Obama '08?

Yes yes, quite right Okie. You have given us retards another great insight into your analytical capacities. Keep up the good work. It was Robert Welch who gave us the insight that Dwight D Eisenhower was a communist sympatherizer.

After all, he is just another run of the mill politician still cutting his teeth. He is a guy that gave a speech that alot of people raved about, but a guy we know not much about yet

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?

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.

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.

Is that a new one "talk-radio response?" Yeah, I'm sure Nimh has it right - "sour grapes," and we can therefore throw all of your rhetoric (and that of Nimh's) over the last 6 years on the irrelevant heap of sour grape mash. What the topic of The Adoration of Obama has to do with Republicans losing Congress is beyond me, perhaps you can explain. Does the Democratic victory in 2006 imply that all Liberal fancies are to be taken seriously? I guess it's understandable that you would attempt to deflect my spotlight on your hypocrisy as political "sour grapes," but it doesn't make it anymore rational than to suggest your puppy-love for Mr. O is a product of a giddiness spwaned by the 2006 election results.

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.

Again what does this have to do with Obama? Last time I looked, he didn't support the war in Iraq, and he didn't run in 2006.

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).

What? When did this happen and who noticed it other than you? (And obsession with spanking and backsides perhaps?) It is interesting to note that you find the opinions of Baker and (especially) Meese to have some authority. Neither I nor GWB really do.

As for the rest of your "talk-radio" rant - eat me (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.

If the movement I favor is indeed collapsing in on itself it is not only "tough-tittie" for me it is "tough-tittie" for all of America and, perhaps, the world. It would be great if Obama could live up to your swooning adoration, but if you come up for air for a minute and use your sophisticated, well educated noggin, you should realize that this is an extreme long shot with no real reason for a big bet.

Maybe you are the type of punter who will bet a grand on a 40-1 nag just because it is named "Chomsky's Little Baby."

Don't you change guy!

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?

The odds for greatness in any potential President are long, but even longer for ones whose only credentials seem to be eloquence and a fresh face. Experience does count for something, as I expect you know from your own life's tale.

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 dissatisfaction 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).

He seems frank if not honest, and he may very well be Diogenes reborn, but I'm not sure how you can feel comfortable with such a conclusion based on a few televised speeches. I'm also not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he is independent of his Party's Line. Where has he diverged from Democratic policy? He goes to church? He doesn't resort to name calling?

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).

I think you have something of a revisionist view of history. Reagan may have been, in the whole, a successful president (although I doubt you will get much agreement on this from your fellow Obamaistas), but he was not a stalwart of bi-partisanship, and there was no end of political attacks on this popular president. The assumption that an Obama presidency will be as popular as either Reagan's or Clinton's is no more founded than the assumption that he will rise to greatness.

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.

Sorry but I disagree. Tony Blair is quite the charismatic leader and every bit as eloquent as Obama, and yet he doesn't seem to have had any impact on getting the world to accept the policies he shares with Bush. The rest of the world isn't going to support American policy because they find our president a likeable guy. They will support American policy because it is in their interests. While there is no shortage of Americans who judge our president by how well he is accepted by the rest of the world, the last thing we need is a leader whose goal is global popularity.

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 charismatic 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.

I feel fairly certain that when the time comes to vote for president you will conduct something more than a superficial consideration of the candidates, however I do suggest that you think long and hard about this conclusion you have drawn that charisma inspires cooperation. One need only consider the most charismatic figures in history to realize the two traits are by no means inextricably intertwined.

(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.

Extraordinary, only if one considers Bush ordinary and in the world of eloquence and politics, Bush is the extra-ordinary one. In addition, thinking on one's feet is only of value if there is a bank of knowledge upon which one can nimbly draw. The argument that Obama might wipe the floor with John McCain, Rudy Guillianni or Mitt Romney simply on the basis of his rhetorical eloquence is absurd. That he might similarly wipe the floor with Hilary Clinton, or Al Gore is equally absurd (or do you think Clinto and Gore would also have the Republican candidates for lunch?)

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When will the hysteria cease?

What hysteria? My recognition of Obama's solid speaking skills doesn't make me hysterical.

Not at all, but your investing these skills with unquestioned substance certainly hints at it.

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.

It would be foolish to underestimate Obama's rhetorical skills in a political campaign, and I do not, but it is irresponsible to overestimate them in terms of substantive leadership.

Obama is a very attractive candidate and his charisma and rhetorical skills are impressive, and this may lead to him winning the presidency but to suggest that these characteristics in someway promise his greatness in the role is, to me, frightening. Greatness in the presidency is something of a crap shoot, but charisma is a particularly poor characteristic on which to ride.

Everyone is attracted by charisma -- that's definitional -- but charisma is, by no means, dependent upon integrity and virtue.

They were discussing Obama on PBS this afternnon, and one lady said she hasn't been excited about a candidate since she was ten when John F Kennedy ran.

I think Obama is going to move mountains.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

I can't imagine a negative electoral consequence for Obama here. Those who might be influenced by the middle name will be fringe types who would not, as Obama suggests, vote for him in any case. And there is the risk that such a campaign tactic would produce a backlash with negative consequences going against republican candidates. The boogieman isn't in the voting booth.

The real concern is the decline in American political discourse. To the degree that you guys give licence to this decline, to that degree your society is made less rational, more hateful and divisive, and your political process demeaned and made less helpful and effective for all of you.

An earlier example saw Hastert saying about George Soros, "I don't know that his money doesn't come from the drug trade." That's true, he didn't know that. It's equally true that "I don't know that Hastert or bill or okie don't rape children". In either case, such a public statement has an evident intention, which is to slime through irrelevant or unwarranted suggestion. It is moral and intellectual barrel-bottom and its destructive to your democratic enterprise.

Barack Obama's career is remarkable and short. That could yet be his political epitaph. His rise from obscurity to be a serious candidate in race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination has been almost too fast. Cynical observers of the US political scene - is there another kind? - mutter 'burn out' at the mere mention of his name. But in a cynical age it is worth ... ... ...

In the murky world of Hillary Clinton's undeclared run for the White House, official denials and bland statements are ubiquitous. But, as Kremlinologists did in the Cold War, it pays to monitor the guests shuttling in and out of her townhouse in Washington DC. Last week that list revealed a campaign moving rapidly into top gear, spurred into action by the meteoric rise of ... ... ...

In late November, Republican strategist Ed Rogers began pointedly referring to "Barack Hussein Obama," using the senator and potential Democratic presidential candidate's middle name.

Soon, the utterly meaningless -- but eminently mockable -- fact that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" was everywhere. NBC's Mike Viqueira announced "a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president." On the December 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Carl Cameron told viewers: "Though he's written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior's uncommonly privileged life." (In case you're wondering: No, "John Sidney McCain" does not appear in any Fox News stories available on Nexis.)

Suddenly, Obama's middle name has come up again and again: on Fox, on MSNBC, in newspapers, all prompted by a Republican strategist using it to take a jab at the senator.

This hyper-Obama-sensitivity thing must be contagious. You know people are starting to lose it when a cartoon that is perhaps in bad taste, at worst, is labeled disgusting, picked apart and thoroughly whined about. I wouldn't have thought it possible for a middle name to provide a distraction for any but the fringe-right hyper-partisan fools. This thread proves otherwise. You can tell Fox had evil intentions too, by the menacing way she explained her hideous submission:

Foxfyre wrote:

Guys I apologize right up front, but after all the discussion on Obama's name the last day or so, this came in my e-mail just now. And I couldn't not post it.

For safety's sake; I dared not reprint the shocking cartoon for fear rioting could ensue.

snood wrote:

I hear you Soz - and since we'll have no choice but to talk about it, that's the only attitude to have.

Hey, maybe if we all call each other "my Hussein" (as in "What's up, my Hussein?", it will diffuse it completely, huh?

Now that's the spirtit! What up my... wait a minute... am I allowed to say that?

In an attempt to both bring this thread on topic and have a little fun, I've composed my first song.