Obama '08?

yes, I would say your current sitting prez qualifies.

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

Quote:

I... do not trust Obama.

Um...why? Not meaning to be too facetious but are you worried about your hubcaps, Israel, liberals generally or the 'charisma' thing?

On that last, if charisma seems a good measure of whom one ought to distrust then the absence of it would give a wonderful test of who you can trust. It's an odd problem. Part of the charisma thing leads us to trust the person with it. So you, using that criterion, end up being able to trust only the people that you already don't trust. Of course, you did trust Bush so maybe there's good reason for your position.

But it seems to me that you don't trust Obama. You did say that. I just pasted the statement. Perhaps what you are trying to get at is the following...you don't trust someone whom others trust. And you don't trust that someone because others trust him/her.

If that's the way it works, then the only person you can trust will be someone whom others broadly distrust.

You see how confusing all this gets. If I were you, I think I'd forgo this line of reasoning. It does depend, most primarily, upon you trusting the means by which you trust and clearly, the only way that will work is if you distrust yourself and those means in the first place.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Point taken from Bear and Phoenix about not trusting Obama. It's natural to me not to trust a politician. My only question to you both is, do you trust the other two? If so, why?

No. Not especially. as has been discussed ad nauseum.... Hill and Obama are probably only about 5% different on their views.

I support Hillary because I prefer her health care plan and because she comes with Bill as part of the package who will bring some real experience to the WH with her. I also know what to expect with Hillary. I'm satisfied that I do anyway.

as a side note I find it interesting that just yesterday, and I won't stir the pot by mentioning names, an Obama supporter here who used to be a rabid Bill Clinton supporter was making negative comments about Bill and talking about how we needed to move forward and not backward. It's one thing to try the new flavor of the week and enjoy it.... but quite another to turn on your old favorites because of it. Stupid, IMO.

I also think quite frankly that 4 years of smugness coming from the Obama camp (no, not all of you) would be more puking than is healthy for a man or a bear. I must admit that part of my dislike of Obama is the dislike of his zealots. A big part.

I've never been able to stomach the holier than thou crowd... no matter who or what they endorse or represent.

Pretty subjective way to evaluate a candidate I realize, but at the end of the day all we can do is listen to the bullshit.... and it's a plate full of bullshit from EVERY candidate.... and make up our own minds.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Nimh, I think you mentioned a few days ago (and probably 30 pages back, which is why I'm not quoting your post) about how I used the worst examples of Obama supporters (i.e. Roxxxanne, Cyclops) as proof that Obama supporters in general (you, Soz, freeduck, Butterfly, others) are all crazy, arrogant, gnats that I just want to swat away.

Anyway, you're right, I did do that and it wasn't on purpose. I think I mentioned in the past that I only know 3 Obama supporters in real life (I'm sure I know more, but I only know 3 that have talked to me about it) and 2 of those 3 very much remind me of the worst posters here, and the other one is very civil (but not outspoken like the others). I guess it's always the most outspoken, arrogant, snobbish posters that stick out (this is true of republican, bush supporters as well)

I guess this is an apology for the generalizations that I've made against those less-outspoken Obama supporters.

Very big of you, maporsche. Thanks for saying that.

During and in between making my rounds yesterday, I checked in on various radio and television medium. My general impression was that the more "left-sympathetic" were sympathetic and glowing re Obama's speech; the more 'right-leaning' were much less so, most particularly black conservatives. Shelby Steele has done some pretty in depth research on Obama and describes him as a bargainer:

Excerpts from Steele's book on Obama:

Quote:

So, yes, Obama's interracial background puts him at cross purposes. It gives him a racelessness that is politically appealing to whites, but it also draws him toward precisely the kind of self-conscious black identity that alienates whites. For nearly two decades Barack Obama has attended a black church on the South Side of Chicago that his own mother could never have felt comfortable in. It subscribes to a "Black Value System" in which "black" was always the operative word--"black family," "black community," "black freedom," etc. But it was not a black value system that accounted for Obama's success in life; it was the values of his white Midwestern mother. Could he stand up in his own church and say this?

and

Quote:

Bargainers make a deal with white Americans that gives whites the benefit of the doubt: I will not rub America's history of racism in your face, if you will not hold my race against me. Especially in our era of political correctness, whites are inevitably grateful for this bargain that spares them the shame of America's racist past. They respond to bargainers with gratitude, warmth, and even affection. This "gratitude factor" can bring the black bargainer great popularity. Oprah Winfrey is the most visible bargainer in America today.

The point here is what almost all media sources seem to be implying now in a way that was not implied before the speech. Obama was what Steele calls a 'bargainer' before. The campaign was not about race.

As a result of the speech, now it is in a way that it was not before.

As Thomas Sowell's column expressed today, the polls should shortly tell us whether the speech did more good than harm or was generally a wash.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Nappy - Don't let these a-holes like "mountie" get you down.

You are correct a Obama never answered the questions as to why he did not immediately reprimand the "pastor" or leave the church. He did do a wonderful job in outlining the status of race relations in this country, however. Yet, those like "mountie" continue to defend racists behavior and attitudes by making lame excuses for Obama.

Yes he did. He said he couldn't disown Wright any more than he could disown the black community or his white grandma.

0 Replies

What a bizarre POV:

Quote:

During and in between making my rounds yesterday, I checked in on various radio and television medium. My general impression was that the more "left-sympathetic" were sympathetic and glowing re Obama's speech; the more 'right-leaning' were much less so, most particularly black conservatives. Shelby Steele has done some pretty in depth research on Obama and describes him as a bargainer:

In reality, nearly everyone, save the extreme right wing, praised the speech. Well, sell-out Shelby Steele, whoever the hell he is (except another sell-out)who is black and HAS DONE RESEARCH says Obama is a bargainer. Big frigging whoop.

0 Replies

Who Shelby Steele is:

http://aalbc.com/authors/images/shelby10.jpg

Shelby Steele holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Utah, an M.A. in sociology from Southern Illinois University, and a B.A. in political science from Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Steele is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action. He was appointed a Hoover fellow in 1994.

Steele received the National Book Critic's Circle Award in 1990 in the general nonfiction category for his book The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. He also has written extensively for major publications including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. He also is a contributing editor at Harper's magazine., and his work has also appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Republic, Newsweek, and the Washington Post, among many other publications.

For his work on the PBS television documentary Seven Days in Bensonhurst, he was recognized with both an Emmy Award and a Writers Guild Award. In 2004 President George W. Bush, citing Steele's "learned examinations of race relations and cultural issues," honored him with the National Humanities Medal. He lives in California.
http://aalbc.com/authors/shelby_steele.htm

0 Replies

nappy noggin wrote:

Quote:

So your answer is no, no president, former president or presidential candidate has supported, endorsed or been a member of a church and its pastor that routinely spews hatred and racist views from its pulpit and has for more than three decades?

We're up to three decades now, I see.

I hate hate. Clearly, you hate it even better. Tip of the hat to your superior hating. But I think we are both trumped by the folks at Bob Jones University who hated blacks and interracial dating really really good. And the thing of it is, of course, that even though every Republican president (and every Republican candidate) has trooped on up there to wave and smile and speak about 'tradition' and a loving caucasian Christ.

And, heck, that's like four decades or five or six. Don't ya just hate the whole time thing?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The point here is what almost all media sources seem to be implying now in a way that was not implied before the speech. Obama was what Steele calls a 'bargainer' before. The campaign was not about race.

As a result of the speech, now it is in a way that it was not before.

I confess that I don't understand what this means. I read Steele's piece but I still don't understand what point is being made. And I wonder, is Steele's the only POV you've read or are there others that might contradict it or just see it from another angle?

Did you see or read Obama's speech? What did you think of it?

0 Replies

I thought I recognized the name of Shelby Steele...I read the review of his book about Barack Obama in the New York Review of Books...his book about how Barack Obama can't win. I was not impressed with his conclusions. Also Hoover Institute does connote to me a negative...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Um...why? Not meaning to be too facetious but are you worried about your hubcaps, Israel, liberals generally or the 'charisma' thing?

Well maybe you did not mean to be facetious, but you sure came across that way. I'll forgive you this time. (Old ladies DO forgive easily )

Anyhow, bottom line, he talks about bringing people together, yet he definitely puts the working and middle class on one side, and business on the other, for one thing. I don't know where he thinks that the jobs for all these workers come from, but put the screws into business, and many more people will be out of work.

I think that the war in Iraq was not carried out well, but pulling out now will make our position untenable.

I have two major concerns, terrorism and the economy. I think that he is wrongheaded on both subjects.....................And I haven't checked my hubcaps recently! :wink:

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Nappy - Don't let these a-holes like "mountie" get you down.

You are correct a Obama never answered the questions as to why he did not immediately reprimand the "pastor" or leave the church. He did do a wonderful job in outlining the status of race relations in this country, however. Yet, those like "mountie" continue to defend racists behavior and attitudes by making lame excuses for Obama.

Thank you. Obama may have to give yet another speech and maybe next time he'll take questions and his audience won't be filled with his supporters and 'invited' guests. He did say that he could not disown his pastor (no one asked him to), but yet he scrubbed his website of any mention of him. Do you think it's likely that we will see any future photos of him and his lovable old uncle embracing?

0 Replies

But perhaps we ought to take up somethings that a sane person might consider important in a presidential candidate. Two would be, you'd think, knowledge and mental competence.

Some of you would have seen McCain speaking in Iraq yesterday and how he needed to be corrected by Lieberman on that piddling and insignificant issue of whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or someone else or if someone else was doing something with someone else.

Quote:

No Gaffe, Just Totally Out of It?

I was working on a longer post about John McCain this afternoon, which I'm hoping to post tomorrow. But I just noticed that this goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show.

(I'm assuming that no one noticed on Hewitt's show. They said Saddam had nukes and bio weapons but left them in a safe deposit box in Damascus. So by those standards thinking the Iranians run al Qaeda isn't that big a stretch.)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Nappy - Don't let these a-holes like "mountie" get you down.

You are correct a Obama never answered the questions as to why he did not immediately reprimand the "pastor" or leave the church. He did do a wonderful job in outlining the status of race relations in this country, however. Yet, those like "mountie" continue to defend racists behavior and attitudes by making lame excuses for Obama.

Yes he did. He said he couldn't disown Wright any more than he could disown the black community or his white grandma.

That is what he said. My question to him would be WHEN did you reprimand the pastor about his comments? When he said them or at some other time.

That is my only issue with his otherwise wonderful speech

0 Replies

BBB
I didn't get to watch Obama's speech yesterday morning because I was taking Maddy to the Vet. I saw it late last night and was impressed by the risk Obama was taking.

No doubt, Obama is a wonderful orator based on intelligent evaluation of situations and to communicate with people of all education levels. I admire him for that---and for his goal of bringing people together to jointly overpower our real oppressors. Obama's talent still does not mean that he has the governing skills I'm looking for in a candidate. But I admire him none the less and will vote for him if he becomes the Democratic Party's candidate.

BBB

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But perhaps we ought to take up somethings that a sane person might consider important in a presidential candidate. Two would be, you'd think, knowledge and mental competence.

Some of you would have seen McCain speaking in Iraq yesterday and how he needed to be corrected by Lieberman on that piddling and insignificant issue of whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or someone else or if someone else was doing something with someone else.

Quote:
No Gaffe, Just Totally Out of It?

I was working on a longer post about John McCain this afternoon, which I'm hoping to post tomorrow. But I just noticed that this goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show.

(I'm assuming that no one noticed on Hewitt's show. They said Saddam had nukes and bio weapons but left them in a safe deposit box in Damascus. So by those standards thinking the Iranians run al Qaeda isn't that big a stretch.)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Iran probably trains both. Not much of a gaffe. Did you have a similar fit when Obama said 10,000 died in the Greensboro tornado? He was surrounded by aides, none of whom jumped in to correct him (12 died) and the next day Obama blamed his 'gaffe' on campaign fatigue. (The campaign had just begun).

0 Replies

phoenix wrote

Quote:

Anyhow, bottom line, he talks about bringing people together, yet he definitely puts the working and middle class on one side, and business on the other, for one thing. I don't know where he thinks that the jobs for all these workers come from, but put the screws into business, and many more people will be out of work.

You may have noticed that there is something close to abject terror being voiced by economists presently about what the consequences of deregulated financial markets may well become. There are indicators in place now which have not been seen since the Great Crash, itself a period preceded by minimal regulation (such regulations being then as now not desired by big business and big money).

Welcome to the world of distrusting a candidate who has charisma meanwhile trusting 'business'.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have two major concerns, terrorism and the economy. I think that he is wrongheaded on both subjects.....................

And McCain is the answer for you on those subjects? All he is going to do is just continue the status quo on all counts. If you think everything is fine; then I can see why you would vote for him; if you don't, then I don't see why you would vote for him. You are going to vote for McCain?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

blatham wrote:
But perhaps we ought to take up somethings that a sane person might consider important in a presidential candidate. Two would be, you'd think, knowledge and mental competence.

Some of you would have seen McCain speaking in Iraq yesterday and how he needed to be corrected by Lieberman on that piddling and insignificant issue of whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or someone else or if someone else was doing something with someone else.

Quote:
No Gaffe, Just Totally Out of It?

I was working on a longer post about John McCain this afternoon, which I'm hoping to post tomorrow. But I just noticed that this goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show.

(I'm assuming that no one noticed on Hewitt's show. They said Saddam had nukes and bio weapons but left them in a safe deposit box in Damascus. So by those standards thinking the Iranians run al Qaeda isn't that big a stretch.)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Iran probably trains both. Not much of a gaffe. Did you have a similar fit when Obama said 10,000 died in the Greensboro tornado? He was surrounded by aides, none of whom jumped in to correct him (12 died) and the next day Obama blamed his 'gaffe' on campaign fatigue. (The campaign had just begun).

nappy noggin

Let's end this off with a kiss or a buttock massage or something. I really don't have any interest in speaking with you. You're a partisan shill and demonstrate little ability to think past the bounds of your dogmatic and propaganda-supplied cliches.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know