am going to have to distance myself from you for the time being. Nothing personal, we will always be friends, but you know how the press is. We'll get together if I am not nominated, or my Presidency is over. Cheers!"
I don't disagree with you McG....but the reality is that whether you went for a beer with them yesterday or sometime back in 2001 is irrelevant to the media and the other politicians in the race.
Obama could have told Wright to go away, but this would not have erased the previous involvement he had in his life. Obama could have changed his middle name to Gerald, but that would not have completely erased his previous middle name.
There are a lot of things Obama could have done to make good some of the past relationships he's had, but I believe, given the type of race he's trying to run, he wishes for these things to emerge as they would have no matter what preemptive actions he could have taken, and to square away the wholesale irrelevance they have in his ability to lead the country.
candidone1 wrote:I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.
You?
If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
Miller wrote:candidone1 wrote:I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.
You?
If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?
tommrr wrote:Miller wrote:candidone1 wrote:I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.
You?
If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?
How did you reach that conclusion?
Miller wrote:
How did you reach that conclusion?
First of all, let me do the disclaimer thing...I'm catholic, this in no way is to be construed that I am slamming the catholics..now onto your question.
I started with this.
Quote:Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
Then I used some logical reasoning:
Only one Catholic has EVER been elected President. He had to convince the country that the Pope would not be making the decisions for the county and his term ended with an assassination .
Then I added some good old fashioned sarcasm and came up with the gem
Quote:Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?
anything else?
Your logic needs to be refined....
Give a try...it
tommrr wrote:Then I used some logical reasoning...
Your use of logic merely angers and confuses
Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.
joefromchicago wrote:tommrr wrote:Then I used some logical reasoning...
Your use of logic merely angers and confuses
Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.
I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....
And its not like the Catholic Church hasn't had its own problems with particular members of the cloth over the past 20 years...
We only had one Catholic President, I believe, because there are many people of other faiths, or no faith, that somehow are not comfortable with a President that's not a WASP. Nothing against Catholics; it's just, again in my opinion, that in this country WASP trumps all other backgrounds as far as panache. I think many Presidents get elected on panache, in addition to the old standby of charisma. And, let's not forget, the majority of people in this country are Protestant, and it's their criteria as to what reflects panache and charisma. To me, that's the reality. P.S., panache and charisma in the South is different than it is in the North, so don't think LBJ showing the news cameras his operation scars wasn't good-ole-boy panache!
tommrr wrote:joefromchicago wrote:tommrr wrote:Then I used some logical reasoning...
Your use of logic merely angers and confuses
Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.
I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....
Doesn't GandPa take vitamins?
Miller wrote:tommrr wrote:joefromchicago wrote:tommrr wrote:Then I used some logical reasoning...
Your use of logic merely angers and confuses
Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.
I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....
Doesn't GandPa take vitamins?
Not a granpa yet.....at least I don't think so.....let me call the kid and make sure there are no new developements...
Name one AMERICAN politician's Name without problematic friends please
I was thinking (with what?), I get the impression the Rev Wright racial beef ain't Barack's thing, at all, and he's appalled by it, and there's some naivety there, not that Barack didn't know or the Rev changed, but that he power-postured with that group and hoped it wouldn't come back to bite him, but also that there's a subtlety that might come up again. That is I recall, sometimes folk in my family get crap for getting too far away from our humble, lawn-furniture-thieving roots, and moreover a black buddy of mine who's doing alright told me he can't go back to his hometown and hang out because the people that know him, and used to like, shoot craps out back, think he sold out.
I think that's what's going on here, Barack is playing it too cool and doing too good to suit the Rev, who had some pederastic (strained usage, but I feel compelled) vision for the young, affable senator, and now he's getting ripped for not keeping it real, so to speak. So, it's like, there's this feeling of betrayal with someone who bought into Barack, for what I would call the wrong reason. What I'm wondering now is, will it happen again, like would certain groups/demographics maybe even ones with conflicting ideas to one another and/or not usually associated with the executive branch, get their signals crossed and buy in to Obama '08, or have they already, and end up either feeling sold out or influencing the man, somehow, to act for them. Or worse, end up calling it in on BHO? I mean, right now it's a pissed off theologian making unpleasant noises, but if it were a sub-nation that got it's high hopes dashed-
It's happened before - the Kennedy's took the union vote and then pissed off the mob...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace