Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:15 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I think, I already had posted that when it was published.

But here it is, from certainly not a left or Obama-biased source, namely from the Chicago Sun-Times, December 5, 2006, page 16:

http://i14.tinypic.com/4h1bll5.jpg


Quote:
Obama doesn't hide middle name

December 5, 2006
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
Barack Hussein Obama. The blogosphere and talk radio, even C-Span, has chatter about the middle name of the Illinois Democrat.
Obama never hid the name. Never highlighted it, either. People are just starting to pay closer attention as Obama mulls a 2008 White House run. He is the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

Hussein is a family name. His grandmother is Sara Hussein Obama.

At one point he was Barack H. Obama. That's how he is listed in the Harvard Law Review when he was the president of the publication. He dropped the H and dumped his nickname of Barry along the way.

It wouldn't make sense in Illinois to use Barack Hussein Obama as a ballot name when he started running for the state Senate in the late 1990s -- before 9/11 (Osama bin Laden) and the Iraq war (Saddam Hussein).

Barack Obama was enough to deal with -- not so much because of anti-Muslim prejudice, which I am sure unfortunately exists, but the irrational preference Illinois voters have had for Irish and WASPy names.


Luck of the Irish
Obama jokes that people at first thought he was O'Bama, a remark rooted in local political reality. Voters in Cook County elect judges with Irish names. In March 1986, former Sen. Adlai Stevenson's running mate George Sangmeister lost an Illinois Democratic primary for lt. governor to Lyndon LaRouche Democrat Mark Fairchild and Aurelia Pucinski was defeated in her Secretary of State primary by LaRouche Democrat unknown Janice Hart.
In March 1986, former Sen. Adlai Stevenson and running mate Aurelia Pucinski lost an Illinois Democratic primary for governor to Lyndon LaRouche Democrats Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart. Things have improved on the ethnic name front: Rod Blagojevich was twice elected governor.

The Hussein name prompted a C-Span caller last week to ask if Obama was a Muslim. Obama's father was born to the faith and fell away. Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.


Great article, Walter. And quite sympathetic and supportive of Senator Obama I think. Angry attempts to accuse those who notice and discuss Obama's middle name or the Islamic nature of his whole name as 'sliming Obama' just reinforce the idea that there is something wrong with the name. Why not just discuss it, how he got it, and let folks joke around with it as they did with GWB's name? Won't hurt him. Getting defensive about it will.

(And yes, this entire discussion has brought me to this point of view and fading away from my original point of view in which I wished he had a different name. Since he is able to joke around with it, he'll be fine.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:30 am
blatham wrote:
Each one of the "middle name included" folks that Okie mentions arrived on the political scene out of either family or local tradition where their middle names were often or normally included. Likely, some would have encouraged it hoping to gain an upper class cachet.

And of course, none of them had a middle name which might have been used as a PR slime against them.

Rogers did this last week during a period when Hardball was being guest-hosted. Matthews, on his return last night, brought Rogers onto the show as a first item and laid into him for what he'd done. Rogers was in full squirm and deserved to be.

Look, okie...let's do this honestly. I noted in my post that brought this matter up that Rogers' attempted slime was the single instance I've seen of anyone on the right attempting an irrelevant and barrel-bottom smear of Obama in the MSM (and I noted that Just Wonders tried it here on a2k - and actually Lone Star Madam did it too which will surprise no one). But this WAS an instance and you do poor service to honesty and the truth and your own integrity to attempt an excuse of it.


I must say, the definition of "slime" has taken on a new meaning. If you can slime someone by simply calling them by their name, blatham, you are taking this discussion to a new level. If the name is that slimey, then why does he not change his name? His name does have roots in terms of where it came from, and he should be proud of it and leave it at that. He cannot help what his name is. If he doesn't like it, I would suggest he change it. Otherwise, his best tactic is to proudly proclaim he has as much right to the name as those that might have the same name that give it a bad reputation.

I certainly would not judge the man on his name, except for the following issue. That is he has roots that are somewhat non-traditional from typical Americans, and included in that is the fact he does have some training in a Muslim school as a child, and was his grandfather Muslim? None of this is any choice he had, but I am simply looking at his rather non-traditional past, and some could judge it as a positive, I don't know yet, but if it skews his judgement in foreign policy, his view of the world, and many other things, then it is relevant in my opinion. The relevance translates into a positive in some peoples judgement and into a negative by others. The name is not a negative by definition, but is simply an indication of his life history that probably bears more scrutiny, just as we would that of any presidential candidate.

Blatham, I would suggest your "slime" accusation is over the top, and I would suggest Obama simply proudly proclaim his name, as he should about his big ears, instead of being so sensitive about it. An insecure person is one that is hyper-sensitive to this kind of stuff. The last thing we want in the White House is an insecure person in the White House.

Foxfyre, you are exactly correct in that Obama should not become defensive with the name. He can turn it into a positive if he handles it correctly, but if not, no.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:36 am
Non-traditional from typical Americans - that means exactly what?

If you are referring to those who came origianally from Europe - I've another problem: the largest ethnic group of European ancestry is German at 15.2%, followed by Irish (10.8%), English (8.7%), Italian (5.6%) and Scandinavian (3.7%).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:43 am
You know, after some thought, may I suggest part of the initial fascination and popularity of the man is because of his name. If his name was "John Smith," would he have the same popularity with Democrats and liberals right now? Just a question. After all, the left is fascinated with the rebel causes around the world, and always has been. The name presents a new factor, and outsider, a non-American tradition. Just a suggestion here. After all, Democrats are sort of in the mood of blame America first mentality, and so anything that suggests not only a Washington DC outsider, but now it may be evolving into another level - perhaps an America outsider may be a drawing card? I've not heard this from anyone, but perhaps it bears a little examination. To be clear, I am not suggesting he is non-American, I am simply pointing out his name has a sort of non-traditional or non-American ring to it.

And Walter, some may not wish to face the reality, but traditional America has a Judeo-Christian tendency, and has since 1776. It is that of white Europeans. You are the cause of all this controversy, Walter. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:11 am
okie wrote:

And Walter, some may not wish to face the reality, but traditional America has a Judeo-Christian tendency, and has since 1776. It is that of white Europeans. You are the cause of all this controversy, Walter. Smile


Well, you most certainly know that therm "Judeo-Christian" wasn't invented before 1899 and 1910 respectively and wasn't used before 1938 in the meaning that it has today in the USA.

And most certainly you aware as well of the various different traditional differences between the various European ethnic groups.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:12 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, but his implication was that it is only the GOP doing it and that it is an attempt at a 'slime' etc.

That is your interpretation of what Blatham wrote. There's nothing wrong with interpreting texts of course, but that doesn't make your interpretation a fact about what Blatham wrote.

And this is where I get out of this particular sub-thread. It has proven a waste of electrons, photons, and brain-cycles. With hindsight, I regret I started it in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:22 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, but his implication was that it is only the GOP doing it and that it is an attempt at a 'slime' etc.

That is your interpretation of what Blatham wrote. There's nothing wrong with interpreting texts of course, but that doesn't make your interpretation a fact about what Blatham wrote.

And this is where I get out of this particular sub-thread. It has proven a waste of electrons, photons, and brain-cycles. With hindsight, I regret I started it in the first place.


When he calls it a 'slime' I assume he means it as a 'slime'. And when he immediately follows calling it a 'slime' by naming other A2K members that 'also did that', I take that as a direct accusation of those members 'sliming'. And when he made his post amidst posts from other peoples SHOWING how it was Democrats making the same kinds of comments, I don't think my interpretation is incorrect. But you're probably right that it is a waste of electrons, photons, and brain-cycles to focus on it. He posts personally directed unkind and sometimes cruel things in a most prejudicial manner, and I doubt he will be persuaded to stop doing that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 12:23 pm
Now back on topic, here is George Will chiming in on Obama. What do you think? A positive or negative review?

December 14, 2006
This is the Time for Obama
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- New Hampshire was recently brightened by the presence of Barack Obama, 45, who, calling the fuss about him "baffling,'' made his first trip in 45 years to that state, and not under duress. Because he is young, is just two years distant from a brief career as a state legislator and has negligible national security experience, an Obama presidential candidacy could have a porcelain brittleness. But if he wants to be president -- it will not be a moral failing if he decides that he does not, at least not now -- this is the time for him to reach for the brass ring. There are four reasons why.

First, one can only be an intriguing novelty once. If he waits to run, the last half-century suggests that the wait could be for eight years (see reason four, below). In 2016, he will be only 55, but there will be many fresher faces.

Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her. The electorate is on its tiptoes because Obama has collaborated with the creation of a tsunami of excitement about him. He is nearing the point when a decision against running would brand him as a tease who ungallantly toyed with the electorate's affections.

Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent. The contrast is stark: He is soothing; she is not. Many Democrats who are desperate to win are queasy about depending on her. For a nation with jangled nerves, and repelled by political snarling, he offers a tone of sweet reasonableness.

What people see in him reveals more about them than about him. Some of his public utterances have the spunginess of Polonius' bromides for Laertes ("neither a borrower nor a lender be ... to thine own self be true''). In 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO rated his voting record a perfect 100. The nonpartisan National Journal gave him a 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8). He dutifully decries "ideological'' politics, but just as dutifully conforms to most of liberalism's catechism, from "universal'' health care, whatever that might mean, to combating global warming, whatever that might involve, and including the sacred injunction Thou Shalt Execrate Wal-Mart -- an obligatory genuflection to organized labor.

The nation, which so far is oblivious to his orthodoxy, might not mind it if it is dispensed by someone with Obama's "Can't we all just get along?'' manner. Ronald Reagan, after all, demonstrated the importance of congeniality to the selling of conservatism.

Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party's hold on the presidency beyond eight years. Nixon in 1960 came agonizingly close to doing so (he lost the popular vote by 118,574 -- less than a vote per precinct -- and a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and 24,129 in Texas would have elected him), but failed. As did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he lost by 510,314 out of 73,211,875 votes cast), Gerald Ford in 1976 (if 5,559 votes had switched in Ohio and 7,232 votes had switched in Mississippi, he would have won) and Al Gore in 2000 (537 Florida votes). Only the first President Bush, in 1988, succeeded, perhaps because the country desired a third term for the incumbent, which will not be the case in 2008. So the odds favor a Democrat winning in 2008 and, if he or she is re-elected, the Democrat nominated in 2016 losing.

Furthermore, remember the metrics of success that just two years ago caused conservatives to think the future was unfolding in their favor: Bush carried 97 of the 100 most rapidly growing counties; the center of the nation's population, now southwest of St. Louis, is moving south and west at a rate of two feet an hour; only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the last 38 years; in the 15 elections since World War II, only twice has a Democrat received 50 percent of the vote. Two years later, these facts do not seem so impressive.

In 2000 and 2004, Bush twice carried 29 states that now have 274 electoral votes; Gore and Kerry carried 18 that now have 248. Not much needs to change in politics in order for a lot to change in governance. And Obama, like the rest of us, has been warned, by William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.

Unless you make it happen.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 01:19 pm
When last I saw Obama speak (C-Span - I think it was in New Hampshire), he said that the people to whom his middle name of "Hussein" made any difference probably wouldn't be offering up their votes for him for other reasons, as well.

I read it to mean, no great loss.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 02:41 pm
snood wrote:
When last I saw Obama speak (C-Span - I think it was in New Hampshire), he said that the people to whom his middle name of "Hussein" made any difference probably wouldn't be offering up their votes for him for other reasons, as well.

I read it to mean, no great loss.
While it's true that Blatham can't vote for him, I wouldn't agree with that assessment. Who here can't spit out the middle names of most Presidents' they can think of? To refer to it's use alone as sliming is silly. That sleaze merchants will take advantage is a given, but hypersensitivity to its use only serves to legitimize an otherwise ridiculous tactic. Colon Powell, John Doolittle and Ed Koch's names provide similar opportunities for childish ridicule, but to what effect? None, that I can discern.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 03:28 pm
Obill writes
Quote:
To refer to it's use alone as sliming is silly. That sleaze merchants will take advantage is a given, but hypersensitivity to its use only serves to legitimize an otherwise ridiculous tactic.


Okie writes
Quote:
Foxfyre, you are exactly correct in that Obama should not become defensive with the name. He can turn it into a positive if he handles it correctly, but if not, no.


Amen and amen. Obama seems not to be hypersensitive about it. He's the one who suggested that if Chicago wants another Irishman, they should just put an apostrophe after the "O" in his name (O'Bama). You gotta love that. Smile (One account suggested Chicagoans already thought it was there.)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 06:41 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
snood wrote:
When last I saw Obama speak (C-Span - I think it was in New Hampshire), he said that the people to whom his middle name of "Hussein" made any difference probably wouldn't be offering up their votes for him for other reasons, as well.

I read it to mean, no great loss.
While it's true that Blatham can't vote for him, I wouldn't agree with that assessment. Who here can't spit out the middle names of most Presidents' they can think of? To refer to it's use alone as sliming is silly. That sleaze merchants will take advantage is a given, but hypersensitivity to its use only serves to legitimize an otherwise ridiculous tactic. Colon Powell, John Doolittle and Ed Koch's names provide similar opportunities for childish ridicule, but to what effect? None, that I can discern.


Jeez, man - what has he done to make you think anyone's being hypersensitive about it? As vapid as the subject is, he keeps getting asked about it, but every time he just smiles, shrugs and says that those who put significance in his middle name probably aren't planning to vote for him anyway. What kind of reaction would make you say he was handling it well?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 06:57 pm
I was apparently unclear. I didn't mean to suggest Obama was sensitive about it. I was suggesting Blatham is... as I've seen him bristle repeatedly, in the face of what I consider a boogieman. Obama is handling it well.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 08:30 pm
Sorry O'bill. I must've misread.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 08:39 pm
But, to back up blatham, who rarely needs it, I'll say that the timing points to a slime maneuver - not that the rest of us think there is anything to blink at about BHO's name, but that blogs/news progs do - kind of a syncopated slur thing, even if the 'slur material' is nada. It's the timed use of buttons for the prejudiced re 'news'programming that has creep elements.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 09:39 pm
Obama Allure Tempts Team Hillary

always fun little tidbits in the intelligencer
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:03 am
Obama tells the Chicago Tribune he'd be a "viable" presidential candidate, but he says hype won't dictate his decision:

http://i17.tinypic.com/2vnhnqu.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:04 am
Quote:
Quote:
Obama on Obama

In a wide-ranging talk, the senator discusses how he stacks up against Clinton and McCain and reveals what's factoring into his decision



By Rick Pearson
Tribune political reporter

December 15, 2006

On the cusp of a historic decision over whether to run for the White House, Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that he believed he would be a "viable candidate" for president who could move the nation beyond the generational politics that have defined the last 40 years.

"I wouldn't run if I didn't think I could win," Obama (D-Ill.) said in a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with the Tribune editorial board in which the senator articulated a rationale for his potential candidacy, confidence in his ability to win and an assessment of potential opponents--both Democratic and Republican.

Obama said he would reveal his decision in January, after a two-week family vacation that returns him to his roots in Hawaii, setting an extraordinary arc for a politician who a little more than two years ago was a state senator toiling in Springfield.

"Obviously, I find myself at an interesting moment in time," said Obama, 45, who has ignited a stunning level of excitement nationwide with the prospects of his candidacy. At the same time, Obama said he viewed hype over his potential candidacy as "transitory" and not something that would dictate his decision.

He said he had no real concerns about his ability to put together a staff and raise the tens of millions of dollars he would need to wage a campaign against his potential opponents, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

But he said he would have to weigh seriously the burdens that a campaign would place on his family, with his wife and two young daughters, making sure they would not "unduly suffer" from the hothouse atmosphere a White House run would create.

"Do I have something that is sufficiently unique to offer to the country that it is worth putting my family through a presidential campaign?" he said. "Politically, I think I would be a viable candidate. So that's a threshold question and I wouldn't run if I didn't think I could win."

His best-selling book, demands for him to campaign for other Democrats during the recent midterm elections and the remarkable attention he has commanded in appearances in states with early nominating contests have combined to quickly thrust Obama into the upper tier of Democratic presidential contenders.

He conceded that he never has been through anything approaching the level of scrutiny that a presidential campaign would bring on him, his family and almost anyone who has been associated with him.

He said his two books, the first an autobiography written when he was in his late 30s and the second a more policy-oriented book, offer much detail about who he is and his views on issues.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:05 am
Quote:

Beyond `paper resume'

Asked how he would address the issue of his relative lack of experience, Obama said he thought that the campaign itself--how he managed it, his position on issues and his framing of a vision for the country--would answer the question. "That experience question would be answered at the end of the campaign," he said.

"The test of leadership in my mind is not going to be what's on a paper resume," Obama said. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary, and departing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "had the best resume on paper of any foreign policy team and the result has been what I consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history," he said.

Should Obama seek the Democratic nomination, he would face a large field, many with much longer resumes than Illinois' junior senator. But in three national polls released this week, Obama has leapfrogged many of those contenders and put himself in a position to be an alternative to Clinton, who, like Obama, has not declared her candidacy.

Obama said he was not concerned about being able to compete either in fundraising or in staffing should he enter the race.

"I don't want it to sound like raising $50 million to $60 million is easy," he said. "It's hard, but I think it's something that we could do."

Though he was born in 1961, Obama cast himself as the face of a post-Baby Boomer generation not fundamentally shaped by Vietnam and the culture conflicts of the 1960s. He said he could "help turn the page in ways that other candidates can't do."

Sounding very much like a candidate, Obama called Clinton, 59, a "tough, disciplined, smart, intelligent public servant." But, compared to Clinton, he maintained he was able to look at "some issues differently as a consequence of being of a slightly different generation."

When asked his assessment of Clinton, Obama said, "I think she'd be a capable president.

"She has gone through some battles that, in some cases unfairly, have created a perception about her that is different from how I am perceived," he said.

Obama said, however, that he had no interest in being what he called "the un-Hillary"--a reference to serving as a standard-bearer for Democrats looking for an alternative to Clinton.

As for Republicans, Obama said he placed Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the same position Clinton holds among Democrats, with great name recognition and resources and the ability to sew up much of the party establishment. But he also said he considered Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney an "attractive candidate," though he said Romney was "making a mistake in trying to look more conservative than he may be" to gain core conservative support.



Run against McCain

Speaking of a potential matchup with McCain, Obama said he was under no illusions about how a GOP presidential campaign would be run against him.

"War hero against snot-nosed rookie," Obama said.

The first-term Illinois senator said he consulted earlier this week with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on a potential presidential bid but declined to discuss specifics.

Obama acknowledged "it was stupid" of him to get involved in the purchase almost one year ago of a strip of property adjoining his $1.65 million home from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who owned a vacant lot next door. Rezko, a political insider and fundraiser, was indicted in October on charges of trying to extort campaign donations and kickbacks from firms seeking state business. Rezko has pleaded not guilty.

"I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern," Obama said. "I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship."

On the same day that Obama and his wife closed on their home, Rezko's wife, Rita, closed on the $625,000 vacant lot next door. Both lots had been part of the same estate, but the owner listed them as separate parcels.

Obama said he has known Rezko for 20 years and "he had never asked me for anything. I've never done any favors for him."

"There was no sense of betrayal of the public trust here," Obama said.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:12 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:

"The test of leadership in my mind is not going to be what's on a paper resume," Obama said. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary, and departing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "had the best resume on paper of any foreign policy team and the result has been what I consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history," he said.


He does have a way with words.
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
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 114
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/04/2025 at 12:11:36