Obama '08?

This is for sozobe

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_popmachine/2008/10/how-to-watch-th.html

Thank you, Swimpy, that was fabulous.



20 days to go!

okie, That's precisely your problem; you think "speculated" means facts.

"In Harlem, Obama Embraces a New Approach to Poverty" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-tough/in-harlem-obama-embraces_b_134916.html

It's interesting how McCain tries to push his idea that Obama doesn't have the right kind of experience for leadership.

If the past two weeks is any indication of McCain's leadership, he's got more problems than Obama. Even I can identify the weaknesses to McCain's leadership style (just from the past two weeks), while I would have to give it very concentrated effort to find why Obama is not.

Just observing the global picture of both campaigns, I'm not sure anybody can say McCain's has been well run or even consistent; whereas, Obama has been steady, and forthright. McCain's campaign is running on lies and innuendos, giving license to violence and division, and pretty much runs on negatives rather than talking to the issues of our day.

McCain's leadership style is dangerous and inconsistent; what does "he" stand for?

but he was a POW !

I bet the whole world knows that today.

Villainizing Republican politicians and their supporters has been going on for a very long time, Diest. One of dozens of examples, when Clinton ran, burning black churches was one of the accusations, which of course had no basis in fact. Obama's associations do have basis in fact. He has more recently distanced himself from those things as a candidate, but nevertheless they are still there. If this was a Republican candidate, you could bet he or she would have already withdrawn from the race, due to too much baggage. Obama does have baggage, alot of it, but with the press pushing his candidacy, we now have a man that is about to become president, that has no practical accomplishment or experience deserving to run for president, none.

okie, It's not about past elections; CLUE: it's about today's debate with Obama and McCain. What were Obama's associations that you claim are based on facts?

Please list them for us, and why they reflect on Obama?

Do we have to plow the same old ground:

Just two to start with:
Jeremiah Wright, the church, the church that Obama belonged to for what, about 20 years. Now, the church according to its own website, look it up if it is still up there, but it was when I checked some time back, it is based on Black Liberation Theology, which is kind of weird, ci, with elements akin to hating capitalism, whites, and kind of friendly to Marxist ideas. The rev made a practice of ranting his messages along these same subject lines. Now of course Obama is distancing himself from all of this, but he is even on record as saying that he would need to distance himself for political purposes, so this is all predictable. I believe he still believes all of that garbage however, ci. I am not buying his practiced image now.

Ayers, not a buddy, but one that he has associated with more than in a casual way. Here is a guy that is a domestic terrorist still harboring the same lousy criminal and Marxist attitudes he had years ago. Again, Obama pooh poohs it as nothing, but it isn't nothing. Obama was an angry young guy and so is his wife, Michelle. The chant for change means something, and I don't know exactly what all is entailed in that. I do not trust the Obamas, not a bit, and I think the country is being duped big time. I would think a smart guy like you that studies politics daily would not be sucker, but apparently you are?

Again, if it was only Ayers, I would probably dismiss it, but I have to look at all of his past in context, a confusing childhood, an angry past, a record of little accomplishment, only a speech to go on, troubling associations, and a slick talker, and dumbed down voting public, I think this is a situation ripe for a huge disaster in the making. I can only hope I am wrong, or possibly the guy will reform his thinking somewhat when the gravity of the job hits him, but I would rather not take that chance.

Okie, you're post still lacks any sort of practical threat. What is it exactly that the associations will impact?

If Black Liberation Theory was something to be worried about it would have already manifested itself in Obama's career. I think the truth is that you want these rumors to be true more than you want clarity.

T
K
O

Not rumors, Diest, its facts. I prefer to judge a man by his actions than his words. All you are going on with Obama is his words, which are pretty empty in terms of results. Look at what he has done, and how he has gotten to where he is. Chicago political machine, thats not very encouraging if you look at the details, community organizing?, uh hello ACORN, what else, he wrote a book or two, and made a speech that the press claimed was special.

His associations will impact foreign policy big time. Our old alliances and friends will be lower in his eyes, and folks like Hugo Chavez, just one example, will come up a notch. This is how he views the world, Diest. Now if you are a Palestinian sympathizer, a despiser of Jews, a sympathizer of Iran's dictator, a sympathizer of lots of non-traditional figures in this world, you may be happy about it, but I am not.

As far as something manifesting itself, it has in the shadows, but the shadows have not been reported, and what is in the light of day in regard to Obama's career, he hasn't done anything yet. Nothing that I know of. He has no record that is notable enough to evaluate.

No okie, I'm going by actions, or more accurately the absence of the actions which would set off alarms.

If these people were of any political/governing threat to the US, we would have SEEN it already. SEEN it, as in OBSERVED, as in ACTION. But we have seen nothing of the sort.

Throwing up a yellow card on Obama and claiming conspiracy is pathetic.

Also, Palestine is more than a government, their are people there too you know, and they suffer not only from their own government, but from the asymmetrical intervention from western powers like ourselves. So having sympathy for a people doesn't make a person a "despiser of jews" or a "sympathizer of Iran's dictator." You live in such a one dimensional world okie.

You have my compassion and patience while you struggle to understand the finer nuances of the world.

T
K
O

You only "imply" how those associations have affected Obama negatively without any evidence. Is that what you do with family and friends?

Your fears are unfounded. Your imagination takes away common sense and logic. Do you look under your bed before you go to sleep every nite?

"Governor Palin....I should have a choice about this"
by MissLaura
Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:20:10 AM PDT
This ad ran once on MSNBC on my Washington DC cable system immediately after the debate. No one else I've talked to saw it. It probably ran strategically to attract media attention. It deserves that attention, and broader attention too.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/15/233023/97/640/631928

Blueflame - Yeah, this should have had more airtime. Was it after last night's debate or after the VP debate?

And for those who like the vid embedded...



T
K
O

Hey, conservatives believe a) in small government and less intrusion into our lives, but b) they believe it's their duty to save each life (pregnancy), and that "marriage" must be preserved for a man and woman only, because it's "sacred."

They can't see their own contradictions, because god told them to do so.

Washington Post endorses Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html

Cycloptichorn

After eight years that Bush mostly spent alienating traditional allies of the United States and making a couple of new enemies along the way, you're all of a sudden worried that a President who wouldn't care about traditional friends and allies, eh?

Our local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, hasn't endorsed anyone yet.

Conservatives will say that the leftest newspaper, the Washington Post, is biased towards their own.