Obama '08?

georgeob1 wrote:

Allright goddammit, perhaps I was a bit unfair with Cyclo.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

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.

Forget it then.

0 Replies

hey georgeob

What do you think? Or do you know.......is Charley Wilson's War really a true story?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

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.

Excuse me. I haven't said anything bad about Obama supporters. I said that I distrust evangelical oratory. But that's from my own experiences. I said that I don't know enough about Obama to trust him yet. I said I was going to do some research.

Am I speaking in tongues or what? Why is everyone having such a hard time getting what I'm saying?

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.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

Good 'cause you're a real asswipe Cyclo

:wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Forget it then.

I could, but it'd be cooler if you'd answer my questions about it..

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War. I was reading the book on the plane.

Read it, it's very entertaining. You'll get a good look at "politics as usual" there.

What I want to know is what is going on behind the scenes. Who encouraged Obama to run? And why? I'm not suggesting sinister intent. I think he intends to do good. It may be as simple as some of the powers that be were afraid Hillary couldn't win against Giuliani.

But I suspect that changing the powers that be is not a simple matter. I think "change in politics as usual" means to change politics as usual so that somebody or somebodies get what they want instead of the other guys getting it. This power can be used for either good or bad, of couse.

Read about how Tip O'Neill ruled the roost in his day. During the ABSCAM investigations, ONeill was concerned about the threat to his inner circle, who he relied on to help him run the House. The zealous prosecutor was expanding his investigations into the Speaker's office. The prosecutor was moving in on John Murtha because, while Murtha, a member of the Ethics committee at the time, had turned down the $50,000. bribe, the tape had shown that he paused at the door and said, that he might change his mind someday. So O'Neill traded a valuable perk, a seat for life on the Kennedy Center's board in exchange for one year of Charlie's service on the House Ethics committee.

Charlie Wilson told the members of the Ethics Committee that Murtha had done nothing wrong. He hadn't in fact taken the bribe, all he'd said was that he's think about it. He told the members of the Ethics Committee that it they even thought about "lynching a patriot like Murtha "simply because he had lust in his heart, then it was time for the entire committee to be put up for a public morals test." The prosecutor was called off and he resigned. But Murtha lived on to fight another day. And O'Neill was "unleashed to become Ronald Reagan's liberal tormentor."

Charlie Wilson was a powerful congressman. He got himself appointed to the purse strings of the federal government, the Appropriations Committee, where the best pork can be found, through his Jewish connections. From there he positioned himself on the Foreign Operations Committee, and the Defense appropriations Committee. Even though he wasn't Jewish, he got into the Jewish Caucus, he wasn't black, but he played poker with the Black Caucus and was best friends with Barbara Jordan, sitting next to her on the House floor. Charlie's little sister was the chairman of the board of Planned Parenthood, and in spite of the fact that he was a congressman from Lufkin Texas, he always voted pro-choice so he was in with the women's rights group too. Etc...

Does this sound like a system that can be "cleaned up" in the way you're thinking about it by anyone? Do you think anyone's hands are perfectly clean as is indicated in the simple outline of Obama's campaign slogan? What I'd like to know is what's going on.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

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.

Read it as you will, nimh. As you may recall I also apologized for my tone and at this point I'm interested in what the real story is. But never mind, I give up with you. I'm tired of answering questions when they are simply the same ones over and over, not matter what I say. As I said, forget it. You're about the rudest person on this thread and that's saying something. No matter what I say, you come back with a snotty little jab. It's very hard to think and study with your yammering all the time. So just ignore me and I'll ignore you and we'll be fine.

0 Replies

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?

Yes, I've said that I think it could be a good tool. Better than that it is a great talent that can be used for good or evil or in between. My point was that without more information about Obama, without more experience with him as a political leader, it's not enough for me.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

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.

There is no constructive way out of this. We're back to Gore v Bush. Or back to the 68 convention.......you shoulda been there is was great! Oops, that's me at 22 talking. Ironic isn't it that Obama wants to leave the politics of the 60s behind, but here we are right back there again.

The way it's been done, the way it was being done when the game started was that super-delegates make up their own mind and often have already committed to a candidate in advance, even though they can change their minds if they want to. However, many feel that if they've made a commitment, they should stick with it. They don't want to change the rules after the game has started. And they are not obligated to vote in any way but the way they choose. So why should now there be this change that will obviously favor Obama? It's impossible.

The only suggestion I've heard that sounds really fair to me is to let the candidates campaign in Florida and Michigan. Let Obama work his magic and let Hillary do her thing and then let them vote. And then if there's a tie again, we could all go out and come back in again. This is so unfortunate.

But if Obama is so good at winning people over and all the Floridians have seen of him is on the national ads he ran. And all they've seen of Hillary is when she came down to greet them after the primary, then let them campaign for real and let's vote and be done with it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
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.
Politics is always vera ugly. Florida?

You had those ballot boxes didn't you Dys......admit it.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

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)

This is very helpful butrflynet. Thanks for it. It is notable that the lists are very similar indeed. And didn't someone say, was that you Free Duck? that Obama has said he hasn't taken any money from PACs? Or am I mixed up?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

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.

Again, thanks. This is great.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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

Yes, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that Obama didn't have a right to run, it's that I think he made more trouble for all of us, himself included by running in this election. One minority candidate at a time would have been a challenge. There are many situations in life in which we have a right to do something we want to do, but sometimes if we assert that right and act on it, it creates more trouble than it's worth. I'm afraid we've already lost this general election and it's too bad because we were so set up to win it. I'm so disappointed.

0 Replies

He doesn't. That assumption is why I posted the introductory note from the website before posting the links. I knew people wouldn't read it there and was hoping people would read it in the post before clicking.

Those aren't PACs. The donation numbers are sorted by each donor's employer name. When you donate to a political candidate, one of the FEC rules is that you have to supply the name of your employer and what industry it is in.

Which ones are you referring to as being PACs?

By the way, as an FYI, when someone donates to the Obama campaign online via his website or via mail to his campaign, they have to complete a form that includes their agreement to these statements on the Obama donation page before donating:

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

As someone that doesnt have a dog in this fight, I have made some observations.

I have noticed that those of you that are actively supporting Hillary dont seem to have a lot of patience with the Obama supporters.
Some, but by no means all, of you seem to think that Obama has no right to be in the race, either because of his youth, or his lack of experience.

Neither of those complaints seems valid to me.
As someone pointed out earlier, Bill Clinton was the same age as Obama when he first ran, and he actually had less experience in national politics at the time.
Also, some of you seem to think that Hillary "deserves" the nomination simply because of her last name, or that its "her turn" to be president.

Of course, some of the Obama supporters on here sem to be just as guilty.
They seem to think that Obama has "earned" the right to be president, simply because of his youth and his mantra for "change", whatever that means.

As an outsider, and I mean that in the sense that I really havent decided who to support yet but I am leaning one way, I cant help but think that if this board is any indication of what the country as a whole is thinking, the sniping between the two camps will end up costing either candidate the election.
Whoever wins the dem nomination will be so weakened by all the sniping that they wont be able to survive the arrows shot be the repub nominee.

Of course, those are just my opinions.
And before any of you say that I dont matter because I wouldnt vote for a dem anyway, I will repeat what I have said before.

My first choice for pres, and the person I would have supported 100% if he had chosen to run, was Evan Bayh (D-IN).

Having said my piece, I will go back to the sidelines and watch the fight, because it is actually fun to watch, even if I dont understand it.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

hey georgeob

What do you think? Or do you know.......is Charley Wilson's War really a true story?

I haven't read the book, but I did read some stuff about it. I have only indirect knowledge of the activities of the CIA and some congressmen to facilitate funding for the support of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Invasion. However, I did at the time have some contact with the DIA (= Defense Intelligence Agency) assessments of the Soviet invasion, as well as some stuff from NSA.

I do know that our military intelligence was seriously spooked by the Soviet Invasion in Dec. 1979 - we didn't see it coming and incorrectly assessed what later proved to be the buildup for the invasion as a training exercise. In those days we generally considered the Soviet military to be very strong - crediting them with all the capabilities their truly vast and well-equipped forces presented, and not yet aware of (or confident enough to really believe) the pervasive rot that later became evident.

In 1979 Afghanistan had an effective government, despite its political turmoil. This made it difficult for us to understand or correctly interpret Soviet intentions or motives. However it is worth noting that we were well aware of the ongoing Soviet financing and equipping of revolutionary movements in Angola, Nicaragua and El Salvador, all done through their client state in Cuba. At the time our government saw the invasion mostly as yet another Soviet geopolitical play - directly inserting Soviet forces between Iran and Pakistan (and possibly a prelude to Soviet intervention in Baluchistan in southwest Iran). Very likely the truth was more prosaic than that. (The Soviet invasion and the resistence to it destroyed effective governance in Afghanistan, eventually creating the social disintegration that opened the way for the Taliban.)

In this atmosphere there was a general consensus that the Afghans had little chance of effectively resisting the Soviets alone, but that helping them was in our interest, whatever the outcome. It took some time for us to believe that the resistance could win and therefore merit some serious support, but eventually that occurred. The decisive event was a program under which we equipped the Mujadheen with Stinger missiles - then new shoulder fired infrared guided anti aircraft missiles that could bring down a helicopter or ground support aircraft with deadly accuracy. In the mountainous terrain these missiles effectively immobilized Soviet ground forces and led to a war of attrition that eventually exhausted the Soviets, contributing to their disintegration in the late 1980s.

Did a single Congressman, working with an ambitious CIA agent put all this in motion?? It is entirely possible that these events occurred and that the actors in them believed theirs were the decisive actions. However, U.S. interest in and attention to the struggle in Afghanistan was pervasive throughout the Defense Department, the Intelligence Agencies (DIA, CIA, NSA), and the State Department. The possibility of supplying the Mujadheen with anti aircraft weapons had been fairly openly discussed within these circles for a couple of years before it happened. Charlie Wilson and his CIA friend may well have done some of the things written in this commercially successful book, however I am certain the Stingers would have been provided even without them.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know