Obama '08?

I guess Kucinich never forgave Edwards for trying (or seeming to try) to throw lesser candidates like him out of the debates last summer...

0 Replies

Yeah. Or, maybe he thinks Obama is the most progressive of the front-runners.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah. Or, maybe he thinks Obama is the most progressive of the front-runners.

Always a possibility...

(Do you think Obama has a more progressive platform than Edwards?)

I just remember that last time, Kucinich recommended his voters to go for Edwards as second choice. Even though Edwards was hardly the most progressive front-runner at the time - both Dean and Gephardt ran clearly to his left.

But Edwards did spend a lot of personal attention on Kucinich and his supporters back then, with an eye on those second preferences. Apparently, with Kucinich the personal counts. It's my bet that in the same way, Edwards trying to push him out of the debates - which are pretty much the lifeblood if not the raison d'etre of Kucinich's whole campaign - has left some serious bad blood.

In politics, the personal counts more than you'd like..

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

(Do you think Obama has a more progressive platform than Edwards?)

I created a new thread: 2008: Who's the most progressive presidential candidate?

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Blatham - isn't it a bit early in your time zone for that punch bowl?! You posted link to Pipes twice....not that I would miss either him or the other clown if I never read them again >

Quote:
Reza Aslan | It'll take more than skin color and a dream to repair America's image in the Middle East.

> very happy new year to you, Lola, family, and everyone else here!

Just saw this now. Best wishes returned.

0 Replies

Arrgh.. the smear that just wont die:

Quote:

That Muslim Smear

One unexpected thing happened at the Clinton event I described below: I chatted with a woman from nearly Millersburg, who looked to be in her late sixties, and who plans to caucus. She'd been undecided before seeing Bill tonight but is now backing Hillary. "He made me believe all the things that I've sort of been questioning about," she said with a charmed smile.

Then I asked her what her friends and neighbors are saying about the other candidates. She said there was a lot of debate and indecision, and that people have concerns about each candidates' particular weaknesses. Specifically, she said some people are "worried" about Obama's race, and whether it might make him unelectable. She continued:

"That, and the fact that he's a Muslim," she said, without a trace of irony or guile. "That's where we got all our problems from."

"Do you really believe it's a fact that he's a Muslim?" I asked. "Because it's not true."

"Well, that's what I've heard," she replied, seemingly unfazed.

The woman gave me her name, but I'm withholding it here because I don't think she means to be spreading a crude smear.

--Michael Crowley

0 Replies

A healthy reminder that stupidhood successfully bridges the partisan divide.

0 Replies

blatham
The question" whether he is or isn't a Moslem still persists with many. Those who have any doubt what so ever will be reluctant to vote for Obama.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

blatham
The question" whether he is or isn't a Moslem still persists with many. Those who have any doubt what so ever will be reluctant to vote for Obama.

What will it take to convince people that they are incorrect?

0 Replies

Why does it persist?

I can't figure it out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Innuendo that points to fear is an effective tool for those who are less than likely to check on the facts which, unfortunately, is probably a majority of the voting public.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

blatham
The question" whether he is or isn't a Moslem still persists with many. Those who have any doubt what so ever will be reluctant to vote for Obama.

There will always be erroneous ideas about the candidates in any election whether by accident or by design. Correcting such ideas is an electoral/educational challenge that any candidacy faces. I've no reason to conclude that this particular example poses anything near to an insurmountable obstacle to an Obama win in a general.

In fact, if handled properly (easier said than done), this particular smear could be wielded as an educational/electoral tool such that the true nature of the modern conservative movement's honesty, ethics and integrity are yet more clearly comprehended by american citizens.

Which, unfortunately, brings up the reality that a number of NR readers/posters in that thread nimh posted seems content to lay the smear at the feet of Hillary's campaign. And that tosses me into one of those moods where I begin thinking, as I do with Israelis and Palestinians now and again, "Let the dumb phucks just go ahead and do each other in. Anyone so stupid deserves little better."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why does it persist?

I can't figure it out.

Cycloptichorn

cyclo

There's a lot of good modern work that has been done on this question. Drew Westen and George Lakoff are, I think, indispensible to understanding the phenomenon. I highly recommend (to everyone) "What Orwell Didn't Know" edited by Andras Szanto.

For a taste of Westen... http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586484257

Lakoff... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3114412735990235786

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why does it persist?

I can't figure it out.

Cycloptichorn

Some people think it gives them an excuse not to vote for someone other than a Christian white male.

Some other people are smart enough to know this and exploit it.

0 Replies

Yeah, I know - but it's just not based in reality at all. Might as well accuse him of being a Martian.

I think it's the substitute for attacking his race, honestly. It's a lot more politically correct to hate on the muslim man these days.

Thanks Blatham, nice pieces.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Could be. It is what explains the persistent pollsters asking questions in the Black communities such as "Do you fear Obama will be assassinated if elected president?" and the responsive whispers amongst those potential supporters of needing to protect him by not voting for him.

Subtle threats and fear of racism are also at work there and all it took was one innocent sounding question.

That's what is so special about the Obama campaign. People of all walks of life have tossed aside those various fears and are couragously standing with Obama.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think it's the substitute for attacking his race, honestly. It's a lot more politically correct to hate on the muslim man these days.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Which is sad..

0 Replies

yup

0 Replies

I'm sure most of us have seen the op ed in the NY Times today written by Kean and Hamilton on the matter of the interrogation tapes and the ommission of this information from data given to the 9/11 commission. Kean and Hamilton, chairs of the bypartisan commission charge obstruction... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

For more, Glenn Greenwald... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/obstruction/

The reason I bring this matter up here is to further press the notion, forwarded most publicly by Krugman in his columns, blog and recent book, that we will be naive in the extreme if we hope or assume that some magical bipartisan near-future awaits us.

0 Replies

What I don't understand is this:

Bush swore upon confirmation to become president that he will uphold the laws and Constitution of the US.

He has broken our laws (illegal wiretaps) and the Constituion - in addition to UN and Geneva Conventions; why aren't any charges made against him?

Does this set a precedence for future presidents? Can they also break our laws and the Constitution without fear of criminal charges?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know