Obama '08?

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

snood wrote:

So what are you saying, Foxfyre? It's hard for me to follow. You don't think the right is trying to use the name, or you do, but all's fair because the left did it with Bush, or its much ado about nothing, or its actually the left that's attacking Obama, or...what?

I think its simple - you like the discussion about Obama's name or his ears, the same way I like discussions about Bush's acumen and mentality.

The rest is just a bunch of tap-dancing. Attacks are attacks. Partisanship is partisanship. Just be for real.

I think the right AND the left are using the name for media interest and nothing else at the moment. It's something to write about. And I think those who are trying to make it into something more than it is are doing Obama a huge disservice by making something that isn't a sensitive issue into one.

The "left" is writing, talking and blogging about the right's desperate attempt to smear Obama's name not the name itself. Should we just ignore it when Druggie Limbaugh calls Obama "Barack Hussein Odumbo" making fun o f his name and his "big ears?"

Yes, you should just ignore it just like those on the Right ignored all the really cruel jokes and plays on the name during the Bush campaign. If a politician can't stand up to good natured kidding, jokes, and cartoons during a campaign, its pretty sure he isn't going to stand up to the rigors (or criticisms) that come with being in office.

The more you make a big deal out of it, the more you make it important. (And Dowd was taking her own shots. She wasn't defending him against those on the Right.)

If a politician can't stand up to good natured kidding, jokes, and cartoons during a campaign, its pretty sure he isn't going to stand up to the rigors (or criticisms) that come with being in office.

Now, there are many aspects of this, folks, that we need to delve into and explore. For one thing -- I mean, you know me -- if the guy is sensitive about his big ears, we need to give him a new name, like Dumbo, but that doesn't quite get it. You know, just calling him -- calling him -- that just doesn't -- how about Barack Hussein Odumbo?

Well, if he's sensitive -- stop to think about this. This is a man being lauded as the savior of the country, a presidential candidate ready to be anointed, and he can't handle being teased about his big ears? And he goes out to Maureen Dowd and says, "I am putting you on notice"? Is that a threat? I want to put you on notice?

You still aren't getting it, bill. I've no sensitivity to his name nor do I worry that many people would have.

The point is entirely as regards how your discourse is being impoverished by such stuff.

bill said

Quote:

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

We're going to have to set up a formal mentoring relationship, bill. There's promise here, but full realization is likely only to arrive with my help.

O'Bill and anyone else who has been wondering why oh why those liberals are being so "hypersensitive" and "over-sensitive", even "hysterically" so, would do well to read the article that Revel just posted in full - there's been quotes from it here before, but only the full story explains it well I think.

Sure, with Obama this silliness is only still just in an embryonic stage, but we've seen this happen before, and thats why we're sort of hyper-vigilant. I too winced somewhat at Blatham's reaction to the cartoon ("disgusting", really?), but I agree with him that it's paramount to, this time, nip this thing right in the bud, or at least expose it for what it is. And the cartoon, by combining both the meme of Barack "Hussein" Obama and that of the attribution of that meme to Hillary, does serve two unfair rightwing talking points, so it was surely worth pointing out.

I'm sure Obama will be better able than Kerry of defusing much of this himself, since Kerry showed himself to be a vain, pompous prick many times even without any media prompting and Obama is none of that. But there's no candidate good enough or he cant be at least pushed into the perpetual defensive by this kind of nonsense, so let's by all means 'out' it whenever we can. A corrolary advantage is that pointing out every time how the mainstream media lends itself so easily, through laziness, superficiality or the underestimation of its audience, to the WH and talk radio smear and insinuation machines, should also put this whole 'liberal media' nonsense to rest.

Well MediaMatters is an organization set up to correct (i.e. attack) any conservative journalism or media reports and have not been known to give a balanced assessment about much of anything.

nimh wrote:

A corrolary advantage is that pointing out every time how the mainstream media lends itself so easily, through laziness, superficiality or the underestimation of its audience, to the WH and talk radio smear and insinuation machines, should also put this whole 'liberal media' nonsense to rest.

Nonsense. No President or Presidential hopeful, past or present, gets a free ride from a free media. Political cartoonists and satirists will embrace any and every opportunity to ridicule them in any way they can.

Wait till Saturday Night Live and Jay Leno get a hold of him. Obama will be sitting around with his friends, John Mussolini Smith, Robert Manson Jones, and Peter Pol Pot Erickson when Henry Hitler Harrison knocks on the door. Will we then be outraged at the Republican spin machine for putting them up to it?

Foxfyre wrote:

Well MediaMatters is an organization set up to correct (i.e. attack) any conservative journalism or media reports and have not been known to give a balanced assessment about much of anything.

Media Matters may be partisan, but it is also extremely thorough. They provide extremely detailed, factual information - selectively choosing the topics they cover like you suggest, perhaps, but on the topics they do select, they are extremely .. well, geeky about it almost. Little or no speculation, rhetorics, implication - just reams of meticulously collected facts and factlets.

I prefer that kind of partisanity over any op-ed talking head, and I dont remember ever seeing them claim facts that were not sourced or detailed. If you want to bring examples of details they presented that according to you are untruthful, go right ahead, but I dont give you much of a chance.

Is Obama safe?

For all the metal detectors and Secret Service agents that surround a president or even a presidential nominee, security can be pretty lax for people who are just thinking about running for national office. When we caught up with Sens. Sam Brownback and Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church earlier this month, we were struck by the lack of security surrounding them. Anyone could have walked into the huge church hall where they spoke; with even the slightest effort at deception, anyone also could have made it into a much smaller room where the two men appeared for a press conference.

Should that be a cause for concern? It is for Obama and his family. Just as Alma Powell reportedly feared that her husband might be a target for a racist assassin if he were to run for the presidency, Obama's half-sister tells Elle that she worries for Obama's safety at home and abroad. "At the end of the day, what matters is that he's a black man," Auma Obama says. "The history of America is quite violent."

In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama acknowledges that his wife and many of his friends are concerned about his safety, and he said he's exploring the possibility of arranging for a security team to accompany him on his travels even before a Secret Service detail would usually be assigned. "I think it is something that will have to be addressed if I ran," he says. "You are not assigned Secret Service protection until you are effectively the nominee."

Understandably, he's not happy about the idea.

"Now I will tell you, this is something, this is one of the least-attractive -- not the part about being shot, obviously, that is the least-attractive option -- but even just having a security apparatus around you; one of the things that I have been very proud over the last several years, is, for all the hoopla, I am not an entourage guy."

Americans Open to New Kinds of Candidates

December 15, 2006

In new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, eight in 10 Americans would be "comfortable" or "enthusiastic" about an African-American or woman running for president.

DEMOCRATS BENEFIT from post-election good feeling.

Some 46% of Americans give Democrats a positive rating, up from 36% in January. Just 29% rate the party negatively, down from 35% in January. A 46%-33% plurality rates Republicans negatively.

Americans remain "grouchy" toward Republicans, says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The strongest sign: though Americans identified themselves with the two parties in equal proportions on Election Day 2004, Democrats now boast a robust 44%-31% edge. Next six months will be critical, McInturff says, in determining whether that edge persists into 2008. [..]

HEAR ME? Only one in four Americans says Bush got their message from midterm elections and is making needed adjustments. But 41% say the president heard but isn't adjusting; 18% assert he hasn't gotten the message. Seven in 10 expect little change. [..]

IN WHOSE NAME? By 53%-39%, public says the U.S. doesn't owe it to killed or wounded American soldiers to stay in Iraq "until the mission is completed." But Americans split on whether the U.S. owes it to Iraqis to stay until their country is stabilized; 46% say yes, 47% no.

HISPANICS STRONGLY support Bush's temporary-worker program for illegal immigrants. But 52% of whites and 59% of blacks express opposition.

Urr, no. Are you seriously saying you dont see the difference between SNL doing a bout of extreme weirdness, and mainstream (news!!) reporters/anchormen pursuing the "Kerry looks French" line of commenting and questioning for a full year?

Stand-up comedian doing a "Barrack Hussein" sketch - sure. But if we'll see news reporters and editorial and talkshow pundits pursuing the "whats the implications of Obama being called Hussein?" and "will regular Americans want to vote for someone who's called Hussein?" type subjects for a year, Kerry-style, then you'll find the Media Matters author vindicated.

As for the last point in my post that you quoted when answering "nonsense", if anything, your own argument would actually seem to prove it: if the media satirists will indeed embrace every opportunity to ridicule any Presidential hopeful any way they can - in this case Obama - then that should help put the whole 'liberal media' nonsense to rest.

But can you mention some parallel examples of the type of media caricaturising of Hillary, or of this Hussein thing now, about, say, Giuliani or McCain?

Did you catch that last sentence?

I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope -- Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.

I remember doing real-time commentary on that one with you, Bill, that was fun. :-)

Found it, and your prescient observation:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=812301#812301

Piffka wrote:

We'll he could be the Sec'y of State, couldn't he?

And I believe he can hold any job but President... maybe First Lady one day?

That was fun. Wanna make a date for conventions of 08?

Even if it were to happen, I can't imagine it having the negative impact you suggest. I think the consensus of public reaction would be more like "get over it, and give me something I can chew on". Like the race issue, I think that line of discussion could easily cause more resistance than agreement. I know I don't want to be party to something so petty and would be more likely to resist (if it affected me at all).