snood
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2007 08:57 pm
If you believe that then you've surely given up on the process. Do you believe there to be no one of character or the strength of their convictions who calls themselves a politician?
0 Replies
 
PoliticsJunkie
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2007 10:13 pm
Obama campaign
Laughing
HokieBird posted the obamawall.com link... I just had a political colleague of mine send me a brick they posted that mentioned Obama is tied with Hillary according to a USA Today poll.

I don't care who he appoints if he's elected... it is an interesting candidacy.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:12 am
They're all crooked by the time they reach national stature...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:21 am
Some more than others; degree counts.
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jun, 2007 04:07 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Entertaining Smile
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jun, 2007 10:51 pm
It's kind of long, and it's from a blog (by Stacey Parker Aab on Huffpo), but I think it has great food for thought and discussion about Obama's candidacy...

Before the election last fall, I talked to my friend Alex about his time at Vanderbilt. He told me about his fraternity days, back in the late 70s. This wasn't "Animal House;" mostly scholars and athletes. Good times for sure, until the crisis hit: a black student wanted to join. Alex, being Alex, was for it. But one night, discussions came to a head.
They were torn. Deeply. Then one young man spoke up. After much apology, he said the following in a way Alex characterized as almost gentlemanly. Simply, he couldn't stand to see a black man touch a white woman.

That was it. The black student didn't get in.

Tennessee in the late 70s. Or, if you count the Harold Ford ad, Tennessee in 2006. I joke with Alex that maybe one of his frat brothers made the ad, the one with the white girl mouthing "call me." I cannot say in certainty that Ford lost because of this ad. However, the ad makers saw an easy button to push. They knew that while we smile at each other, and try to get along in civil society, fear and envy of black male sexuality still runs deep.

As Cornel West says in his book Race Matters: "White fear of black sexuality is a basic ingredient of white racism. And for whites to admit this deep fear even as they try to instill and sustain fear in blacks is to acknowledge a weakness--a weakness that goes down to the bone."

For good reason, I suppose. Despite what 300 years of active subjugation has tried to teach, black men can be the most brilliant. Black men can be the most beautiful. And for sure, black men can be the hottest. Harold Ford looks like the All-American dream. If we're picking teams, he's going to get picked way ahead of many a white man, especially a white man who grew up thinking he was supposed to be a master of the universe, and life just hasn't lived up.

As I type, I'm sure there's a woman, or a man, declaring that Barack Obama is either hot, beautiful, brilliant, or all of the above. Not only has this been said a million times in conversations all over the world, but now his desirability has been celebrated in a video made by the same folks who made the female video response to SNL's "D--- in a Box."

The model lip-synching "I Got a Crush On...Obama" looks mixed--she could be part Hispanic, part Asian, part black part something, so she doesn't fit that stereotypical temptation casting of the fair blonde. The point is she's a desirable hottie wearing "bootie shorts" with "Obama" silkscreened across the ass. If an election is about who gets the most panting girls, we know who's in the lead.

In theory, this shouldn't be a big deal. Stars can't help the actions of their fans. Obama himself never comes off as someone who flaunts or revels in his sensuality. This video doesn't feed into some larger narrative of the Senator being a "player" or being reckless in any way. The video just magnifies the obvious: people are attracted to him. In many different ways.

I watched the Jeanne Moos interview of the team that made the video. They laughed and giggled, no doubt pleased with the attention their project was receiving. For them, they get fame. Maybe some projects thrown their way. But what about the Senator? I suppose he will laugh this off, be as self-effacing and level-headed as he always is. Alas, there's little more he can do.

We too should be able to forward this around and laugh and instantly forget about it. Yet, I wonder about those who will absorb the joke as fact. For those who haven't been paying close attention, I wonder if a video like this breaks ground in their minds, makes it easier to plant lies about his character. I fear that these images help to "blur the differences" between him and the stereotypes of so many black men, especially the studs, the hustlers, the hip-hop gangsters you see on the other channels, the ones that "don't give a f***" and would take your car as easily as they would take your girl and your life. Those characters that people play. On TV, and well, in the streets too....

If you think certain people are all alike no matter how well they clean up, you might be vulnerable to this kind of swaying. You might be someone who absorbed information when they blurred his name with Osama bin Laden, and made sure you heard the Hussein.

If voters bought the swift-boating, I suppose it will be easy to get chunks of the populace to believe that this big-hearted, peacemaking super-achiever is and will always be a threat. The kind of threat they don't like to talk about, especially with the pollsters.

We must be vigilant about those who try to blur him. Even the blurs that seem ridiculous can take root if there is enough prejudice there to nurture the seeds. Next thing you know we're playing defense on the wrong issues, pushed off the issues we care about, the ones that will win this for us in the end.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:02 pm
Sure, Snood, degree matters. Sure getting tired of voting for what I perceive as the lesser of two evils.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 16 Jun, 2007 12:04 am
The medical blogs are all claiming that either Clinton or Obama will be the next president.

I'm not worried about Obama and medical care/insurance but when it comes to Ms. Clinton, I have to admit that I do get the shivers.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 17 Jun, 2007 02:16 am
Yet another embarrassing disconnect between overzealous Obama staffers and their high-minded boss? The Chicago Tribune reports that ...

    At issue are documents distributed to some news organizations by Obama aides on a not-for-attribution basis that offered a harsh analysis of the Clintons. One appeared under the headline "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s personal financial and political ties to India." A copy of the documents was obtained by Sen. Clinton's campaign, which then provided them to the Tribune and other news organizations. Obama's campaign confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

Full Article
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 17 Jun, 2007 04:48 am
Wait, so news organisations first got this document from Obama's aides, but only decided to run a story when they were then given them again by Hillary's campaign? I mean, it could be different news organisations, but it still doesnt sound very brave..

Not that I'm excusing the childish D-Punjab slur..
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 17 Jun, 2007 06:11 am
nimh wrote:
I mean, it could be different news organisations, but it still doesnt sound very brave..

I think this is story impact maximization. What would you do if you were a journalist facing the choice between two stories to write: one titled "Clinton campaign jujitsus anonymous smear by Obama campaign", the other, "Obama campaign criticizes Indian Clinton donations from Indian lobbies?" I, as a rational, egoistic journalist, would opt for story #1 in a microsecond.

nimh wrote:
Not that I'm excusing the childish D-Punjab slur..

I wouldn't even overrate this one if it was just a one-off event. But it isn't. It fits a pattern that we've discovered earlier in this thread. 1) Obama communicates to voters that he's a different kind of candidate, one who will rise above the bitter partisanship in Washington; 2) Obama staffers hit some low-blows against Obama opponents; 3) The backlash forces Obama to sheepishly apologize.

I don't know what to make of this pattern. Either Obama can't decide whether he wants to go dirty or not -- minus points for leadership. Or Obama wants to go dirty, and the idealists he's hired mangle it because they're incompetent slime-throwers -- minus points for hiring the wrong people for the job. Or Obama doesn't want to play dirty and cannot keep his more aggressive-minded staff disciplined -- again, minus points for leadership.

And, to repeat, this isn't the first time something like this happened. I am not impressed.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 17 Jun, 2007 07:32 am
Yeah, I've heard some grumblings from people who work for the Obama campaign. I'm definitely concerned about that. It seems to be more about infrastructure/ the people hired to run the campaign, but of course the buck stops with Obama.

From what I know of him I really really think that if there are problems it's about the idealists he's hired rather than duplicity -- but it's a problem either way.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Mon 18 Jun, 2007 09:23 am
Obama's Indian-American Backers Seek Further Apology Over Memo
Posted by Josh Gerstein
Mon, 18 Jun 2007 at 1:01 AM

Some of Senator Obama's supporters in the Indian-American community are still fuming over his campaign's effort to attack Senator Clinton for being too friendly with India. Our Russell Berman had a post last week on opposition research the Obama camp sent out sub rosa referring to the former first lady as "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" because of her campaign donations from Indian Americans, President Clinton's business dealings with India and Indian emigres, and Mrs. Clinton's lack of outrage over outsourcing.

On Friday, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, expressed "regret" over the tone of the attack, but not the substance.

An e-mail sent out early this morning by a grassroots group, South Asians for Obama, called the initial response "unsatisfactory."
The mass e-mail makes it clear that Mr. Obama's Indian-American supporters were ticked off over the memo and the Obama campaign's nonchalant reaction to it. "We, too, were shocked, offended and disappointed by the memo. It was hurtful to our community, and contrary to both the values and ideas that Senator Obama's campaign represents," the e-mail from the group's leadership said.

A posting about the flap on the South Asians for Obama Web site says the campaign now realizes this was a bigger gaffe than it first thought. "The Senator himself is cognizant of our concerns (not just with the memo, but also the initial response) and has made clear his intention to address the situation personally," the posting says.The group suggests a further apology is in the works.

My take is that this attack on Mrs. Clinton was a very stupid thing for the Obama campaign to do for several reasons.

First, Mr. Obama is supposed to be the multicultural candidate in this race. He is supposed to personify the new, mutiracial culture of America. His campaign shouldn't be slinging stuff that looks like the kind of xenophobic stuff produced by candidates on the extreme right and occasionally the Republican Party.

Second, there's no resonance in this attack because few Americans view India or Indian immigrants as some kind of threat. An increasing number of Americans view China that way, but not India. China is a nominally communist, one-party state with a military bracing for conflict with America. India is a democracy that is now viewed as an American ally, particularly with Pakistan looking shakier by the day. Some in the American tech industry are worried about outsourcing to India, but my guess is these people are more likely to wind up in John Edwards's camp than Mr. Obama's.

Third, and probably most damaging, the fact this kind of inflammatory stuff was sent out by Obama's campaign underscores fears that the Illinois senator and his posse are not ready for prime time. This was the kind of thing that any experienced national-level operative would have nixed in an instant. This was not an off the cuff e-mail from a junior staffer, but a carefully researched and formatted oppo release. Either senior-level people approved it, which raises questions about those people, or it was circulated to the national press corps without approval, which suggests a level of internal disorder that is also worrisome.

The demand for a further apology has me thinking about setting up an inadequate apology beat here at the Sun. Just a few days ago, I found myself writing about complaints that an apology from FOX News was insufficiently abject. link
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 06:17 am
re the above, the Chicago Tribune reports today:

Quote:
NATION

CAMPAIGN 2008
Obama backs off harsh memo on Clinton-India ties


By Christi Parsons and John McCormick, Tribune staff reporters: Christi Parsons reported from Washington and John McCormick from Chicago
Published June 19, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that it was "a mistake" for his presidential campaign to issue documents raising questions about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ties to India and to Indian-Americans.

The memo's "caustic tone" and its focus on contributions by Indian-Americans to the Clinton presidential campaign were "potentially hurtful," Obama said in a letter posted on the Web site of South Asians for Obama.

It was the first time Obama remarked publicly about a flare-up last week. The situation was triggered by the distribution of documents to the news media offering a harsh analysis of Clinton and her husband.

One appeared under a headline that said, "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s personal financial and political ties to India."

"In sum, our campaign made a mistake," Obama said in his letter. "Although I was not aware of the contents of the memo prior to its distribution, I consider the entire campaign -- and in particular myself -- responsible for the mistake."

Also on Monday, Obama told editors and reporters with The Des Moines Register that the memo was a "screw-up on the part of our research team," according to the newspaper's Web site.

One political supporter said the statement allayed his concerns.

"Many Indian-Americans support Sen. Obama precisely because he personally embodies the opportunity America offers to people of diverse backgrounds to live up to their talents," said Subodh Chandra, an Indian-American lawyer who is co-hosting a fundraiser for Obama on Tuesday in Cleveland. "We appreciate him reaffirming that his campaign's memo did not reflect his values."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:14 am
Obama screwed up! He can't have it both ways. As president, he can't say, my staff did it. He must take responsibility for whatever happens during the campaign, or trust is not deserved.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:04 pm
What words would have been sufficient to convince you of his taking responsibility?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:07 pm
Hey, if I was a Dumbocrat, I'd vote Obama over Billary any day. But, that ain't gonna happen.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:15 pm
Thank you numbnut gallery., Now go whine about PC police somewhere - no one threatening your guns or being kind to illegals around here....
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:22 pm
Uh, Obama?

Doh!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:43 pm
Obama said up front, he was going to run a "clean" campaign.

Then, we have:
At issue are documents distributed to some news organizations by Obama aides on a not-for-attribution basis that offered a harsh analysis of the Clintons. One appeared under the headline "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s personal financial and political ties to India."

A copy of the documents was obtained by Sen. Clinton's campaign, which then provided them to the Tribune and other news organizations. Obama's campaign confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

Full Article


It's not a matter of any apologies; he has to run a clean campaign, or he's going to play dirty. Ya can't have it both ways. If I have this wrong, please show me how?
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 212
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 08/16/2025 at 04:52:55