Obama '08?

snood wrote:

okie wrote:

How come such a fear is unique to Obama? Nobody seemed to be talking about this in regard to anybody else? Surely every presidential candidate knows this risk going in. Thats what the Secret Service is for. It comes with the territory. If the fear is too overwhelming to him and family, he should just bow out now.

You seriously don't see where a black man who some think has a chance of mounting a viable presidential candidacy would have more concern being expressed about his being possibly assassinated, than the white candidates?

Do you have to exert physical energy to remain in such a complete state of denial, or does it come effortlessly to you?

Snood, yes there is racism amongst some people, but only the nut cases would carry hatred due to some prejudice they have to the point of trying to kill someone.. To be accurate, there are lots of prejudices besides racism, so it is only one motivation that some nut might have to try to kill a president, so any and every president is at risk. That is what the Secret Service is for. I do not personally think that being black necessarily places any president at a much higher risk. We have many black folks in public office, including Condi Rice right now, and I don't hear her talking about this. I never heard Powell talk about it. I don't hear the other black office holders talking about it.

The risk of assassination is always real, but whether being black amplifies it a great deal, how do you claim to know it and to what degree? I do not vote according to race. It is sad if anyone would. We should be human beings first, Americans second, and whatever race we are should not matter a whole lot. Just my opinion. And constantly pointing out the distinction is not a healthy thing. If Obama runs on his being black, I would consider that to be another reason not to vote for him. If a white did that, I would be turned off by it. Constantly bringing up race is divisive and indicates that the candidate just cannot let go of it, and they wish to be treated special just because of it. Here again, bringing up whatever special risk might be estimated does not show a healthy attitude in my opinion. Every presidential candidate deals with security, and Obama would be no different. I think it comes more with the territory of the office rather than what race you might happen to be.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm afraid I am unable to accept your current argument that you have only been arguing about his electability rather than his leadership. Are you denying that you have expressed a positive attitude towards his candidancy?

You haven't logged on often enough, apparently, to realize that my favorite thing about a solid Obama candidacy is that I believe it will force the right to field a McCain or Giuliani candidate... instead of another hardliner. Obama probably gets my vote over another one of those. I consider Hillary easy enough to beat that the right can field virtually anyone... so yes... a significant portion of my support is precisely about electability.

Your arguments against it will go a whole lot further if you get over the charisma thing. Berating me or anyone for being naive enough to be taken in by that alone is roughly about as foolish as the Left accusing the faithful of idiocy. You won't sway votes that way. Take away a terribly unpopular war; and the Left would still be wondering how those religious idiots beat them again, while continuing to deride them.

A better argument is your Jimmy Carter example. That hits much closer to home. I believed then and believe now that he was and is an honest man doing what he thinks is best for the country. Outside of building homes for the poor, I think he's a disaster in public service... but I do respect his intentions. That, is a valid argument that will require some consideration.

Roxxxanne wrote:

I just re-read The Crucible, ya know the Salem Witch Trials. These "terrorists" are the 2006 version of the Salem witches of 1692.

This might be the dumbest comparison I've heard all year. There are thousands of families in mourning this Holiday season thanks to what you consider an imaginary foe.

And that has what to do with Obama?

The two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine, and even misrepresent.

I somehow doubt that it is possible to predict, how a person will act - and will be viewed - when in office. In any office.

--------------

Quote:

The two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine, and even misrepresent.

Report in today's WaPo (Pages A1 & A5)

Hitler - most certainly.

Nixon - not sure.

I'm not trying to sway votes, but neither am I trying to berate you. Charisma has brought as many monsters as it has heroes, and so I don't think warning against its powers is so small a thing. Now Obama doesn't appear to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and so I would guess the worst we might expect from him is incompetence.

In any case, what alarms me is not so much the man himself, but the way so many people have taken him as their hero with so very few substantive heroics to recommend him.

We have survived quite a few incompetent presidents and one more is unlikely to take us under, but that we should be such suckers for the candy of persona is disturbing.

Hitler - most certainly.

Nixon - not sure.

In any case, what alarms me is not so much the man himself, but the way so many people have taken him as their hero with so very few substantive heroics to recommend him.