nimh
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:03 am
spendius wrote:
nimh- your out of it mate. Go to bed.

Hey, at least I'm back in it again the next morning..
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:14 am
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:36 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
yes indeed, now the Clintons are racists all of a sudden. What a laugh....


The comments both of the Clintons made, could be taken as such, but I think were made out of frustration, that he beat Hillary in Iowa. The results, in NH, are questionable, due to the polling, but hey, did the media get it wrong? Who knows? Racists? No, I think they are pissed, is all! Obama ia a real threat now and you even have Gloria Steinem, spewing femininity, over race! Gimme a break! Would she be screaming, if it were Condi Rice? :wink: :wink: :wink:
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:40 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
On MSNBC, Jonah Goldberg claimed "you can draw a line" from Mussolini to Clinton and Obama
Summary: Discussing his most recent book on MSNBC's Morning Joe, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said that Benito Mussolini is tied to the American liberal movement because he "was a socialist." When co-host Joe Scarborough asked whether he was suggesting "you can draw a line from Mussolini" to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or to Sen. Barack Obama, Goldberg replied, "Well, I'm saying you can draw a line, but it's not a straight one."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100016?f=h_side

Goldberg is, of course, the son of Lucianne Goldberg, literary agent for Linda Tripp, both of whom worked with (among many others) Ann Coulter in the project to remove Clinton from office.

What Goldberg is attempting to do with this book is to rewrite or reframe history so as to recast 'liberalism' (the conservative movement's propaganda definition of liberalism, that is) as aligned with the totalitarian regimes of the last century and to try and separate such totalitarianism so that it is no longer identified with the right. It's really the same goal or strategy that Coulter uses, eg trying to reframe Joe McCarthy as a freedom fighter who has suffered unjust slights to his heroic and angelic reputation from the liberals.

And this guy has a regular column at the LA Times.


Goldberg is, of course, the son of Lucianne Goldberg, literary agent for Linda Tripp, both of whom worked with (among many others) Ann Coulter in the project to remove Clinton from office.


Oh brother! A closet racist, if I ever saw one! Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:42 am
if the polling results are screwy, how exactly does that make the vote count wrong?
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:44 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
if the polling results are screwy, how exactly does that make the vote count wrong?


After 2000, anything is possible. With Diebold, "fixing" the machines, even more, so! :wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:07 am
blatham wrote:
I don't know if there is a more astute observer working in the political press today than Frank Rich. Sunday's column is extraordinarily sharp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Actually it was an interesting and meaningful article, one that encapsules a significant part of the Hillary-Obama divide. A bit partisan perhaps, but no more than is required to capture Bernie's attention.

For me it is the devil you know vs the one you don't know, and that perspective too is captured by the piece.

Off to Washington this AM - snow & rain. ugh!
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 10:33 am
Could Mr Obama, simply by dint of being black and having lived in Muslim Indonesia for six years as a boy, really change America's international image so easily?
He would get a hero's welcome, of course—but the next president will get that whoever he or she is, simply for not being George Bush and not having made such a hash of Iraq.
Thereafter, America will be judged on its actions, not its words.
For instance, Mr Obama shows no particular sign of being able to reconcile the need to end the occupation of Iraq with the need to avoid the disaster that a power vacuum in the heart of the Middle East would cause.
Tell us more, said many voters in New Hampshire: to that extent, they were right to deny him certain nomination.

Mrs Clinton, however, also has work to do—much more work than simply mentioning “change” a lot. New Hampshire, after all, is a bedrock of Clintonism: had she lost there, she would have been in dire straits in Nevada, which votes on January 19th, and especially in South Carolina, which votes on January 26th, and where around half the Democratic primary electorate is black. Super Tuesday, when 22 states are to vote, might have been her last stand. Now, after this political near-death, she is back where she started—in the lead. One has to hope, however, that she has learnt a few lessons.

These begin with the idea that it is not enough to exude competence and reel off endless policy proposals.
She must learn poetry from Mr Obama, just as he needs to learn prose from her.
She needs to listen to voters, not talk at them.
Above all, she has to shed that sense of wounded entitlement that has bedevilled her campaign; she has to show that the Clintons are not yesterday's people.
Her problem is not just that Mr Obama could still catch her; she has reminded many Americans how divisive a politician she is.
If she wins the primaries, it may be only because core Democratic groups (trade unions, the uneducated, the poor, the old) rallied to her side.
And a nomination does not a president make.
http://economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10497371
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 11:16 am
Lots of interesting Obama endorsements lately -- Kerry*, Ned Lamont, Janet Napolitano, Ben Nelson, etc. Claire McCaskill's today is especially interesting though, I think.


Quote:
McCaskill, who was elected to the Senate two years after Obama, in 2006, said she is backing him because he has proven to be a leader willing to work with both sides of the political aisle.

"I have kind of staked a tent in the middle ground and with some frequency I ran into Barack Obama there," she said. "As I worked with him trying to find a way to get past the partisan food fight, I realized this was an extraordinary leader."

McCaskill said she has quickly found Washington a disappointing place.

"You don't have to be there very long at all to realize that it is broken," she said. "I have been frustrated and disappointed and some times, actually depressed, over the inability of people in Washington to talk with each other about public policy and not just focus on partisan politics."

McCaskill also sought to dispel the notion that Obama is nothing more than a gifted speaker.

"There is no question that he is truly gift by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them. But for me, that is the whipped cream and the cherry," she said. "For me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft. He is a very smart guy with a wise soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems."

McCaskill suggested that waiting to elect Obama so that he could gain more experience carries more risk than reward.

"I honestly believe that only once in a generation does a leader come along that has that particular gift and I think it would be a terrible disappointment to our country if we didn't grab this opportunity right now," she said. "I get 'the fierce urgency of now.' I feel it in my bones and I believe this is an extraordinary man at an extraordinary time in history and we must take advantage of his gifts for the benefit of our country and the benefit of the world."

She later added: "If he were to wait and run later, I don't know that he would be capable of the kind of boldness and the kind of willingness to step places that haven't been stepped before. I think he's important that he is where he is in his career to take on this important responsibility."

McCaskill stressed that endorsing Obama was not an easy decision.

"I have deep respect for Hillary Clinton. She is a smart woman. She is a strong leader," she said. "But at this moment in history, it is very important that we look forward with a kind of optimism and hope that we have not been able to gin up in this country for a while."

McCaskill said she respects Obama because he has not resorted to "winning by making the other guy look bad."


http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/

More in that blog on the interesting back and forth re: Hillary's comments about how MLK may have had the lofty rhetoric but it was Johnson who actually got things done (paraphrase). She said it, she got in trouble for it, she blamed Obama for the fact that she got in trouble for it, and Obama responds to that pretty well I think:

Quote:
"This is, you know, fascinating to me. I think what we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play," Obama said. "Look, Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about Dr. King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that it somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing, is ludicrous."



*Re: Kerry, I was kind of eh about the endorsement itself, and winced a bit at photos of Obama and Kerry campaigning together, but one big plus in terms of a national campaign is Kerry's Rolodex. He's the most recent Democratic presidential nominee, and has some serious resources. That's good.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 11:34 am
Despite building his campaign around the theme of “change you can believe in,” there are serious questions regarding how much real change there would be under an Obama presidency regarding the U.S. role in the Middle East. While an Obama administration would certainly be an improvement over the current one, he may well turn out to be quite sincere in taking some of the more hard-line positions he has advocated regarding Iran, Israel, and Iraq.

However, many are holding out hope that, as president, Obama would be more progressive than he is letting on and that he would take bolder initiatives to shift U.S. policy in the region further away from its current militaristic orientation than he may feel comfortable advocating as a candidate. Indeed, given how even the hawkish John Kerry was savaged by the right-wing over his positions on Middle East security issues during his bid for the presidency, the threat of such attacks could be enough to have given Senator Obama pause in making more direct challenges to the status quo during the campaign. In other words, he could be open to more rational and creative approaches to the Middle East once in office.

The Illinois Senator’s intelligence and independent-mindedness, combined with what’s at stake, offers some hope that at least for pragmatic reasons–if not moral and legal ones–a future President Obama would have the sense to recognize that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become. He would perhaps also recognize that arms control and nonproliferation efforts are more likely to succeed if they are based on universal, law-based principles rather than unilateral demands and threats based upon specific countries’ relationship with the United States. And that exercising American “leadership” requires a greater awareness of the needs and perceptions of affected populations.

Most importantly, given that the strength of the anti-war movement brought Obama to his position as a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, just such a popular outpouring can also prevent him from further backsliding in the face of powerful interests that wish to see U.S. policy continue its dangerous course. Those who support peace and human rights in the Middle East and beyond must be willing to challenge him–as both a candidate and as a possible future president–for advocating immoral or illegal policies that compromise the security and human rights of people in the region and here in the United States.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/11/6312/
Believe me please.
He is making field work for the next election.
He will go out of picutre within two months.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 03:16 pm
kickycan wrote:
I got an e-mail today that shows exactly what he's on about, spendius. At least according to the nutball wing of the kickycan family.

Here, check it out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is Barack Obama?

<snip>

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out,
what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


and it that approach doesn't work, this is coming down the pike as well

Can An American President Be A Muslim Apostate?

Quote:

<snip>

True, most of us, as children, are guided by our parents in the ways of religion, taking up the faiths of our mothers and fathers, but a choice later in life to deviate from their religious beliefs does not nullify the fact that we once attended the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. sanctioned by our parents. To this extent, Barack Obama did practice Islam and was subjected to the fundamental tenets of the ideology.

This fundamental truth is important for at least a few different reasons. Fundamentalist Islamists, radical Islamists, Wahhabists, believe, among other things, that :

▪ When one is born of Muslim parents they are Muslim

▪ Everyone who does not embrace Islam is a non-believer and thus, is an enemy to Allah, his Prophet and believers

▪ Should one leave the faith of Islam they are considered an apostate, a denier of the Koran, and should be killed

When you acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama was brought to mosque to practice Islam as a child and that he was born of a father that was Muslim, in the eyes of Wahhabists and Islamist fundamentalists he is considered an apostate. Under fundamentalist Islamic dogma -- Wahhabi dogma -- he is considered an enemy of Allah, his Prophet and believers. In the world of radical Islamists, Barack Obama is the worst kind of infidel -- a traitor -- and should be killed.

This is pretty bad news for Barack Obama. Not only does he have Hillary Clinton "gunning" for him -- which can be dangerous in and of itself -- he has the entire radical Islamist world looking to kill him -- by fatwa, by religious edict, not because of his politics, but because he is a Muslim apostate.

<snip>

Barack Obama's political credentials for the office of President of the United States may very well be debatable. But the fact of the matter -- as dictated by fundamentalist Islamic ideology, by fatwa and by the Koran -- is that Barack Obama's credibility and status within the Muslim world is already diminished. And the United States cannot afford a leader of limited potency as we battle the war against radical Islamist aggression.


Now it would be better if he was/is Muslim?

Those 501(c)'s are charming.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 04:28 pm
link
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 04:44 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
BET Founder Slams Obama in South Carolina
By Katharine Q. Seelye

Yikes. Read the article and just, yikes.

This is getting very ugly very quickly.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 04:48 pm
Yikes, ehBeth.

blueflame, yeah, I saw that. Whew.

This stuff is dangerous. I don't think the Clintons are racist by the way, I think that they each have said unwise things. I think the stuff coming from Clinton about blaming Obama for Brazile's, Clyburn's and others' objections is also unwise. I think Obama's been handling it fine, but I think it's very risky, and I think a comment that puts him entirely above the fray, a la his comment on Biden during one of the debates, would be both in character and a good way out of this mess. It runs the risk of turning off SC black voters, but I think he can do it.

Just catching up on my Sunday NYT reading, two other goodies in addition to the Frank Rich column:

Rights vs. Rights: An Improbable Collision Course
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/weekinreview/13leibovich.html

I don't subscribe to the idea that it's more important to vote in a white woman as president or more important to vote in a black man -- as opposed to voting in the single person who is best for the job. But, since that's been talked about a lot, I really appreciated this fresh perspective from Lorrie Moore. Excerpt (really recommend reading the whole thing):

Quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13moore.html

Oh and when I was finding those I just found this update:

Quote:


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 04:53 pm
Here's what the guy said btw:

Quote:
"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -­ and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -­ when they have been involved."


So (re: his disclaimer), he was contrasting Hillary's work on behalf of abused women and children with -- Obama's time as a community organizer? Does that make any sense?

Yikes yet again.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:06 pm
Meanwhile there's lots of dead in Iraq for no good reason. That's a crime.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:30 pm
I'm just waiting for this all to get a little closer to the edge and then I'm announcing my candidacy as an Independent.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:49 pm
sozobe wrote:
Lots of interesting Obama endorsements lately -- Kerry*, Ned Lamont, Janet Napolitano, Ben Nelson, etc. Claire McCaskill's today is especially interesting though, I think.


Interesting take on the spate of Obama endorsements from Josh Marshall:

Quote:
Endorsements don't usually count for much. But if they're big enough and come at critical moments they can count for a lot. And this string of endorsements Obama has picked up since his narrow defeat in New Hampshire four days ago is, I believe, a major story that has not gotten the attention it deserves.

Since losing the New Hampshire primary four days ago, Obama has been endorsed by Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ). Additionally, he's also been endorsed by Rep. Miller (D-CA), Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Ned Lamont. But they're in a slightly different category and it's the first four I want to discuss.

The first of these came from Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) who put out word he'd be endorsing Obama the day after New Hampshire. Johnson is a protege of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). And Daschle has close ties to Obama [..]. So when I saw word of the endorsement I figured this was something Daschle or his former staffers had helped put together [..].

But now you have three others -- Nelson, Napolitano and McCaskill. Nelson and Johnson are from very red states while Napolitano and McCaskill are from swing states.

Now, there are a bunch of things you can draw from this spate of endorsements. [T]hese are people from either very conservative or somewhat conservative states. Despite the fact that Obama is running in some ways to the right of Clinton (at least tonally, as the candidate of unity and bipartisan reconcilation), there are still a lot of questions inevitably being asked about whether the country is 'ready' for Obama, whether that's his race, his name, his background in community organizing, his youth, etc. So these folks think America's ready; in fact, more ready than they are for Hillary.

But that isn't the biggest significance. The key is timing. You don't hit a big time politician like Hillary Clinton when she's down unless you're really against her and you're fairly confident she's not getting back up. After winning in New Hampshire, albeit narrowly and after the clobbering in Iowa, there's been a sense that Clinton may be back on track to consolidating her frontrunner status and perhaps following a modified version of the standard script in which the anointed frontrunner gets a scare in the early states before mopping up the competition as the race goes national. But these four clearly don't want that to happen. In fact, they're sticking their necks pretty far out to help make it not happen. And their endorsements, coming right now, tell me they have some confidence it won't.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:51 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Meanwhile there's lots of dead in Iraq for no good reason. That's a crime.


Haven't you heard? We're bringing democracy to Iraq, we're making progress, and the hell with all those innocent Iraqi dead and maimed - and those orphaned children - many of them starving. No sacrifice is too great for America and Americans - even while our economy sputters.
0 Replies
 
lmur
 
  1  
Sun 13 Jan, 2008 05:58 pm
nimh wrote:
Interesting take on the spate of Obama endorsements

Quote:
Since losing the New Hampshire primary four days ago, Obama has been endorsed by ...... Miller .....


Hehhehheh
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 343
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 07:12:04