Obama '08?

Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

He's most definitely wrong about this. Does anybody honestly think that wrapping himself in the American flag is going to convince the Hannity's of the world? The people who think this is a big deal and who seriously entertain the thought that Obama is some Black Panther in Senator's clothing will never, ever vote for Obama or any other Democrat. Patriotism has to do with loving one's country and wanting and working for the best for it. Obama has this. The people who have come very close to destroying this country over the last 8 years wore lots of lapel pins and certainly do not love this country or its Constitution as evidenced by their actions.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Those still capable of looking at it objectively are willing to look at all of it.

Good. So assuming that you're including yourself amongst "those still capable of looking at it objectively", why then did you write that Obama was "claiming he didn't know anything" about it?

If you are really willing to look objectively at all of it, you'd know that this was not true.

Then again, you might be trying to tell us that it's impossible for you to look at things objectively...

Did you read the piece I posted? Did you look at the video clip I linked?

Wrapping himself in the flag

Quote:

Wrapping himself in the flag

My god in heaven! You can even write these words after seven years of Bush?! That's a stretch into kuku-land even for you.

You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

Hanson is spot on accurate that those who were not strongly committed to Obama or who were still on the fence need some reassurance and they need it decisively.

Wrapping himself in the flag, at least making a pretense of overt patriotism, making a point to specifically state that he loves America and specifically stating that Jeremiah was/is wrong about those things of which he accuses America.

He as a Senator in the U.S. Congress would be ordering investigations and hearings if he thought for a minute that the U.S. government had invented AIDs to kill the black man, if it was intentionally funneling drugs to black youth, yadda yadda. THAT'S what would make him convincing. Not vague disavowals of what many Americans now wonder about--does Barack Obama in fact embrace those values Wright preaches and is just sort of brushing them aside because they are not politically expedient?

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Those still capable of looking at it objectively are willing to look at all of it.

Good. So assuming that you're including yourself amongst "those still capable of looking at it objectively", why then did you write that Obama was "claiming he didn't know anything" about it?

If you are really willing to look objectively at all of it, you'd know that this was not true.

Then again, you might be trying to tell us that it's impossible for you to look at things objectively...

Did you read the piece I posted? Did you look at the video clip I linked?

Foxy,

please link to a statement by Obama where he was "claiming he didn't know anything" (your words) about Wright's statements.

Hillary Wants Greenspan to Rescue Homeowners


I wonder what Paul Krugman, who has pointed to Alan Greenspan's role in fostering the current financial crisis, would think of asking Greenspan to help decide if the US should help rescue home owners, and not just the Wall Street financial giants. From Reuters:

In retrospect, it's clear that the Clinton administration went along too easily with moves to deregulate the financial industry. And it's hard to avoid the suspicion that big contributions from Wall Street helped grease the rails.

Last year, there was no question at all about the way Wall Street's financial contributions to the new Democratic majority in Congress helped preserve, at least for now, the tax loophole that lets hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Now, the securities and investment industry is pouring money into both Mr. Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's coffers. And these donors surely believe that they're buying something in return.

Let's hope they're wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:

You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

Quote:

Hanson is spot on accurate that those who were not strongly committed to Obama or who were still on the fence need some reassurance and they need it decisively.

According to the polls, they got what they needed from his speech.

Quote:

Wrapping himself in the flag, at least making a pretense of overt patriotism, making a point to specifically state that he loves America and specifically stating that Jeremiah was/is wrong about those things of which he accuses America.

Apparently he could shout it from the high heavens and you still wouldn't hear it. He has said that he believes Wright was wrong about what he said and why he thinks he was wrong. (He even went you one better.) But making a pretense of overt patriotism would make him look like a) a phony and b) a wimp to knuckle under pressure from the right wing. Most of us who like Obama like him because he isn't (a) and he's tough enough to withstand (b).

Quote:

He as a Senator in the U.S. Congress would be ordering investigations and hearings if he thought for a minute that the U.S. government had invented AIDs to kill the black man, if it was intentionally funneling drugs to black youth, yadda yadda. THAT'S what would make him convincing. Not vague disavowals of what many Americans now wonder about--does Barack Obama in fact embrace those values Wright preaches and is just sort of brushing them aside because they are not politically expedient?

So interesting. Many Americans have these questions -- do you? If so, why do you not look at your own evidence that it isn't true. Even you can think of a counter example to show that Obama does not in fact embrace those most radical ideas -- the fact that none of his actions (or words for that matter) indicate that he does. Yet you persist that "many Amercians wonder" whether Obama supports these conspiracy theories. It's clear to me that you and others really like the questions more than you like the answers, which is why you persist in asserting they remain unanswered long after they have been.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

For about the upteenth jillionth time, not that I think you'll read it this time either, I do not want a 'black' President. And I certainly do not want a President who even might share Jeremiah's views about America. I want a President who loves America, who recognizes and appreciates the best of America and who has America's best interests at heart while we object those things that are not commendable. It is fine if that President happens to be black.

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

For about the upteenth jillionth time, not that I think you'll read it this time either, I do not want a 'black' President. And I certainly do not want a President who even might share Jeremiah's views about America. I want a President who loves America, who recognizes and appreciates the best of America and who has America's best interests at heart while we object those things that are not commendable. It is fine if that President happens to be black.

Oh I read that every time you've written it, but it doesn't answer the question. What are you afraid will happen if he becomes president that is so "dangerous"? The president you profess to want above is, in fact, Obama.

What evidence has Obama presented that he would focus on the 'black agenda?'

What, for that matter, is the 'black agenda?' Somehow I doubt you will be able to cogently explain what this means in terms of policies.

And what specific foreign policy positions is it you think he would take? My guess is that these have FAR more to do with him being a Dem, then with anything else you could say.

Cycloptichorn

Murky Group Spends Hundreds of Thousands against Obama and Clinton
By Paul Kiel - March 24, 2008, 11:44AM
This election is sure to see its share of attack groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But while most of the attention will be on the billionaire-backed attack organizations, there are also sure to be a number of smaller groups operating under the radar.

A group called the Republican Majority Campaign is a good example. Since January, the group has disclosed spending a total of $350,000 on phone calls against both of the Democratic presidential nominees. The FEC filings show a number of expenditures in equal amounts on the same day against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama throughout February and March. It's an oddly unfocused strategy and one that the group declines to describe publicly in any detail.

But that's not all that's curious about the group. It's operations resemble those of groups formerly run by Linda Chavez and Christopher Gersten, although those associated with the group deny any connection with Chavez and Gerstein.

Chavez, a former Reagan administration official and President Bush's one-time nominee for Secretary of Labor (derailed by a nanny scandal), and Gersten, a former Bush administration official, ran a stable of conservative political action committees together for many years. But that stopped not long after a front-page Washington Post story, under the headline "In Fundraising's Murky Corners," exposed a troubling trend in those groups. Only about one percent of the funds were used for actual political activities such as contributions to politicians or independent political activity. The rest was cycled back into fundraising costs, "a modest but steady source of income for Chavez and four family members," and various expenses for the family associated with the groups. "I guess you could call it the family business," as Chavez put it.

I am afraid of getting a President who will focus on the 'black agenda' and make matters worse instead of healing.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country.

I am afraid of a President who claims to be a uniter, not a divider, but who has never voted with the GOP even once nor reached out to them in identifiable way nor co-sponsored any significant legislations shared by GOP sponsors.

What specific evidence do you have to show that Obama is in fact the person he claims to be?

Also do you believe I provided competent rebuttal to your other points?

What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.