Obama '08?

He may have a better way to raise money, but I don't think he's more or less ethical than the Clintons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe that even Lola is more likely to be persuaded of a defect or weakness in her preferred candidate than are most of the Obama supporters here are likely to stand still for ANY criticism of their revered and sainted leader.

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

This is patently false. There are things that I criticize about Obama. And have done so when asked. Repeatedly. I don't deify him, just believe he represents the best shot for fixing our national problems.

Just an attempt to marginalize those of us who have a fine candidate to support this cycle, is all.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

[qiote="Lola"]So george, you can read Bill Clinton's mind, can you? (suppressing temtation to be sarcastic about religion -- or would Chris Matthews call it catty?) I think I know or I hope I know that you can distinguish between presumption and knowing. You do know that you can't speak for other people's intentions, don't you? Your first point is the same point as mine, with the emphasis on what Bill Clinton did. My point is it is the same and both instances are the same. I'm neither saying that it's wrong to play close to the line, nor am I claming that only Obama does it. I think it's good fair play.

I believed him when he said he "forgot" meaning he made a mistake in not seeing that the fact that he had been President made his statements unlike other spouses of political candidates. ...

For example, Obama's campaign is reporting some very nasty anti-Obama robocalls being placed in Maine this week. You don't see him doing anti-Hillary robocalls anywhere. She did it in L.A. and Arizona last week as well.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example, Obama's campaign is reporting some very nasty anti-Obama robocalls being placed in Maine this week. You don't see him doing anti-Hillary robocalls anywhere. She did it in L.A. and Arizona last week as well.

Cycloptichorn

Do you have proof that it was her, or are you simply assuming it's so?

Surely Obama could have found a Latino to tell them how they should vote.

That together with his vague promises and the lack of specifics is a big problem for him.

One media narrative that seems to be taking root is of Obama as the candidate of lofty rhetoric and Clinton as the maven of pedestrian policy talk. At a rally at Furman University here Tuesday, Obama brought the audience to several peaks, raising his voice over the applause while describing how his days as a community organizer "taught me that ordinary people can do extraordinary things" and how "the dream that so many generations fought for feels like it is slipping away."

But the address was saturated with proposals. Obama called for tax rebates; a one-time boost in Social Security checks; extending unemployment insurance; mortgage aid for those facing foreclosure; raising the minimum wage; protecting pensions; and college tuition credits. And that was before he got to his support for solar and wind power and biodiesel fuel. (There was no discussion of how he would pay for all this, other than to say his health-care plan would be partly financed by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.)

How, then, has Obama been saddled with an image of being long on inspiration and short on details? The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr. without making his talk explicitly about race. Sen. Clinton already owned the policy-wonk slot, so by default, Obama was cast as the poetic one.

...The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr....

A few weeks ago I heard on one of the political talk shows some well respected commentator.......(not one of those questionable ones, I;m sorry I don't remember who it was) say that in politics, the rule of thumb is, unless it's a felon or other clearly defined criminal, when donations are given, you take the money and then you go ahead and do what you think is right. Much as you might if your parents gave you money. Most people take it, listen politely to the parent's opinion about what they should do and then go ahead and do what you're going to do regardless. This may not be the best way to do it. If Obama has truly raised all his money from the grass roots and taken no other money from any corporation, then perhaps it's a better way. But it's not a vile or unethical practice. It's been standard procedure.

Senator Clinton silenced a room of approximately one thousand progressive bloggers and activists Saturday when she told a crowd at the annual YearlyKos convention, "Yes I will" continue to accept money from lobbyists. Lobbyists, Clinton argued, "represent real Americans."

The argument is, and? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Couldn't it be a good tool for a good candidate to have, rather than something inherently nefarious?

Quote:

Senator Clinton silenced a room of approximately one thousand progressive bloggers and activists Saturday when she told a crowd at the annual YearlyKos convention, "Yes I will" continue to accept money from lobbyists. Lobbyists, Clinton argued, "represent real Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/04/clinton-yes-i-will-con_n_59165.html

sozobe's article wrote:

...The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr....

I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE SAYING THIS!

sozobe wrote:

The argument is, and? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Couldn't it be a good tool for a good candidate to have, rather than something inherently nefarious?

It could be a good tool.....let's hope so.

People tend to get very invested in the candidate they voted for (especially one's that they are THIS excited about). You've probably wondered for the last 7 years how anyone can still support Bush after all the crap he's done.

I'm worried about Obama becomming OUR Bush.....and many of you are more invested in Obama than I ever remember anyone being invested in Bush.

I don't like this enthusiam in this instance. Extreme enthusiam, ABOUT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE nonetheless, is simply WRONG in my book.

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

The argument is, and? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Couldn't it be a good tool for a good candidate to have, rather than something inherently nefarious?

It could be a good tool.....let's hope so.

People tend to get very invested in the candidate they voted for (especially one's that they are THIS excited about). You've probably wondered for the last 7 years how anyone can still support Bush after all the crap he's done.

I'm worried about Obama becomming OUR Bush.....and many of you are more invested in Obama than I ever remember anyone being invested in Bush.

I don't like this enthusiam in this instance. Extreme enthusiam, ABOUT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE nonetheless, is simply WRONG in my book.

This is so much nonsense. There was never this much enthusiasm over Bush... and you've utterly failed to link the two in any meaningful way. Where Obama is a fantastic speaker; Bush is a friggin moron at the mic. Where does this come from?