Obama '08?

Cheating and politics are universal common knowledge topics. Some people, even many Americans, expect, encourage, and allow it for their candidate to win.

Lola wrote:

I think it was careless bad judgement to not anticipate a war between two very deserving minority groups if we we're placed in a situation in which we have to make a choice. It's like Sophie's choice. I don't appreciate being expected to choose. And further, I think it's too much to ask of any of us. It's too prone to misunderstanding and projection on all our parts. I think Obama and his supporters should have seen it coming. It was unavoidable. It's like throwing fire on a hay stack.

You may not agree with me, and I don't expect you to, if you don't. But surely you can understand what I'm saying.

Believe me, I am trying to understand what you're saying. Let me try a summary and you tell me what I've got wrong (if anything): You think Obama, by way of being black, creates a choice between deserving minorities and therefore should have stepped out of the way to make it easier for Hillary Clinton. You are actually angry at him for seizing what may very well be his best or even only, opportunity to win the Presidency fair and square. Further; you are apparently angry at grass roots folks who pushed him along (Like Sozobe and Butrflynet for instance), because they should have recognized his candidacy would interfere with Hillary's? And lastly; you think Obama people are mad at Hillary and/or her supporters for similar reasons?


Lola, for real, I think that's just crazy. Or would you like to articulate your anger in some other way that doesn't lead Joe, Nimh, Freeduck, etc. and I all to the same conclusion about what you're saying.

Lola wrote:

What did Obama think, it would be easy? He could enter the race in which Hillary was already positioned to become the long awaited first female president and he'd win without a big battle? Did he think he could run and not violently divide the party?

Lola,

I don't buy the idea that Hillary came "already positioned" and that Obama is somehow spoiling what is rightfully hers.

This is the worst part of the Clinton argument.

I'm surprised and dissapointed in your responsse, Joe. Obviously, I didn't mention "black" or "uppity negro." Why are you adding that?

My point was as I explained above in my post to nimh. What is so difficult about seeing that I'm not complaining about him as a black man entering the race. I'm saying that I think it was very poor judgement to expect that it wouldn't cause an explosive war.

Both blacks and women have a legitmate claim to having been mistreated by aggressive discrimination. I'm not saying that one is more important than the other. I'm saying that it was poor judgement for Obama and those who encouraged him to jump in because Hillary was already in and it was too volitale and destructive to take the action that he did. If they were concerned about the party, and I assume they are, they should have seen it coming. A discussion should have taken place about whether it would be more destructive to enter now or to wait.

His entering the race when he did has caused more trouble to all of us, including him than it was worth, in my opinion.

Bill,

I didn't think I wrote "black" and certainly not "uppity negro." But if the word black was included in my statement, please point it out to me.

But if I did, it would simply be another example of how difficult it is for any of us to manage an unavoidably unmanageable situation. Go back and read most any page on this thread. Everyone is assuming evil intent. We're all accusing each other of whatever injustice we perceive, whether it's there or not.

My point has nothing to do with anyone's right to run for president, no matter what gender, age or race. It has to do with a judgement about what destruction would result if Democratic voters were put into a situation in which they had to make such a conflictual choice.

It's anyone's right to light a fire, but if they do so, they should be sure it's containable before striking the match. Read the history books, or look back on where we've so recently been in this culture......what did they expect? No matter who wins this nominating process, we're all the losers.

Lola wrote:

It is in fact causing a racial and generational divide. Obama says he doesn't want it to be about race or gender, apparently he doesn't care about a generational split.

I find it interesting that you focus on the generational split.

The most pronounced generational split is with white, suburban women. There is no generational split amongst blacks and amongst men it is close to non-existent. But the difference between white women under 45 and those over 45 is very pronounced. Is it generational? Or is it racist? Or sexist?

Apparently Hillary doesn't care about the gender/generational split either. She hasn't driopped out of the race yet...

Lola wrote:

Bill,

I didn't think I wrote "black" and certainly not "uppity negro." But if the word black was included in my statement, please point it out to me.

But if I did, it would simply be another example of how difficult it is for any of us to manage an unavoidably unmanageable situation. Go back and read most any page on this thread. Everyone is assuming evil intent. We're all accusing each other of whatever injustice we perceive, whether it's there or not.

My point has nothing to do with anyone's right to run for president, no matter what gender, age or race. It has to do with a judgement about what destruction would result if Democratic voters were put into a situation in which they had to make such a conflictual choice.

It's anyone's right to light a fire, but if they do so, they should be sure it's containable before striking the match. Read the history books, or look back on where we've so recently been in this culture......what did they expect? No matter who wins this nominating process, we're all the losers.

I'm sorry, but this is a crazy contradiction, Lola. He has a right to run, may even win, but it will upset some people along the way so he shouldn't? And despite Democrat's incredible achievement in this unlikelihood (black or female nominee); you think they're all losers for it? My head's about to spin off from trying to understand how you fail to see the glaring hole in this utter absence of logic. That is an absurd burden to place on the man's shoulders. I can't imagine Abigail Adams telling him to remember the women and please stand aside. I think Alice Paul would tell him to give it his all while she worked tirelessly for Hillary's campaign. I think Martin Luther King's eyes would be filled with the tears of a dream come true. I think you're mind is so wrapped up in the prize; that you've become temporarily incapable of rationalizing Obama's position from Obama's perspective… or any perspective but your own.

Obama can work for it just like Hillary and the rest of us have done. He has plenty of time to accomplish his goals, especially after he's learned a few lessons. Then I'll be delighted to vote and hopefully elect an African American of his caliber to be president.

Barack Obama for Prime Minister of Israel

By Bradley Burston


I'm not 100 percent certain that Barack Obama is the best choice for the presidency of the United States. But if he were on the ballot here in Israel, he'd get my vote in a heartbeat.

Look at his competition. There is Ehud Olmert, one of the few attorneys amoral enough to be able to find new ways to give lawyers a bad name. If those who serve as their own attorneys have a fool for a client, Israel has managed to engage an attorney who has only himself as a client. He has proven himself to be a poor wartime consigliere, and he has shown himself as adept at sidestepping the peace process as his two main rivals:

Ehud Barak - The overweight, overage Hamlet of Israeli politics, who can neither embrace the Olmert government, nor bring himself to leave it. Once a source of hope and a lightning rod for optimism, he has become a fountainhead of disillusionment, doubletalk, and sterile machination.

Benjamin Netanyahu - The angry prophet of fiery inaction. Distrusted by the settlers as someone who sold Hebron out from under them. Distrusted by everyone else as a person who makes Hillary Clinton seem natural, inclusive, unifying, wholly sincere, profoundly trustworthy.

Now consider Barack Obama. In Maria Shriver's ringing if quirky endorsement ["If he were a state, he'd be California"] she set out a number of the precise qualities which both typify Israel in many ways, and underscore the grave deficiencies of the mercenary, arrogant men who lead us without noticing that they have no notion of their own limitations:

"Diverse. Open. Smart. Independent. Bucks tradition. Innovative. Inspiring. Dreamer. Leader."

Like the United States, this is a country at war, a nation which, if it is to resolve the conflict in which it is mired, will require both charismatic, galvanizing leadership and a willingness to look at overmarketed, vested interest-bound issues from an entirely fresh, bravely creative perspective.

Like the United States, youth in Israel is increasingly disaffected. In a country where the concept of alienation once had no meaning, young people are well within their rights to believe that their elected officials and civil servants are stone deaf to their concerns, their hopes, their needs, their futures, and their very real and powerful potential for public service.

We, the people of Israel, no less than the people of Palestine, are hostages of our history and of our present leadership. Our extremists - perhaps the only inspirational speakers we have - bludgeon us into feeling that we must resurrect a glorious past which is not only impossible to recreate, but which blocks us from moving on into a livable future.

We could use a good man like Barack Obama...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3082366#3082366

Lola wrote:

Obama can work for it just like Hillary and the rest of us have done. He has plenty of time to accomplish his goals, especially after he's learned a few lessons. Then I'll be delighted to vote and hopefully elect an African American of his caliber to be president.

I do believe that statement is what incited the feedback you got about race. That, combined with your scolding about his timing and daring to enter as a candidate into a race that already contained a woman, is what generated the "uppity Black" comments.

It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that the conflict of choosing between a female and an African American candidate has been placed on our shoulders.

The beloved (Obama) wants Mz. Clinton to make her tax returns public-- A bad move, it's going to hurt him. He ought to be sticking with his message of hope and not getting sidetracked with this petty crap.

Lola wrote:

It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that the conflict of choosing between a female and an African American candidate has been placed on our shoulders.

Unfortunate perhaps, but how does the blame for that gets to be squarely placed on Obama's shoulders? How was it Obama's duty and responsibility to stay out of the race, while it's only normal that Hillary should stay in?

I mean, they're obviously equally popular, as the results so far have shown, so why is it so obvious that one should have deferred to the other?

I mean, is it like -- having both in the race = strife, so Obama should just have realised that Hillary would already be in it, and if she's in it, he can't be in it? Is it like that?

How is that different from the "he should have known his place and not get in Hillary's way" argument that we read in your post, and that you now say you're not making?

nimh wrote:

Lola wrote:

And here we are, at the height of our lives finally at a point where we're in a position to accomplish some of our greatest goals. If you think we're going to sit down and let that opportunity be taken from us by our own children before their time, you are mistaken.

Well, well. If you haven't, unintentionally, unveiled the core emotion and logic, right here [..] And it sure dont look pretty

[..] And there's nothing unpretty about it. It's honest and in my opinion justified [..]

FreeDuck wrote:

What, did he think he could "jump the line" that Hillary's been waiting in for the last 8 years? Quite frankly, bullshit. Nobody is entitled to the nomination.

Again, this is not what I said at all. Do you see how you've missed my point? Let's try to be clear. Obviously we're on very sensitive ground and we should all try to be as clear as possible about what we're responding to. Please, each of us, read carefully what each of us has written, clarify before launching into a reactive attack. We've been on the same side for a long time now. Surely that's worth enough to merit some care about how we go about communicating.

fishin wrote:

Lola wrote:

It is in fact causing a racial and generational divide. Obama says he doesn't want it to be about race or gender, apparently he doesn't care about a generational split.

I find it interesting that you focus on the generational split.

The most pronounced generational split is with white, suburban women. There is no generational split amongst blacks and amongst men it is close to non-existent. But the difference between white women under 45 and those over 45 is very pronounced. Is it generational? Or is it racist? Or sexist?

Apparently Hillary doesn't care about the gender/generational split either. She hasn't driopped out of the race yet...

I think you're wrong about this, fishin. Obama's support is very dependent on the young voter. Of course not every young person votes for Obama, but it's common knowledge that he's brought them out and without them he'll lose. Even with them he hasn't won yet. Young Latino voters in California at least, so far voted for Hillary in impressive numbers. And women over 40 are an important element of Hillary's base too. But of course, many older women are Obama supporters as well.

And the fact that you think it would be advisable for Hillary to drop out of the race before it's clear whether or not she's won or not is amazing to me. I don't even think Obama should drop out at this point. Why should he? It's too late for that. I just wish he'd had enough wisdom to wait to run, both for the reason that it's unavoidably inflammatory to have two candidates of different minority groups running, especially since it's the first opportunity for any minority group to have a real chance of winning. And I think he hasn't had a chance to prove himself. I'm not willing to vote for him purely on the basis of his charismatic skills.