nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 05:27 pm
Whooooaaaa... Shocked Laughing

Check this out on YouTube..

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/821/hillaryyoutubewd4.jpg

Note: Josh "Talking Points Memo" Marshall writes he has "been assured that the creators are not connected to the Obama campaign".

Get ready for the YouTube elections... Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 05:42 pm
I guess I can follow that one up with a much less original, but still pretty clever one, this time with Obama as the butt of the jokes:

Barack Obama: Campaign Posters

"It says: I'm proud to be an American! But it also says: boo."

"I will say it loud: I'm half-black, and half-proud."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 05:45 pm
nimh wrote:
I guess I can follow that one up with a much less original, but still pretty clever one, this time with Obama as the butt of the jokes:

Barack Obama: Campaign Posters

"It says: I'm proud to be an American! But it also says: boo."

"I will say it loud: I'm half-black, and half-proud."


That one is funny.

Humor - spread thy wings and fly during the '08 cycle!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:16 pm
Ha!

Hey, Gargamel was in the Obama one!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:16 pm
It would be heartening if even 1/2 half of the commentary about what was said in Selma was about what was said, and not how it was said.

I find that I speak differently as I move in and out of different settings. I pick up a drawl when I'm around certain groups, and I tend to use more clipped diction when I'm around certain others. I don't think its necessarily a function of inauthenticity. I think its a natural adaptation.
Everone doesn't realize they do it, but I'd venture more people do it than think they do.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:22 pm
From the peanut gallery: I really don't like the changing of one's speech patterns to curry favor. Not when anyone does it.

The shirt thing has been done to death--sometimes it seems natural, other times, it seems like changing your speech patterns...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:26 pm
I agree on that, Snood, at least that it is very natural to do. I've often ended up sounding different than usual after working with someone for even a few weeks. I remember when I trained in hematology for a couple of months in a lab internship that I became exceedingly droll in my speech... unusual for me, at least at that time. There was another lab tech, I forget from where, that I had to explain to that I was not making fun of her, that I was naturally following her speech pattern.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:28 pm
Yeah, me too. (Part of what I meant by saying I have at least three modes, all of which are natural, but are very different from each other. It's not that I consciously shift, it's that certain circumstances bring out one or the other.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 06:42 pm
Anyway, to get back to the what he was saying rather than how he said it, I thought it was an important and rather brave speech. Brave because this was his big obvious shot at the black vote, and he chose, within the "Joshua generation" framework, to say some not exactly ingratiating things to black people of his generation and younger.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 07:01 pm
Yes - and I don't think taking that Cosby-esque stance could be construed as "currying favor", by any stretch.

I like the connection he made to his grandfather's meager life, and how the movement in the US inspired Barack Sr to want better things, and then how the Edmund Pettus march connected to that progress, and to his own life.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 07:44 pm
Politicians know that tone and body language can almost negate an "unpopular" message.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 07:56 pm
snood wrote:
It would be heartening if even 1/2 half of the commentary about what was said in Selma was about what was said, and not how it was said.

I find that I speak differently as I move in and out of different settings. I pick up a drawl when I'm around certain groups, and I tend to use more clipped diction when I'm around certain others. I don't think its necessarily a function of inauthenticity. I think its a natural adaptation.
Everone doesn't realize they do it, but I'd venture more people do it than think they do.


I do this too and I know other, very nice and very smart, people who also do it. What I think is that it is a necessary and organic aspect of communication. I talk a little like you because I want you to understand, you talk a little like me because you want me to understand, and we end up with things like American English.

I do sometimes think that people are being fake with it though. But that's something else, I think.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 Mar, 2007 08:31 pm
FreeDuck wrote:

....
I do sometimes think that people are being fake with it though. But that's something else, I think.


One example that comes to my mind was when Gore liked to scream at the top of his lungs in black churches, things like "Praise the Lord" among other imitations of a black preacher, in efforts to whip up his black audiences in the churches into a frenzy. I found it not only fake, but curious that a politician can do this kind of campaigning in churches with no criticism whatsoever by the press.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Tue 6 Mar, 2007 03:18 am
okie wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:

....
I do sometimes think that people are being fake with it though. But that's something else, I think.


One example that comes to my mind was when Gore liked to scream at the top of his lungs in black churches, things like "Praise the Lord" among other imitations of a black preacher, in efforts to whip up his black audiences in the churches into a frenzy. I found it not only fake, but curious that a politician can do this kind of campaigning in churches with no criticism whatsoever by the press.


Gore is white Southerner, so why shouldn't he speak like a white Southerner?

Quote:
"Praise the Lord" among other imitations of a black preacher, in efforts to whip up his black audiences in the churches into a frenzy.


Funny thing, how does a black Southern preacher sound any different from a white Southern preacher?

By the way, in the South, it's "Praise da Lord", not
"Praise the Lord". Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 04:52 am
This is very smart on the parts of both Ignatius and Brzezinski
Quote:
A Manifesto For the Next President

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A15

Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama. Its message is that America can recover from what Brzezinski calls the "catastrophic" mistakes of the Bush administration, but only if the next president makes a clean break from those policies and aligns the country with a world in transformation.

The former national security adviser says he hasn't yet picked the candidate who could deliver on his book's title of a " Second Chance" for America to reverse its decline as a superpower. But by stressing the need for a foreign policy makeover, his prescriptions seem tailor-made for a certain junior senator from Illinois. In his every word and gesture, the young, transracial Obama would say to an angry world: Take a new look. I represent a country that is different from the one you think you know.

Obama would have severe limitations as a foreign policy president, not least his almost complete lack of experience. That's the flip side of being a fresh face, unencumbered by the past. It's hard to know what Obama's views would be on big issues, other than Iraq. So let's focus on Brzezinski, the foreign policy guru, and not his prospective pupil.

First, an encomium to Brzezinski: If there's any foreign policy analyst who has earned the right to be taken seriously today, it's this 78-year-old veteran of the Carter administration. Brzezinski was right about Iraq, warning early and emphatically of the dangers of an American invasion at a time when most foreign policy pundits (including this one) were, with whatever quibbles, supporting President Bush's decision to go to war.

Brzezinski paid a price for being outspoken -- he was excluded from some of the inner circles frequented by former national security advisers who don't rock the boat. In this respect, Brzezinski's cranky outsider status served him well (and the uber-insider status of his life rival, Henry Kissinger, proved something of a hindrance for the former secretary of state). So on matters of foreign policy, we should listen especially carefully to what Brzezinski has to say.

"Second Chance" is structured as an analysis of how the past three presidents missed the chance to create a true American superpower after the Cold War ended. He has some interesting, tart things to say about George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Bush Senior was "a superb crisis manager but not a strategic visionary," a president who succeeded brilliantly in coaxing the dissolution of the Soviet empire but who failed to take advantage of the opportunities his policies created. Clinton was "the perfect symbol of a benign but all-powerful America," but he was mesmerized by his vision of a deterministic "globalization."

But these are just warm-ups. Brzezinski's real focus is the "catastrophic leadership" of the current president. Regular talk-show watchers know Brzezinski's views, but he lays them out here in blistering language: The war in Iraq "has caused calamitous damage to America's global standing," "has been a geopolitical disaster" and "has increased the terrorist threat to the United States." By Brzezinski's account, what drove Bush's presidency so far off course was a combination of sunny "End of History" optimism about America's ability to impose its values with a "Clash of Civilizations" gloom about the threat posed by Muslim enemies.

The most intriguing part of Brzezinski's book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (He doesn't call it that, but I don't think he would quarrel with that characterization, either.) Brzezinski argues that the world is undergoing a "global political awakening," which is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet. Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It's about dignity.

"The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening," he argues. His worry is that America -- enfeebled by "material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world" -- may not get it.

The next president, Brzezinski writes, will need "an instinctive grasp of the spirit of the times in a world that is stirring, interactive, and motivated by a vague but pervasive sense of prevailing injustice in the human condition." Is that person Barack Obama? It's impossible to know. The man is still largely a blank slate. But Brzezinski has described the challenge of future American leadership with unusual clarity. If we don't pick a leader with these qualities, Brzezinski warns, we will miss our second and perhaps last chance.

How would Obama and other candidates in both parties respond to the test the old Columbia professor poses here? That's a debate I hope we will see.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301504.html
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 05:01 am
As for foreign policy experience, Obama would have at least as much as the sitting president. Obama has actually lived in a foreign country.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 05:18 am
snood

True. But Bush is just about the worst point of comparison on most all things. Obama will have to walk a steep learning curve on foreign affairs but I have every reason to think he's completely capable of that.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 07:57 am
Interesting article, thanks!

I'm really not worried about him when it comes to foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:10 am
sozobe wrote:
Interesting article, thanks!

I'm really not worried about him when it comes to foreign policy.


My worry is that we have no record to fall back on. He say's all the right things and has a fast mind. However, talk is cheap. Electing someone to the most powerful office in the world on good looks and a fast tongue is a bit to chancy for my taste.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:13 am
He does have a record, though. It's limited but it's there. 8 years in Illinois Senate, will have 4 as a U.S. Senator by the time he's running for president (if he makes it through the primaries). That's a good dozen years of experience. Not experience as president, no, but there's only one way to get that experience.
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 168
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 06:57:48