Obama '08?

blah blah blah and......

more blah blah blah

What I want to know is who's going to save us from the military (financial) industrial complex now? I would rather vote for someone who has proven herself over several decades than for one who promises some nebulus naive "hope" with no content. It wasn't long ago that Hillary was the darling of the young, old, black and white democrats. How times have changed. Fair weather friends I call them. If Obama is the candidate, I may not stay home on election day, but I'm sending no money to his campaign or the DNC.

I'm really tired of being told by the press that the Clintons are controlling and that Bill has gone "too far" while Obama gets away with playing the hurt, innocent do-gooder who just wants to get along. Nobody is that clean and if they are, I don't trust em.

0 Replies

I don't expect anybody running for president is "clean." That would be unrealistic; that's like wishing for our personal ideal to run for the office which isn't gonna happen. A test I took several years ago showed my political phiolosophy to be close to Kucinich, but I'm not throwing my vote away on principles - like I've done in my younger days.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

blah blah blah and......

I'm really tired of being told by the press that the Clintons are controlling and that Bill has gone "too far" while Obama gets away with playing the hurt, innocent do-gooder who just wants to get along. Nobody is that clean and if they are, I don't trust em.

Lola, I think that the truth is that all of the candidates (and all of us) tend to play the cards they were dealt.

The Clintons are very adept political tacticians, and, as a pair, have options to be in two places at once, both geographically and in terms of their political rhetoric. Clearly Bill's aggressive role in the South carolina campaign enabled the pair to say things that - had Hillary herself said them - would have hurt their campaign. From their perspective it was a good use of their assets.

Obama emphasizes that he represents something new - refreshing for those weary of the political infighting; uniting for those weary of strife and division; and even something above the serious international conflicts we face, for those fearful of these threats. This too makes a virtue of what some might call his defects in terms of experience - and he has the eloquence required to make this rather audacious proposition believable. This too is a good use of his assets.

The virtue of our over long, over expensive, and often tiresome campaign process is that it often (not always) exposes a good deal of the real truth about the candidates.

Right now both the Democrat & Republican contests are horseraces between the leading two candidates. Overall I would say that on both sides the right candidates have - so far - been eliminated. What will come, we shall see. The really interesting aspect of all this is that the Republicans actually have a good chance to wiun in 2008. :wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

blah blah blah and......

more blah blah blah

What I want to know is who's going to save us from the military (financial) industrial complex now? I would rather vote for someone who has proven herself over several decades than for one who promises some nebulus naive "hope" with no content. It wasn't long ago that Hillary was the darling of the young, old, black and white democrats. How times have changed. Fair weather friends I call them. If Obama is the candidate, I may not stay home on election day, but I'm sending no money to his campaign or the DNC.

I'm really tired of being told by the press that the Clintons are controlling and that Bill has gone "too far" while Obama gets away with playing the hurt, innocent do-gooder who just wants to get along. Nobody is that clean and if they are, I don't trust em.

An insightful and articulate analysis of the candidates and the campaign issues of the day. So well thought out and solidly supportable with unbiased fact.

Laughing

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

What I want to know is who's going to save us from the military (financial) industrial complex now?

Were you thinking this would be Hillary? What in her record suggests to you that she is willing to stand up to this industry?

0 Replies

Ain't seen nut'n yet.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

blah blah blah and......

more blah blah blah

What I want to know is who's going to save us from the military (financial) industrial complex now? I would rather vote for someone who has proven herself over several decades than for one who promises some nebulus naive "hope" with no content. It wasn't long ago that Hillary was the darling of the young, old, black and white democrats. How times have changed. Fair weather friends I call them. If Obama is the candidate, I may not stay home on election day, but I'm sending no money to his campaign or the DNC.

I'm really tired of being told by the press that the Clintons are controlling and that Bill has gone "too far" while Obama gets away with playing the hurt, innocent do-gooder who just wants to get along. Nobody is that clean and if they are, I don't trust em.

Two thoughts:

First off, Hillary has taken more donations and held more fund-raisers for those very companies which represent the military-industrial complex then either of her opponents. By far. She's also the candidate most likely to prolong the Iraq war, per her own statements. So I don't really understand your logic.

Second, Hillary ran a very, very clean campaign - right up until the moment when Obama looked like an actual challenge. Then the knives came out. Many Democrats have reacted badly to this, and you call them 'fair-weather friends' for reacting like that? I have a hard time understanding that logic. You don't see Obama out there smearing Hillary for being a woman but her and Bill sure as hell are smearing him for being black. You don't seem to believe he has a right to be upset about being smeared unfairly. Would you be happier if he simply started bringing up her past, over and over? It would be appropriate.

Third, you state that you wouldn't trust a clean candidate. To me, this is in essence a large part of Obama's message when he says he's fighting against the idea that the ends justify the means, and the idea that you have to get dirty to win.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
Plus, was there even any American on this thread who made that connection?
Both BpB and Maporsche alluded to similar spooky feelings.

Neither said or implied anything about Hitler or any resemblance to him or his appeal. So your whole comment there was just off.
Whatever. Thomas couldn't have been any clearer. You think he made his comments in a vacuum?

Dude, take a minute to actually read the posts you're responding to, please? Look in the bit quoted from me right above: "was there even any American on this thread who made that connection?" American.

Thomas was the only one who made that connection. He's not American, and I think that given to where he's coming from - and any place in Europe would qualify, really - it should be understandable that we can be a bit instinctively hesitant about a certain kind of audience response, when we're witnessing the appeal of charisma.

Neither BpB or Maporsche, however, made any kind of connection with Hitler or Nazis or anything like that - (now Jesus, he was mentioned) - so you were just flat out wrong to say so. And even Thomas's point was hardly "Great Speaker = Hitler-Danger", hello.

Damn it Nimh. This is stupid anyway, but you are wrong. I shouldn't have to go back 18 pages to prove to you that I do "take a minute to actually read the posts you're responding to". You're usually more careful than this... but you've missed plenty here.
A. I've repeatedly given Thomas a pass for the reasons you alluded to and the fact that I respect him a lot.
B. I pointed my criticism at Americans exhibiting what I would consider a phobia to feel that way.
C. I think it's silly that you think I'm the only one who would have read what Thomas wrote, or that you'd just assume that I'd assume someone chimed in in agreement. I'm usually not that sloppy either.
But, in case I owed someone an apology; I went back and checked...
And you're still wrong. :wink:
Look:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5382/looknimhby4.jpg

*********************************************************
Now if it's all the same to you; I'd rather not have another ridiculous conversation about whether or not Obama's charisma should be a red flag to Hitlerville... let alone a debate about who agrees with the absurd comparison. Okay?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

blah blah blah and......

more blah blah blah

May as well have stopped there. The rest of your post was nonsense no doubt founded in disappointed predisposition. Open your eyes and face the truth. Hillary, the enemy of establishment? Laughing

Please.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Now if it's all the same to you; I'd rather not have another ridiculous conversation about whether or not Obama's charisma should be a red flag to Hitlerville... let alone a debate about who agrees with the absurd comparison. Okay?

Let me repeat from the post you're quoting Bill, and let me type it slowly: "I AM NOT SAYING THAT OBAMA WOULD BE A DISASTROUS PRESIDENT". I was explicitly rejecting any notion that, as you put it, "Obama's charisma should be a red flag to Hitlerville."

I continued: "But I hope I have explained why I instinctively freak out, rather than chime in, when I see messianic political candidates talk mass audiences into quasi-religious ecstasy".

I stand by these sentiments. But apparently I had hoped for too much.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now if it's all the same to you; I'd rather not have another ridiculous conversation about whether or not Obama's charisma should be a red flag to Hitlerville... let alone a debate about who agrees with the absurd comparison. Okay?

Let me repeat from the post you're quoting Bill, and let me type it slowly: "I AM NOT SAYING THAT OBAMA WOULD BE A DISASTROUS PRESIDENT". I was explicitly rejecting any notion that, as you put it, "Obama's charisma should be a red flag to Hitlerville."

I continued: "But I hope I have explained why I instinctively freak out, rather than chime in, when I see messianic political candidates talk mass audiences into quasi-religious ecstasy".

I stand by these sentiments. But apparently I had hoped for too much.

You definitely hoped for too much if you thought that everyone would ignore any other comments made about your statement. Rolling Eyes

Read what I wrote just as s l o w l y:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

A. I've repeatedly given Thomas a pass for the reasons you alluded to and the fact that I respect him a lot.
B. I pointed my criticism at Americans exhibiting what I would consider a phobia to feel that way.

Now compare your shouting to what the American in question wrote, as quoted: ( Rolling Eyes

)

BPB wrote:

"except that I don't believe Obama is ready to be a good president."

You have no reason to get up in my face, dude. If you're embarrassed by what you wrote; that's your problem. If you're happy with it; that's just as good. But if you think I have no business commenting on others agreement, let alone strengthening of the sentiment; you're wrong. Your attitude with me is completely uncalled for.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You have no reason to get up in my face, dude. If you're embarrassed by what you wrote; that's your problem. If you're happy with it; that's just as good. But if you think I have no business commenting on others agreement, let alone strengthening of the sentiment; you're wrong. Your attitude with me is completely uncalled for.

This is an online community. Everyone has a business commenting on everything! Of course you can comment on Bipolar Bear's reaction to Obama in any way you see fit -- even though I disagree with it.

I'm going to bed now. Sleep well!

0 Replies

Back atcha!

0 Replies

Quote:

Third, you state that you wouldn't trust a clean candidate. To me, this is in essence a large part of Obama's message when he says he's fighting against the idea that the ends justify the means, and the idea that you have to get dirty to win.

Cycloptichorn

Again I say blah blah blah.........

I wouldn't trust a candidate claiming to be that clean. What does Obama have that Hillary does not? His anatomy aside, all he has is the ability to claim purity and his messianic style. Some people vote based on how a candidate makes them feel. I don't know if Obama would make a good candidate or president. I've seen no evidence (other that the "evidence" planted in the heads of political junkies by talking heads) to suggest he'll be any better than any of them.

Fund raisers and taking donations is what a candidate does in a campaign. Obama hasn't been too good to take Oprah's help. And he's had his share of fund raisers. Do you suppose every person at his fund raisers has been pure and clean? Tell me, exactly how much more corporate money has Hillary taken than Obama?

And I've seen no evidence that Hillary is more likely to prolong the war.

I am mainly concerned about the economy and health care. Obama's plans are very similar to Hillary's. There is actually very little difference in Hillary and Obama. Democrats tend to like them both. Obama makes people feel good. He makes us feel he can clean up politics. I say fat chance.

What do you think will happen when Obama pulls his I'm-so-innocent-and-the-big-guys-are-picking-on-me act with the Republicans? He sure talks a good game and he looks great on a stage. He's inspiring. But inspirational speech is only one trait necessary for a good leader. He'll need more than that to win the general or to be the President when the time comes.

Obama has made as many accusations as the Clintons. He claims that the Clintons are not to be trusted, that they play dirty tricks, that their hands are dirty.

And he's been to see the Queen and she says his hands are perfectly clean.

0 Replies

Obama has never once claimed to be clean, never.

He just acts that way and other people claim it for him. Also, for all their digging, the Clintons have found nothing to smear him with other then his coloration. This is a low blow to most people my age, though I understand that older folks don't mind that as much...

Strangely enough, Hillary plays dirty and other people claim she's dirty. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are judged by their actions, not their words.

You state that 'His anatomy aside, all he has is the ability to claim purity and his messianic style.' Aside from the fact that he personally has never claimed either, I would say that this statement says a lot more about your unwillingness to do research then it does Obama's candidacy.

Comparing Oprah with lobbyists is just ridiculous. Really. I would respect the Hillary supporters a little more if you could bother to come up with better arguments.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Actually, now that I think about it:

According to the campaign disclosure site Open Secrets, which only has updated information through the second quarter of last year, more than $10 million (or 17%) of all Hillary's campaign money has come from somewhere else besides individual donors. That amounts to about $5 million per quarter from special interests. Compare that with Barack Obama, who has raised 99% of his money from individual donors. So she is far, far more beholden to the corporate world then Obama is at this point.

As said in his speeches, people like Obama because he doesn't do what you want him to do - play in the dirt. He is winning b/c he hasn't gone negative. Do you think he has any lack of source material? Would it even take him a half a second to come up with substantive and harmful attacks against Hillary, given her history and the various scandals involved? You know that it would not, and yet he has not.

I dare you - though I know you will not have what it takes to do so - to attempt to prove that Obama has 'made as many accusations as the Clintons.' Show me where he has hit Hillary for being the 'female candidate.' Show me where he sends Michelle Obama, or his subordinates, out to make racially or gender-oriented attacks on her, calling her the 'female candidate, the White candidate.' Please show me where he did research on her Kindergarten class in order to make attacks on her. I'd like to see evidence that he's trying to change the rules of the nomination (Florida and MI) in the middle of the game. I'd like to hear some anti-Hillary robocalls that he's put on. Maybe provide evidence of some of her statements, which he has twisted beyond all recognition.

Please provide links.

I think what really sticks in the craw of Hillary supporters is two things:

1, Obama hasn't gone dirty, and he's winning - at least in some places. How can this be if going dirty is the key to winning, as you posit?

2, They didn't see him coming. This was all supposed to be a done deal, long ago. Not working out that way now.

No matter what spin the Clintons or their subordinates try to put on SC, the truth is that Hillary got rolled. Badly. More then doubled up on. You can't spin that away as anything at all. Look for the next round of polls to show a bounce for Obama and a drop for Clinton.

And, if it does end up going to a brokered convention - which it seems it probably will at this point - do you really think that Edwards is going to give his votes to Hillary?

Really?

It's going to be a rough couple of months for the pro-Clinton crowd, I fear. Or maybe not. Maybe her tactics of bringing Obama down, of telling people that Hope isn't worth fighting for, will work. I'm proud to be an Obama supporter either way. I doubt others will be able to say the same at the end of the day, not if the Clinton campaign continues to go the way they have so far.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Damn. Word.

0 Replies

I think I ought to drop this whole baby in here

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

0 Replies

But it's not 1992. The Republicans have been pulling their tricks for almost 2 decades now and the public is onto them. Look how they barely eeked out a win in 2004 while pulling out all the stops, and couldn't hold on to Congress in 2006. Their shtick is played out. But we can perpetuate it if we want by bringing back one of their favorite targets, who most likely still has a score to settle herself, and who may not even be able to win in November.

Or we can turn the page.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know