Obama '08?

Blatham, Homer would be beaming at Bart right now, because of your compliment on his volcabulary. :wink:

Obama's campaign responded later Monday to Clinton's attack, calling it a "false attempt to misrepresent" him.

"Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" spokesman Bill Burton said in a release. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obamas full disclosure of
his campaign finances.

"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment -- by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husbands presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public -- she's not really in a position to point fingers at others."

In regard to Obama, I think the Democratic Party power structure loves him as long as he toes the line and fulfills their purposes of using him, but I think you are correct that certain party leaders are not going to go quietly and turn over the party baton to Obama. I'm talking about the Clintons and a few others. One could chalk it up to inexperience and so forth, but I think there is more to it than that in the Democratic Party.

Lola wrote:

And I think you're too harsh with Soz. It's wrong I think to assume that Soz is not aware enough to recognize which part her bias plays in her support of Obama and to temper her opinion with this knowledge.

Oh, absolutely. It's true that I'm harsh, and Sozobe did agree with the sports team analogy earlier if my memory serves. But I'll be damned if I let fairness get between me and the making of a point.

Well Thomas, if the sports analogy is correct then that means you and I are streaking at halftime.

I'd like to, but I don't quite have the figure for running naked through a public place.

But what about that ref! What a bastard!

FreeDuck wrote:

Well Thomas, if the sports analogy is correct then that means you and I are streaking at halftime.

I'd like to, but I don't quite have the figure for running naked through a public place.

As Soz says, she likes Obama. I like him too. I like them all. But as Thomas has pointed out, gut feelings are not the only and certainly not the best basis on which to make a final choice. On the other hand, gut feelings should not be completely discounted either. But when we consider our feelings about candidates, it's important to look for bias. We all have at least one.

I've been way busy, saw this when I was too busy to respond, and I see it's kind of been picked up in another way later....

Lola wrote:

As Soz says, she likes Obama. I like him too. I like them all. But as Thomas has pointed out, gut feelings are not the only and certainly not the best basis on which to make a final choice. On the other hand, gut feelings should not be completely discounted either. But when we consider our feelings about candidates, it's important to look for bias. We all have at least one.

I think this is a pretty major misrepresentation about what I've said about liking Obama. I took notice, and researched -- and the more I researched, the more impressed I became. When I talked about gut feelings, it was about how impressed I was at his ability to make a positive impression on people I wouldn't expect him to make a positive impression on. I mentioned Illinois farmers for a reason. If there is one point to which my conversion from "looks like an interesting politician" to "this guy has something special!" can be traced, it's probably a New Yorker article from 2004, describing Obama's senatorial campaign and the kind of support he got, how he got that support, and from which quarters. The fact that a whole bunch of white Illinois farmers were supporting this black, Harvard-educated, weird-named candidate was really striking.

I do cheer politicians in much the same way I cheer favorite sports teams... and in the same way that I cheer littlek accomplishing her goals in becoming a teacher. The commonality is not how I decide to support an entity... it's that once I do decide for whatever combination of reasons to lend my support, I tend to do so loudy and wholeheartedly.

That said, as I pointed out earlier, my support for Obama is not unconditional. If something happens that proves that he is not worthy of my support, or that someone else is worthier, I will change my affiliation. But until that point, sure, I'd probably react similarly on a superficial level if the Packers win the Super Bowl or if Obama wins the presidency -- even if the scales are far different.

I've been way busy, saw this when I was too busy to respond, and I see it's kind of been picked up in another way later....

As Soz says, she likes Obama. I like him too. I like them all. But as Thomas has pointed out, gut feelings are not the only and certainly not the best basis on which to make a final choice. On the other hand, gut feelings should not be completely discounted either. But when we consider our feelings about candidates, it's important to look for bias. We all have at least one.

sozobe wrote:

I've been way busy, saw this when I was too busy to respond, and I see it's kind of been picked up in another way later....

I obviously didn't make it explicit enough, but I started with Lola's comments and then segued into Thomas'.

Lola, what WERE you saying if not that I was making my choice of Obama based on my own gut feelings and the fact that I like him; and that doing so is not the best basis on which to make a final choice?

Again:

Lola wrote:

As Soz says, she likes Obama. I like him too. I like them all. But as Thomas has pointed out, gut feelings are not the only and certainly not the best basis on which to make a final choice. On the other hand, gut feelings should not be completely discounted either. But when we consider our feelings about candidates, it's important to look for bias. We all have at least one.