Obama '08?

I'll drop it here, Okie. It's clear you won't provide a citation for the statements you say Sharpton and Jackson made.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Lola wrote:
Quote:
How dare Russert or anyone ask an honest question to expect an honest answer from the Clintons! What a novel concept, to ask a question and expect a straight answer from Hillary.

Can you really tell me, oakie that you didn't understand Hillary's response to that question? Careful now, your thinking capabilities are on display. It's a big stretch to say that her answer wasn't honest. It may have been too complicated for some in that it had two parts. Some have trouble understanding a two part answer. Heaven forbid someone should try three. Does it not seem possible to you that some questions are too complicated to answer with a yes or a no. Like, "have you finally stopped beating your wife?" Only a man who had been beating his wife could answer that question with a yes or a no. Surely you can understand the trickiness of Russert's Spitzer question.

The fact that we may rejoice in the possibility that a woman or an African American has a chance to win a presidential race doesn't eliminate the possibility that we also believe they are the best person for the job.

Walter,

Maybe Angela Davis should run for president. But oh dear, her answers have way too many parts. There's no time on TV for deconstructed sentences. Interesting article.

Lola, first of all to clarify, I think you are referring to the question of whether Hillary favors giving drivers licenses to illegals? It is a yes or no question, and she never answered. It is a perfect example of Hillary refusing to answer the question, and even denying what she had just said.

Hopefully, people will get fed up with such spineless politicians that won't take a position, but try to present the image that they are both in favor of and oppose something at the very same time, so that they can appeal to every voter. This is nothing new for Hillary. Take virtually any issue, Iraq for example, she both has favored it and opposed it. I still remember John Kerry voting for something before he voted against it.

Russert is the bad guy I guess for expecting an answer. What an idiot. He just doesn't get it.

People like you are also the bad guys because you have trouble distinguishing between those questions that must contain qualifiers and those that do not. Her answer to the question was "yes" she supported Spitzer, but a simple "yes" answer to that question would have left a false impression on the audience. A debate is not a court of law. Do you really want a leader that cannot, when necessary explain why they do or don't support something? And what would be the purpose of demanding a yes or no answer without more information about why? The questioner, as in the "have you stopped beating your wife" question is attempting to force a false impression on the audience for either political purposes (possibly your motivation) or for the purpose of jazzing up the news for the next few days. Both reasons indicate lack of concern for the truth.

I wonder if the boost in Obama's campaign rather than Edward's (after the debate and the silly controversy) is due to the fact that most voters can see the manipulative intent of the question and they don't want this quality in a leader. If so, good for the electorate. I have tentative restoration of faith in the American people.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I'll drop it here, Okie. It's clear you won't provide a citation for the statements you say Sharpton and Jackson made.

Not only that, but in his "answer" he has made further statements in the form of facts that are in fact his assumptions and opinions without the willingness or ability to substanciate his claims.

0 Replies

So, Thomas, do you deny the situation exists where some have been accused of not being black enough by other blacks, for claiming success on their own merit instead of affirmative action or something? Do you think the term "Poverty Pimps" is a term that has no meaning? I would not care to do a few hours of research for you to educate you on this issue, but here is one that documents the conservative black, J.C. Watts, which seems to have the same opinion that I had the audacity to mention here. This a very commonly mentioned issue, Thomas. It is very real and it does exist in the political scene. How could it have escaped you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n14_v91/ai_19153995

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So, Thomas, do you deny the situation exists where some have been accused of not being black enough by other blacks, for claiming success on their own merit instead of affirmative action or something? Do you think the term "Poverty Pimps" is a term that has no meaning? I would not care to do a few hours of research for you to educate you on this issue, but here is one that documents the conservative black, J.C. Watts, which seems to have the same opinion that I had the audacity to mention here. This a very commonly mentioned issue, Thomas. It is very real and it does exist in the political scene. How could it have escaped you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n14_v91/ai_19153995

Is this also a yes or no question, oakie? Probably in your mind it is. And isn't C.J. Watts a Republican in Oklahoma? A simple yes or no answer will do. Thank you very much.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So, Thomas, do you deny the situation exists where some have been accused of not being black enough by other blacks, for claiming success on their own merit instead of affirmative action or something? Do you think the term "Poverty Pimps" is a term that has no meaning? I would not care to do a few hours of research for you to educate you on this issue, but here is one that documents the conservative black, J.C. Watts, which seems to have the same opinion that I had the audacity to mention here. This a very commonly mentioned issue, Thomas. It is very real and it does exist in the political scene. How could it have escaped you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n14_v91/ai_19153995

How does this prove that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others say that 'becoming successful is not being black'?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
So, Thomas, do you deny the situation exists where some have been accused of not being black enough by other blacks, for claiming success on their own merit instead of affirmative action or something? Do you think the term "Poverty Pimps" is a term that has no meaning? I would not care to do a few hours of research for you to educate you on this issue, but here is one that documents the conservative black, J.C. Watts, which seems to have the same opinion that I had the audacity to mention here. This a very commonly mentioned issue, Thomas. It is very real and it does exist in the political scene. How could it have escaped you?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n14_v91/ai_19153995

How does this prove that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others say that 'becoming successful is not being black'?

What does that sentence mean anyway? Jesse Jackson and Al S. say that an African American cannot be successful? I doubt that.

0 Replies

http://www.newsoxy.com/news/jesse_jackson_obama_is_too_white.html

The issue of being black is defined by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton as being alot more than the color of skin. It has alot to do with politics, and any black that becomes successful and claims to have done it without the social programs central to the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world has strayed off the plantation and have become too white, or not black enough.

Obama is another guy that just might not be black enough, according to some of these guys. He dare not be successful without being part of their agenda, or he might not be black enough.

Hopefully this helps clarify this issue a little more for Thomas, Lola, and Walter. This issue is well known and often discussed in American politics. I would suggest simply monitoring what these people do and say in regard to their agendas and you will begin to see the pattern.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Obama is another guy that just might not be black enough, according to some of these guys.

How conveniently vague.

Call it the Okie method. If you cant back up your prior statement that politician X and Y have said such and so, then just argue that an unspecified, unnamed "some of these guys", who are, somehow (no personal or organisational linkage given) "the likes of" politicians X and Y, have said some unsourced, unquoted thing. And presto, there's your "proof" for your assertion. (In some world.)

0 Replies

nimh, this is not vague, it is a distinct and known phenomena. And if you had read my posts, I did clarify and make clearer what I meant in this previous post of mine.

Quote:

To be more precise, to be successful without crediting socialistic programs or without supporting socialistic programs, such as affirmative action, you are being too white according to some. To say it a different way, being successful and crediting it entirely to individual work and motivation without crediting the race hustlers for their agenda and buying into their agenda is considered being too white. If you are successful and credit their agenda, you will probably be okay. Sorry not to make that distinction and for not being clearer in what I meant.

Thomas was correct in calling me on my original statement that being successful was not being black enough. I clarified what I meant by adding that being successful and not crediting the politically liberal black agenda, as advanced by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, may be too white. I stand by that. I have also talked about Bill Cosby and what he has talked about, that of young black people studying and learning to talk and read adequately so as to be able to succeed. He has talked about this issue as being a social problem among young black people, and he has been castigated for it.

The whole point of this discussion is individual achievement vs achievements of a group, and the Democratic social agenda is driven by groupism, but when any person achieves as an individual, that is what America is about, and some so-called black leaders just don't like that. To prove your blackness, you must buy into their agenda according to them. So to be a conservative black citizen carries with it an additional burden of placing oneself into a position of critiicism.

It yet remains to be seen what Obama does in this regard, he is not fully under the thumbs of the leftist black agenda, but he is sort of riding the fence at this point, or at least he is trying to do that as it appears to me. It will be interesting to see what he does as time passes.

0 Replies

oakie,

You didn't answer my question about whether you understood what Hillary said on the Spitzer question. I'm curious about how many people did. If anyone, including you, feels so inclined, please post an answer to that question.

0 Replies

Lola, I already explained how I perceived Hillary's answer, not perhaps how you perceive it. Maybe you can attempt to explain how her answer makes sense. I think I know how she was attempting to triangulate her answer, perhaps you think her tactic is legitimate, I don't think so, but I am interested in your explanation.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, I think she's trying to have it both ways -- much as she did with the original immigration question -- and so I agree with some of what she says, but not the rest of it. (She talked about "piling on" and complained about the debate before saying more modulated things at Wellesley.)

And Ferraro is very much involved in Hillary's campaign, which is why I said "Hillary's camp."

It looks like we agree that Ferraro's comments were ill-advised or at least wrong.

soz and all

Please take a look at this exceptional bit of analysis by Susan Faludi...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174860

0 Replies

That's hard to read, is scanning like blither.

I'll try it again when I'm less grumpy.

0 Replies

Quote:

She doesn't think giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers is the best way to handle the situation. But given that this administration has been so very negligent in matters on immigration, it's the only short term thing to do in New York.

I've copied this from my first post in recent months. It's on page 115, if you'd like to see for yourself. I don't know what you mean by triangulate. How could you miss this meaning? If you mean that you don't like her answer or that you don't agree with her answer, that's one thing. But how could you not understand? I think a lot of people have equated not understanding what she meant with not agreeing somehow. Do you not agree with her point that the Federal government hasn't done enough to address the question? Or that Spitzer's stop gap plan is not a good one? Let me know. Thanks

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
She doesn't think giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers is the best way to handle the situation. But given that this administration has been so very negligent in matters on immigration, it's the only short term thing to do in New York.

I've copied this from my first post in recent months. It's on page 115, if you'd like to see for yourself. I don't know what you mean by triangulate. How could you miss this meaning? If you mean that you don't like her answer or that you don't agree with her answer, that's one thing. But how could you not understand? I think a lot of people have equated not understanding what she meant with not agreeing somehow. Do you not agree with her point that the Federal government hasn't done enough to address the question? Or that Spitzer's stop gap plan is not a good one? Let me know. Thanks

I agree that the federal govt hasnt done enough, but why are you blaming this admin alone?
What did she and her husband do during the 8 years they were co-presidents?
The problem has existed for a long time, it didnt just start in 2001.

And if you give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, what will stop them, under the "motor voter" law, from registering to vote?
After all, the people at the DL offices dont ask for anything that shows you are a US citizen, they trust you to be honest.

And there is the problem, illegals should NOT be allowed to get a license, that way they cant register to vote.

0 Replies

I reckon Hillary, like most politicians, realizes that giving driver's licences to illegal immigrants is not a popular notion. Does that mean they won't drive?
So one of them slams into your car. You are out of luck.
In my state, if you get a license and you can't prove you have insurance, you have to pay into an uninsured motorists fund. Then, if you get slammed into, there is a pool of money to try to make you whole.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
She doesn't think giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers is the best way to handle the situation. But given that this administration has been so very negligent in matters on immigration, it's the only short term thing to do in New York.

I've copied this from my first post in recent months. It's on page 115, if you'd like to see for yourself. I don't know what you mean by triangulate. How could you miss this meaning? If you mean that you don't like her answer or that you don't agree with her answer, that's one thing. But how could you not understand? I think a lot of people have equated not understanding what she meant with not agreeing somehow. Do you not agree with her point that the Federal government hasn't done enough to address the question? Or that Spitzer's stop gap plan is not a good one? Let me know. Thanks

I thought that was the spin. But giving drivers licenses is just the opposite of not doing enough, it is capitulating even more, so the two sets of circumstances are diametrically opposing each other. It is not a reasonable stopgap plan. The reasoning is not logical in my opinion, and most people see it for what it is, that Hillary is contradicting herself and refusing to give a straight answer. It is triangulation, which is SOP with Hillary, and she does it on many issues. I've already cited Iraq as another example where she has taken both sides of the issue at various times, but insists that she has not contradicted herself. It is Clintonian or Clintonesque. Interesting these new terms are now gaining usage.

And I agree with MM. Bill Clinton did nothing significant in regard to illegal immigration, and Hillary would only do anything in that regard if she became convinced that it would help her election chances, not because she believed anything.

0 Replies

Faludi says nothing about Ferraro. Perhaps Ferraro acted completely independently -- it's possible. It's not my impression, but I don't have enough evidence to make a conclusive claim. It's the NYT article with Ferraro's out-there quotes that got a lot of reaction, though. That and Bill's dark mutterings about Swiftboating.

Plus there were her own dark mutterings right after the debate, about Chris Matthews and then "piling on."

I think all this stuff added up. I don't think the Wellesley comments were the center of it, as Faludi implies.

Note, I don't think any of this is a huge deal. One of the few missteps I've seen from her campaign, though, and I do think that cumulatively it's a misstep.

0 Replies

mysteryman, oakie and others,

I fear we've moved far afield of the subject of this thread. Surely there must be another thread where this question is being debated. If so, please let me know because I'm supposed to studying for an evil test coming up on Tuesday and I can't search right now. My writing here is serving as the much needed break from study I've been advised to take.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

I agree that the federal govt hasnt done enough, but why are you blaming this admin alone?
What did she and her husband do during the 8 years they were co-presidents?
The problem has existed for a long time, it didnt just start in 2001.

I don't believe Hillary said who in the federal government is responsible, had she been asked, she might have had an answer to that question. I certainly haven't expressed my own opinion on that point.

However, my point, which is within the boundaries covered by this topic, is that it wasn't that she wasn't understood by Edwards, Dodd, Russert, Mathews, mysteryman, oakie or any of the other news personalities, but rather that the question was asked and later used as a vehicle to demonstrate that Hillary doesn't answer with straight talk.

She did answer the question. Only the most dull of person could have not understood the answer. Both mysteryman and oakie admit that they understood her answer. But because she refused to answer it yes or no, but rather answered with a yes and an explanation, those who feel they have something to gain have distorted her response, notably on the Edwards ad, for their own political purposes.

I don't object to using whatever can be used for political purposes, but it was so obviously grasping for a straw on which to attack Hillary, my intelligence is insulted and so should any other thinking person who witnessed the spectacle. If they want to challenge her, find something of substance. Surely it's not all that hard. And if it is, that's a recommendation for her candidacy, not a point against her.

I respect Obama, btw because he didn't jump into the mud hole with the rest of the farm animals and roll around in it. Had he done so, I would be disappointed in him. He'll likely be president someday, unless some unforseen tragedy takes place. My marks for Obama are still very high.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know