snood
 
  1  
Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:28 pm
I just saw a papparazzi (sp?) - snapped picture of Obama, playing in the surf in Hawaii. He has some middle aged spread around the waistline, and doesn't appear to be that toned. The comments I read people making were a hint of what the tabloids and probably others will do when the pictures hit the mainstream...

My question is this - does anyone remember seeing a picture of any other potential presidential candidate with his shirt off, right around the time of their announcing their intention to run/not run? Will they be stalking Edwards and Brownstone and Giuliani and Biden, as well?

I know it might seem a little like foil-hat headed thinking to some, but I can't help thinking the whole physical appearance deal might be harped on more with a minority or a woman.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:52 pm
Oh I can't support a candidate that's not flawless. Goodness me. That's why I'm voting for (fill in the blank).
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Mon 8 Jan, 2007 11:15 pm
snood wrote:
I think Sozobe is right that the issue of 'pro/con gay marriage' has too much thread-busting potential, and that if anyone has a strong desire to hash it out, another thread is probably a good idea.


[By the way, this is not a direct response to you Snood, so please don't feel compelled to reply. I know you would rather not, and so I absolve you of any compulsion to do so.]

Yes, as it has the potential for busting up a Liberal Democrat's attempt to obtain the party's nomination for President.

It's one thing to be for legal abortions, but legal same sex marriages?

Too much too soon?

Somehow, certain Liberals have no problem reconciling the destruction of a budding human with personal freedom, and yet cannot find it within themselves to extend this concept of personal freedom to a relatively benign legal union of two people of the same sex.

It's a puzzlement.

It can't possibly be a cynical political calculation, can it? The American public has come to some uncertain terms with abortion but not Queers wedding, and so if one wants to become president, one can be for the termination of fetal life but not the fullfillment of the dreams of same sex lovers.

Marriage as a union between man and women is somehow inviolate while life is not.

Let's not go off on abortion or same sex marriages though, the topic is Obama (and, apparently, not what he believes).
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 8 Jan, 2007 11:43 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Oh I can't support a candidate that's not flawless. Goodness me. That's why I'm voting for (fill in the blank).


I know you're being sarcastic, and taken a certain way I can really agree with the sarcastic sentiment. I don't know if you meant it the same way I would have, if I'd written it.

Obama is torn on gay marriage. So what? As it is, he holds the same view as probably the majority of presidential hopefuls (support of legal union but not marriage), but of that I'm not sure. The only one I know of for sure that supports gay marriage is Giuliani.

It seems that Obama is not allowed any wiggle room on the issue because he is black, and therefore somehow should "know better". I've never bought the line that blacks should support gays because our struggles are alike. Gay marriage is not at this point a foregone conclusion (no matter how rude anyone gets with those on the fence about it), but only intensely politically correct. This point is ironically lost on those who excoriate any who don't abjectly capitulate to 100% support of gay marriages. Some of these same people make lengthy statements about freedom of speech, talking about how they should have the use of any word they damn well want.

They will go to figurative war for the conservative blacks who "dare" to not toe the liberal democrat party line - they say that this is America at its finest - the right to think individually.
But this - the manifest right of same sex marriage - this is too sacrosanct a concept - this is so obviously the right way to go that it is below idiotic to even think aloud about it. So sure are they of their righteousness that they become haughty in their denouncements of those, like Obama, who are still struggling with it.

And I say struggle on, Obama - answer to your own conscience and you will come to your own conclusions. You have that right.

Taken as a whole, this is the kind of "flaw" I can live with.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 12:37 am
okie wrote:
To equate gay marriage to racial prejudice is kind of weird, and I would think an insult to those that have suffered from racial prejudice.
Laughing Not to mention them KKK Homos. What an outrage!

snood wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Oh I can't support a candidate that's not flawless. Goodness me. That's why I'm voting for (fill in the blank).


I know you're being sarcastic, and taken a certain way I can really agree with the sarcastic sentiment. I don't know if you meant it the same way I would have, if I'd written it.

Obama is torn on gay marriage. So what? As it is, he holds the same view as probably the majority of presidential hopefuls (support of legal union but not marriage), but of that I'm not sure. The only one I know of for sure that supports gay marriage is Giuliani.

It seems that Obama is not allowed any wiggle room on the issue because he is black, and therefore somehow should "know better". I've never bought the line that blacks should support gays because our struggles are alike. Gay marriage is not at this point a foregone conclusion (no matter how rude anyone gets with those on the fence about it), but only intensely politically correct. This point is ironically lost on those who excoriate any who don't abjectly capitulate to 100% support of gay marriages. Some of these same people make lengthy statements about freedom of speech, talking about how they should have the use of any word they damn well want.

They will go to figurative war for the conservative blacks who "dare" to not toe the liberal democrat party line - they say that this is America at its finest - the right to think individually.
But this - the manifest right of same sex marriage - this is too sacrosanct a concept - this is so obviously the right way to go that it is below idiotic to even think aloud about it. So sure are they of their righteousness that they become haughty in their denouncements of those, like Obama, who are still struggling with it.
Laughing Snood, wake up man. That's how most of you lefties react to most everything. :wink:
Ps. If you doubt it, look at the quoted post just above.Laughing

(Sorry, respected friends, it struck me funny)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 06:10 am
More and more lately O'Bill, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Perhaps if you extracted your tongue from your cheek for a moment and quit winking at yourself, you could see clearly to make a simple statement that was clear enough for us pedestrians.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 06:15 am
snood
I was just being a wise ass re the people who would seek out every flaw, real or not, in a man like Obama, and then blindly vote for someone no less imperfect, possibly choosing a lesser person to support.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 06:33 am
Thanks edgar. I suspected that's what you meant. And I agree. How do you explain their zeal at picking him apart, when there are many others with much more visible flaws?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 06:35 am
They are, in my estimation, looking for a person more reflective of the herd, but not recognizing same.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 06:43 am
And why do you think it is that you can see this (I do too)?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 07:01 am
This seems to be something, which might lead to some other discussions (here):

Democrats target ethics
Quote:
Obama initiatives help toughen Senate bill

Senate Democrats are working on a stepped-up version of their ethics reform bill, incorporating tough new initiatives pushed by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) that could evolve into what the chamber's majority leader on Monday called "the most sweeping reforms since Watergate."
...
"Americans put their faith in us this time around as Democrats because they want us to restore their faith in government," Obama said, as he, Feingold and Reid announced they were working with other Democratic senators to strengthen the measure. "That means more than just window dressing."
... ... ...


http://i3.tinypic.com/35jyu7o.jpg
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 01:29 pm
snood wrote:
My question is this - does anyone remember seeing a picture of any other potential presidential candidate with his shirt off, right around the time of their announcing their intention to run/not run? Will they be stalking Edwards and Brownstone and Giuliani and Biden, as well?

I don't remember if Gary Hart's shirt was off in the pictures that exposed his extramarital affair. But the stalking of promising presidential candidates by the press doesn't strike me as new or extraordinary.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 01:43 pm
The reforms look good. Like that he's doing them, love to see Obama and Feingold working together.
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 01:44 pm
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/obamaatbeach.jpg

Let us hope Hillary won't feel a need to follow suit.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 01:48 pm
I like the bill's spirit too. Let's see what happens to it in its implementation.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 01:56 pm
The context is interesting... Catherine Zeta-Jones, Penelope Cruz, Hugh Jackman and... Barack Obama. Hmmm.

I think it's as likely to be about his celebrity status as anything else. And celebrity status is mostly a good thing, I think.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 07:11 pm
Maybe you're right. I was thinking of the unfortunate tendency to worry about women politicians' hairstyles and waistlines bleeding over into coverage of others- -in attempts to minimalize or marginalize. Don't you dislike when a news story talks about how "stylish" an important woman is, instead of what they say?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 07:22 pm
Fer sure.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 08:08 pm
snood wrote:
And why do you think it is that you can see this (I do too)?


I'm sure the element of race is there, for some; to me, it's an unknown quantity, because some Obama detractors have said they would like to vote for Colin Powel, in past times. A sizeable portion of the populace perceives there is something "tainted" about persons on the left, and Democrats who are actually centrists, and nothing seems to wipe it away. It's the pendulum-swing of popular perception, and the Republicans have managed to play to it better than anybody else, even with the Democratic win. They control most of the media now, and this helps feed misconceptions about Democrats and the left, making the "tainted" odor linger.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 08:13 pm
I was having dinner one time with Gary Hart and he leaned over and kissed my girlfriend (at the time) on the mouth; I nearly didn't vote for him the next election.
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 142
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 09:44:13