Allright goddammit, perhaps I was a bit unfair with Cyclo.
Afterthought on this one:
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.
Barack Obama is 46 now.
Bill Clinton was 45 in 1992, when he ran for President.
Do you think Bill, at the time, was "taking that opportunity before his time"?
If not, why is it suddenly an example of "our children [running] before their time" when Obama, at the same age, is running for President?
What would you have said to a 60-year old - like, say, Doug Wilder, who wanted to run as well at the time - telling Bill Clinton in 1992 that he would not "let Bill take that opportunity from us before his time"?
I mean.. yeah, I'm just.. well, I dont understand this argument, at all. I mean, it seems so... unreflective.
Butrflynet wrote:maporsche wrote:You know Obill, Cyplops, other Obama supporters.
At some level, probably even a conscious level, at least some of the distaste I feel towards an Obama candidicy can be blamed on each of you. I've said before that it's his supporters that bother me, but I really don't know any of his supporters besides those on this website.
I am fully aware that this is not a good reason to not support a candidate, but hey, I'm only human.
And quite frankly, if the posting on this board is any indication, his chances of uniting ANYBODY, much less the democratic party or the republican party will be impossible. And I don't think you can lay the blame on him for that....but the blame has to fall somewhere, and for me anyway, it will probably end up falling on you guys.
I'm trying to mend this divide, explain my thoughts (even the not so well thought out ones), see the other side, debate the issues, etc, but I think I've reached the point where I've just had enough.
I'll reluctently join the bear in solitude.....and hell, probably vote McCain in the general or stay home.
You are allowing the way two posters express themselves on an anonymous internet message board to effect your vote for the next president of the United States.
Don't be fooled. This is not true at all.
Lola and Maporsche are fervent Hillary fans... not that there is anything wrong by that. They were going to support Hillary no matter what. The alleged bad behavior by two or more Obama supporters haven't affected anything.
I don't have any problem with them being fervent supporters of Hillary. Just understand their whining about Obama supporters has absolutely nothing to do with their choice to support Hillary.
They are being a bit manipulative in an attempt to skew other people toward their chosen candidate. That's all.
I also tend to say things which are sometimes unfair, or uncalled for, or whatever when I get emotionally invested in a discussion. I don't take it to heart when others do it to me because I perfectly understand.
Cycloptichorn
Forget it then.
Excuse me. I haven't said anything bad about Obama supporters. [..] Am I speaking in tongues or what? Why is everyone having such a hard time getting what I'm saying?
Lola wrote:
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.
So I'm supposed to believe that politicians take that money and never give anything in return? That money has no influence in politics? Sorry, I'm not ready to believe that. And the fact that it has been standard procedure is exactly what I'm talking about. Obama says he doesn't take money from PACs or lobbyists and no-one has brought evidence that he's lying. And believe me, if there was evidence, we would have seen it by now. Hillary doesn't bother to make that claim. It's not necessarily unethical, but it is politics as usual.
Lola wrote:Excuse me. I haven't said anything bad about Obama supporters. [..] Am I speaking in tongues or what? Why is everyone having such a hard time getting what I'm saying?
Perhaps because of the things you said about how all of us who are excited about Obama have just "fallen in love with a stranger," with his "charisma, charm and good looks". Have been "worked into a frenzy" by the media and are just caught in "the thrill of a new found love", whereas in reality "we barely know him".
Or perhaps because you said "it was poor judgement for Obama and those who encouraged him to jump in, because Hillary was already in"; that "Obama and his supporters should have seen it coming" that a challenge to Hillary would cause discord and that what they did was thus "like throwing fire on a hay stack".
I mean, I read all of that as things you said about Obama supporters.
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?
kickycan wrote:So has Obama conceded yet?
Nope....
The political markets (IEM and intrade) now have him as the front-runner.
If he is not ahead in unpledged delegates now (there is some bickering about this) he will be in a couple of weeks.
This is going to come down to the "superdelegates"... if they don't follow the results of the primary voting there is going to be some trouble. I think they will be under pressure to change their minds if the primary voting doesn't support their decision.
I think Obama has a slight edge right now.
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:Politics is always vera ugly. Florida?Cycloptichorn wrote:Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html
Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.
Cycloptichorn
Honesty and integrity in government - The Democratic strategy.
Lola wrote:For the past several years, I've been following the work of Drew Weston. He's a clinical psychological with an emphasis on neurobiology. He's also a political strategist. He's a researcher at Emory. He has a very good book out called, "The Political Brain."
If you don't have the time to read the book, do read this short book review in the daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/24/102023/968
Interesting article. But what struck me particularly about it is that it actually posits a number of theses that are, in fact, standard arguments of Obama's campaign.
A lot of the arguments that the book's author is described as submitting appear to be exactly the ones driving the rationale of Camp Obama. Driving its whole insistence on, and passion for, the need to not change leaders, but to change the whole way the Democratic Party pursues politics.
I mean, consider these quotes from the article. This all sounds like it's straight from the Obama thinkers, so I'm a bit surprised that you refer to it - approvingly - without, apparently, seeing this connection?:
Quote:Westin exhorts the current leadership and strategists of the Democratic Party to stop campaigning on laundry lists of policy issues and begin speaking in terms of passion, using narratives and bold messages to engage an often apathetic electorate. [..]
He notes the incongruity evident when the very party that considers itself most empathetic to the plight of the suffering is the most reluctant to make use of emotion when presenting its case as the standard-bearer of heartfelt American values. "The paradox of American politics," he writes, "is that when it comes to winning hearts and minds, the party that views itself as the one with the heart (for the middle class, the poor, and the disenfranchised) continues to appeal exclusively to the mind."
This reluctance, Westin maintains, is killing Democrats who go up against a savvy Republican Party with a long track record of appealing to the emotional side of voters. Traditional Democratic advisors (and rank and file Democrats as well) for the most part view targeting voters' emotions as ultimately manipulative [..].
Repeatedly, in dozens of different ways, he attempts to talk progressives out of this irrational reluctance to eschew dry cerebral policy issues in favor of targeting the hearts and values of American citizens. [..] And he reiterates this stance in this passage:
"The central thesis of this book?-that successful campaigns compete in the marketplace of emotions and not primarily in the marketplace of ideas?-may at first blush be disquieting [..]. But the reality is that the best way to elicit enthusiasm in the marketplace of emotions is to tell the truth. There is nothing more compelling in politics than a candidate who is genuine. [..]"
Westin is fierce in his criticism of past Democratic presidential campaigns [..]. Overreliance on focus groups and polls have turned our candidates into cardboard caricatures who appear pandering and lifeless to any voter who manages to tune in.
"Most importantly, their obsessive attention to facts and figures, their caution and risk aversion, their indifference or disdain toward emotion, [..] leave them misattuned to some of the most important emotional signals in electoral politics, such as whether a candidate has charisma, what nonverbal signals he or she is sending, what emotions the candidate is or is not activating in the electorate [..]. Such individuals may seem highly competent because of their capacity to read power dynamics, and at times this may lead them to make good calls. But they are fundamentally handicapped by an emotional style that runs contrary to what is required, particularly in the era of television, of someone charged with managing the emotions of the electorate."
I mean, all of this, word for word, could be part of an impassioned plea for Obama's case, as the necessary alternative to Hillary's brand of politics.
The irony is, it's one of the parts of the Obama campaign's driving rationale that appeals least to me. But yet here it is, as articulately argued as anywhere, in an article you linked in, and I wondered whether you'd looked at it from that point of view?
BTW, does anyone here know who was the supporter that encouraged Obama to run? I've heard the story but I can't remember who it was.
Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu just met with Sen. Barack Obama at his office in a drab office mall outside of Cape Town.
He volunteered that Obama would make a good president.
Obama's camp has given up dousing talk of a White House run.
Tutu bringing up Obama's future was extremely off message.
"You are going to be a very credible presidential candidate," the impish Tutu cackled.
Obama flinched. "Oh no, don't do that."
"Fortunately, because he has my complexion, we can't see that he is blushing," Tutu said.
As the two headed to a private meeting, Tutu was asked why he was high on Obama's prospects.
"People are looking for leaders of whom they could be proud."
Mr. Rangel, the longtime Harlem congressman, has let it be known he encouraged Barack Obama to run for president, which could complicate the presidential ambitions of Mr. Rangel's fellow New York Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"I told him if he didn't run, he'd regret it, and that he's a young man and he ought to test the waters," Mr. Rangel said in an interview yesterday, echoing comments he made on MSNBC and that will appear in the coming issue of New York magazine.
He said he also told Mr. Obama that he was following Mrs. Clinton's moves "and that as dean of the New York delegation, I had obligations, and he would have to understand that," Mr. Rangel said.
Many pages ago, Lola asked about Obama's top campaign donors.
I found some answers for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. They are remarkably similar in some aspects.
This info is coming from the Open Secrets Website. It has the following caveat on both campaign pages:
HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Here are the links:
HILLARY CLINTON (D)
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Lola wrote:BTW, does anyone here know who was the supporter that encouraged Obama to run? I've heard the story but I can't remember who it was.
Several people claim the honor of being the first to encourage Senator Obama to run for president.
One is Ben Stanfield. He and another person launched the draftobama.org website on October 1, 2006. Word spread and local chapters were formed on dozens of campuses across the country. It eventually became Students for Obama. According to Ben's personal blog, he still is an active supporter of Obama but has had to curtail much of his activity because of a debilitating illness.
http://www.draftobama.org/about
Lynn Sweet writes about how Desmond Tutu also encouraged him to run in August of 2006
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/10/sweet_blog_reprisedesmond_tutu.html
Quote:Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu just met with Sen. Barack Obama at his office in a drab office mall outside of Cape Town.
He volunteered that Obama would make a good president.
Obama's camp has given up dousing talk of a White House run.
Tutu bringing up Obama's future was extremely off message.
"You are going to be a very credible presidential candidate," the impish Tutu cackled.
Obama flinched. "Oh no, don't do that."
"Fortunately, because he has my complexion, we can't see that he is blushing," Tutu said.
As the two headed to a private meeting, Tutu was asked why he was high on Obama's prospects.
"People are looking for leaders of whom they could be proud."
Another person who claims to have been the one to encourage Obama to run is Hillary's fellow congressperson from New York, Charlie Rangel. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/us/politics/07rangel.html?_r=1&oref=login
Quote:Mr. Rangel, the longtime Harlem congressman, has let it be known he encouraged Barack Obama to run for president, which could complicate the presidential ambitions of Mr. Rangel's fellow New York Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"I told him if he didn't run, he'd regret it, and that he's a young man and he ought to test the waters," Mr. Rangel said in an interview yesterday, echoing comments he made on MSNBC and that will appear in the coming issue of New York magazine.
He said he also told Mr. Obama that he was following Mrs. Clinton's moves "and that as dean of the New York delegation, I had obligations, and he would have to understand that," Mr. Rangel said.
Quote:"I think we're going to have a nominee by middle of March or April." DNC Chairman Howard Dean said. "But if we don't, then we're gonna have to get the candidates together and make some kind of arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention. That would not be good news for either party."
That's because unlike recent conventions, when the party tickets were firmly established, Obama and Clinton could conceivably end up short of the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Quote:As the two candidates battle it out money-wise, the bigger problem may be history itself.
The record shows the more divided the party, the more likely it is to lose in November.
As Dean observed, there have been three divided Democratic conventions in recent decades -- 1968, 1972 and 1980. Democrats lost each time.
SOURCE
Uh oh
I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
I am at least 16 years old.
This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
hey georgeob
What do you think? Or do you know.......is Charley Wilson's War really a true story?
