Obama '08?

Diest TKO wrote:

Since you seem to be fearful of a BLT coup de tat ala Obama, perhaps you can name a policy you think that Obama will promote/implement once in office that is related to Rev Wright. Or perhaps you can point us in the direction of policies that Obama has already pushed forward with his radical-closet-BLT-secret muslim agenda as farmerman pointed out.

If you can't find some practical threat in this whole Rev Wright ordeal, then there is no reason to keep talking about it. Prove to me you're not just full of $hit. Answer the question.

which have evolved into...

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Why won't any conservatives answer this? What is so hard about this question? I'll keep asking as long as conservatives keep trolling around this obviously irrelavent topic.

T
K
O

Apart from the overheated, juvenile rhetoric, the many (sometimes amusing) misspellings, and the overinflated, self-important tone that accompanies Diest's shadowboxing with the unseen spectres of "conservatives" there stands the absurdity of "the question" he poses - in such big blue letters.

Obama's campaign is based on the proposition that he is a transcendent figure, beyond the divides of race, economic status and class; a uniter who will bring us to this happy state too; and an agent of "change", who will make it all happen.

Question -- what specific policies, either past or present or future of Obama's will bring all this about?????

Though some have noted that his various economic, social, national security programs are, charitably speaking, - rather thin, the fact is that conservatives have not made this the supreme standard by which to criticize him. Even more to the point, Obama himself has not deigned to make this kind of specific policy detail the basis of his assertion that we should accept him as the sole source of real CHANGE now.

Odd then that Diest should rise up to such heights and so inflate himself in insisting on this exclusive standard be met by those he opposes.

0 Replies

Interesting interview with Wright here from February 2007. Will quote bits and pieces.

Quote:

[Wright]: And, you know, I'd like to take credit and say yes, I made [Obama] who he is. No, I didn't. He was like that when I met him. He's been like that 23 years now. And right after he was elected I was at the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ. And they said what word of advice would you give to Senator Barack Obama now that he's United States senator? That you please stay the same now that you're in the United States Senate as you've been across the years, because that's very important.

[...]

But secondly, I was saying to our members who were upset, Barack doesn't talk to me about political things like that. You know, that's not my role in his life, never been my role. He's six years in the [Illinois] Senate. He never asked me anything about any piece of legislation whatsoever. He talks to me as his pastor, and I talk to him as a member.

[...]

Q: He knew you a long time before he responded to an altar call. What do you think moved him to do that?

A: I don't know. I would like to -- somebody said last week did you ever think one of your sermons would be used as a mantra in a Democratic convention speech and a title to a book of a presidential candidate? No, I did not. I think, okay, if I were a person caught up in ego I would say "my powerful preaching." I think it's that he found a church that -- and you know he checked out a lot of churches. And probably more the conversations we had outside of church, and outside of the sermons, than my preaching or worship experience --he found a church that was firmly committed to both arms of the cross. The personal spirituality, the personal piety, and the social action -- that when the benediction was over, what are you doing? As he mentions from time to time, the Free South Africa sign caught his attention. What's a church on South Side Chicago? Most people don't even know where Johannesburg is. They think it's in Mississippi somewhere. Steve Biko? You're talking about Steve Biko? Black consciousness movement? Who's Nelson Mandela? Well, after Tutu and Mandela became media events -- but here we were in the '70s talking about it. That fascinated him, because the average church was talking about the pastor's anniversary and chicken dinners and car washes. And here we are talking about the connectedness of the people of God across the globe. That intrigued him.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"
T
K
O

Who knows, TKO, thats the point. Who knows where a loose cannon will fire the next round? I will name just 3.

1. I cannot pretend to name all policies that could come up because of screwed up priorities, but one that I can think of right now is the issue of reparations for slavery. That would be a hopelessly divisive and inappropriate issue to become mired in, but it wouldn't be a surprising thing for the rev and other like minded folks to promote somebody like Obama into. I take Obama as a guy that could engage in wallowing in yesterday's injustices.

2. I see Obama as being much more sympathetic to the enemies of Israel that are bent upon pushing the Jews into the sea, and Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East. I don't see anything productive coming out of that. The rev obviously hates Jews and it would seem he would be happy if they were all exterminated. He didn't say it in those words, but that is the jest of it. Does Obama harbor similar views? Who really knows?

3. Negotiations with terrorists and terrorist states, as well as communist dictators, etc. To listen to the rev, he seems to have affections for communists and Marxists and castigates his own country as "imperialistic." Does Obama harbor the same views? The rev indicates he does but can't afford to say it because he is a "politician."

I could name numerous examples, and for anyone like yourself to claim a conservative won't answer the question is preposterous. And if you used reason, you could also figure some of this out. But for all I know, you and other leftists here may agree with the rev? But fortunately you aren't running for office, but Obama is.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And who knows ... he might be a closet radical. Can you assure me he isn't?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

And who knows ... McCain might be a closet shape-shifter from the planet Zargono. Can you assure me he isn't?

Ticomaya wrote:

You don't seriously believe this, do you?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He does look a little off; and his political positions certainly shape-shift with frequency. So, it's not really beyond the realm of belief.

Ticomaya wrote:

But he doesn't even look Zargonian.

Well I'm glad to see the subject is finally treated with the seriousness it deserves ;-)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Since you seem to be fearful of a BLT coup de tat ala Obama, perhaps you can name a policy you think that Obama will promote/implement once in office that is related to Rev Wright. Or perhaps you can point us in the direction of policies that Obama has already pushed forward with his radical-closet-BLT-secret muslim agenda as farmerman pointed out.

If you can't find some practical threat in this whole Rev Wright ordeal, then there is no reason to keep talking about it. Prove to me you're not just full of $hit. Answer the question.

which have evolved into...

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Why won't any conservatives answer this? What is so hard about this question? I'll keep asking as long as conservatives keep trolling around this obviously irrelavent topic.

T
K
O

Apart from the overheated, juvenile rhetoric, the many (sometimes amusing) misspellings, and the overinflated, self-important tone that accompanies Diest's shadowboxing with the unseen spectres of "conservatives" there stands the absurdity of "the question" he poses - in such big blue letters...
Quote:

You still fail to answer to the question so your contribution is inconsequential. You claim that Wright is not "the supreme standard by which to criticize" Obama, yet here in this thread, anyone can count the number of pages in which conservatives have made this their main seige on Obama's campaign.

I'm calling your bluff. You can't find a single policy of threat related to Wright.

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

T
K
O

0 Replies

On a (fairly) unrelated note - what do you think: is there anything to this observation?

It's Jonathan Chait reflecting on Obama's presser yesterday about Obama.

Quote:

I do see a pattern here: Throughout the campaign, Obama has made very good tactical moves, but he's made them slowly. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has made a lot of mistakes, but she does grasp the 24-hour news cycle and she acts very quickly.

0 Replies

Translation, which one is better at spinning what the public wants to hear?

Pathetic, nimh.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"
T
K
O

Who knows, TKO, thats the point. Who knows where a loose cannon will fire the next round? I will name just 3.

So sets sail the flagship Idiocracy headlong into the the wild waters of war...

okie wrote:

1. I cannot pretend to name all policies that could come up because of screwed up priorities, but one that I can think of right now is the issue of reparations for slavery. That would be a hopelessly divisive and inappropriate issue to become mired in, but it wouldn't be a surprising thing for the rev and other like minded folks to promote somebody like Obama into. I take Obama as a guy that could engage in wallowing in yesterday's injustices.

My memory is murky... Can you provide the link to the speach Obama gave outlining the slave appropriaions? Thanks in advance.

okie wrote:

2. I see Obama as being much more sympathetic to the enemies of Israel that are bent upon pushing the Jews into the sea, and Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East. I don't see anything productive coming out of that. The rev obviously hates Jews and it would seem he would be happy if they were all exterminated. He didn't say it in those words, but that is the jest of it. Does Obama harbor similar views? Who really knows?

Because Obama wants to talk to other arab nations, he hates jews?

okie wrote:

3. Negotiations with terrorists and terrorist states, as well as communist dictators, etc. To listen to the rev, he seems to have affections for communists and Marxists and castigates his own country as "imperialistic." Does Obama harbor the same views? The rev indicates he does but can't afford to say it because he is a "politician."

What's your hard-on for iron curtains? How is this a spiritual matter that Obama would seek Wright's guidance on?

okie wrote:

I could name numerous examples, and for anyone like yourself to claim a conservative won't answer the question is preposterous. And if you used reason, you could also figure some of this out. But for all I know, you and other leftists here may agree with the rev? But fortunately you aren't running for office, but Obama is.

Your examples are based on fiction and nothing that Obama has said or done. You can use you imagination all day to make Obama into a racist, but at the end of the day the Republicans are still pushing forth McCain. A man whose voice was clear when he made reference to "the gooks."

But thanks for the attempt all the same. Very Happy

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You still fail to answer to the question so your contribution is inconsequential. You claim that Wright is not "the supreme standard by which to criticize" Obama, yet here in this thread, anyone can count the number of pages in which conservatives have made this their main seige on Obama's campaign.

I'm calling your bluff. You can't find a single policy of threat related to Wright.

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

T
K
O

Apparently your reading comprehension is as limited as your maturity, proficiency in spelling, and logic.

I made no claim whatever about whether Wright is or is not, or should be or should not be a standard for criticism of Obama - none at all.

I made no bluff, and your supposed "call on it" is as absurd (i.e. meaningless) as the original question that prompted it all.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
1. He has surrounded himself with extremely capable advisors with varied opinions. That has always been my vision of how a President should put together a team. Lincoln did this and is remembered as our best President. (Not saying Obama is Lincoln.) Reagan did some of this as well. (Not saying Obama is Reagan.) His willingness to hire the best people and take their opinions into account even when not agreeing is one of the reasons his campaign does not have the infighting and difficulties of the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

Okay, starting with 1, I don't necessarily agree on his advisors. He has had to punt one important one, the rev. I have heard about other questionable ones, but be that as it may, who knows until he actually wins and starts picking advisors in earnest? So, okay, you may believe he picks good advisors, I think the jury is out big time.

Wright is not one of his advisors. Religious leader, sure. Policy advisor, never was. Here's an article, previously linked that discusses some of this: The Audacity of Data

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
2. He can inspire. This is one of the key requirements of the job, getting the American people behind initiatives that might not be popular, but are required. For example, I believe one of the biggest failings of the current President is that he has not come to the people and said "we are at war and you must pay for it."

Now, this is a crock, I know lots of people not very inspired, and in fact I know of quite a few people very pessimistic. Maybe you feel inspired right now, but how long will this last?

It's not that he's inspired me particularly since I've never seen him live and only heard sound bites otherwise. It's the tens of thousands who have registered to vote after listening to him. The huge audiences he attracts. The man is hitting on something that people need. Reagan could do that. Reagan did not inspire everyone (at least in a positive way) but he was able to bring the public with him. Obama has demonstrated he can do that. I don't aspire to bring you to his camp, only to point out the fact that the man can draw a crowd and inspire loyalty.

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
3. In my opinion, he is willing to try to be the President of all the people. His strategy is not "win the blue states plus Florida and Ohio." He wants to run a fifty state campaign, he appeals to independents and moderate Republicans, he doesn't seem to think that we should divide the country into little demographic groups and turn them against each other for political gain.

Fine, that sounds good, but he is engaged in one of the most divisive races in your party in a good long time. I don't even see Democrats coalesing completely around him, let alone Republicans, and I think it will only get worse if elected.

Not my party, I'm an independent, but to your point, Obama is not being especially divisive. If anything, your argument makes my point. A lot of politicians would be making snide remarks about ducking bullets and negotiating peace deals. Obama has ignored that stuff while Clinton piles on at every opportunity. He's run a clean enough campaign to bring in the Clinton voters come November. Like Reagan, I expect him to bring in independent and Republican voters as well.

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
4. He saw through the pre-war Bush fear mongering and made the call correctly. To me, this goes straight to his critical thinking faculties and moral fortitude. To many, the "mushroom cloud" arguments being tossed about before the Iraq war were very transparent. I erroneously accepted the "Iraq has WMD" argument, but I never accepted the "Iraq supports terrorists" or the "Iraq is a threat to the US" arguments. There was too much data refuting them and none supporting them. My personal belief is that Senator Clinton saw through them as well, but made a politically expedient decision to support the war since Congress was going to support it anyway. Obama was heavily favored to win his Senate race, so maybe you think there was little political risk in bucking a popular war, but in the end, he made the correct call.

I will give him credit for being consistent on the war, he was not in favor, and therefore cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this issue. However, there is plenty of reason to lack confidence in Obama's foreign policy skills. He has no experience. He was on a European affairs committee, but never visited Europe during the time, besides maybe London. He wants to talk to terrorists, bomb Pakistan, probably be very sympathetic to terrorist factions seeking to eliminate our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel. If I was Israel, I would be mightly nervous.

He has more foreign policy experience than Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Carter, etc. At least he is on the foreign affairs committee. He said he would take to Iran. Is that what you mean by "terrorists?" I say it's about time. Iran is a key nation in that portion of the world. What do we have to gain by ignoring them? As for Pakistan, he said he would pursue terrorists there, even if the Pakistani government did not give the OK. I thought you would appreciate that. Bush did exactly that just a few weeks ago.

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
I don't think Obama is perfect nor does he agree with me on all the issues. I do think he has demonstrated he meets the minimum requirements I want in a President. Equally, I think the other two candidates have demonstrated that they do not.

Well, I certainly agree on imperfection, and I agree I don't want Clinton, and I am not real enthusiastic about McCain. Suffice it to say Obama is a huge question mark, who knows, but I don't think he would be a good president at all. If he should win, which I doubt, but if he does, I will just have to hope for the best.

I don't have any illusions of you voting Obama in the fall, but I did want to answer your question on how someone out of adolesence could vote for Obama. You've always been above board on your positions and I know you will vote your beliefs. I'm good with that. Should he win in November, I appreciate your hoping for the best. Should McCain win, I will return the favor.

0 Replies

It is normal and expected for the A2K attention to be focused on the media storm of the day re Obama and currently that happens to be Wright. I am not sure that anybody has said that Wright is a reason to dismiss Obama as a candidate. I certainly haven't said that.

But it is also not unreasonable to consider a 20-year relationship with a person like Wright as part of the package we get in a candidate. A 20-year relationship would not be dismissed as unimportant for any other candidate, especially when the candidate admitted a problem with the relationship ONLY after it became a political liability.

Obama can't expect a pass on that any more than any other candidate could expect a pass.

But so far as why anybody has said they aren't voting for Obama at this time, I have seen only two reasons stated:

1) The member prefers Hillary
2) The member sees Obama as too far left on too many issues to be an attractive candidate.

Neither of those things has anything to do with Jeremiah Wright.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I don't have any illusions of you voting Obama in the fall, but I did want to answer your question on how someone out of adolesence could vote for Obama. You've always been above board on your positions and I know you will vote your beliefs. I'm good with that. Should he win in November, I appreciate your hoping for the best. Should McCain win, I will return the favor.

I will condense your answer. I read it all. Fair enough on your explanations, and I will admit I initially liked Obama much better than Clinton. I had hoped he knock Clinton out of the race, and perhaps I even still hope that. I will admit I don't really know how Obama would do as president, but suffice it to say the more I learn about him, the more red flags appear. I think it would have been infinitely better for the media and the party to have refrained from pushing a novice with questionable credentials beyond giving a supposedly good speech like Obama into where he is today. Drawing crowds is not a positive thing necessarily, the Beatles did it, and so did Hitler. I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, but just illustrating a point, and when you watch a rally, it reminds me of a pyramid sales scheme the way he works the crowd, and all you see are signs saying "change." Sorry, that isn't going to convince me. Its all puff and no substance as far as I can see so far.

For now, I will continue to voice my opinion, then vote in November, and whatever the country decides, so be it, then I will hope for the best. I don't pin my happiness on government anyway, but I do hope to try to stem the tide of more and more socialism and whatever comes after that.

Another comment, if Thomas Sowell was Obama's hero and inspiration for the last 20 years, I would be the first one in line at the polling place to cast my vote for the man.

0 Replies

okie, engineer -- Thanks for the very good dialogue. I don't fully agree with either of you (as you don't with each other), but have enjoyed the dialogue - rational, factual and mutually respectful, even picking up a few new ideas for myself along the way.

0 Replies

george, I have a few more comments. I am feeling particularly fed up with all of this. And fed up with the shallowness of people in general. First of all, Obama's book, the Audacity of Hope. It is stupid title, and the mantra "change" I am fed up with. Its nothing more than fluff. And now Obama claims not to know what Wright was about, after being there 20 years, claiming to have part of his dumb book inspired by the lunatic, I find it all so ridiculous, and I think Obama may be a huge liar and politician. I guess it would be too much to hope that people wouldn't be so naive as to believe all of it and fall for the obviously phony nonsense that infests politics of today, when they see a bandwagon, jump on it, and utopia is just around the corner. I would suggest nothing is further from reality, and for myself I think this country is pretty decent and doesn't need alot of changes. If people educate themselves, go to work every day on time, and manage their finances and be responsible, they can quit looking to government for some mystical cure to their unhappiness. I don't need Obama's book to find some mystical inspiration of hope. He can keep his book, and he can keep his hate filled spiritual rev, and he can keep his politics.

Theres my rant for the day. I feel better.

0 Replies

I am just curious okie.

Have you read Obama's book (other then the title)?

((Your willingness to have such a strong opinion without reading more than the title would amuse me.))

0 Replies

Quote:

It is stupid title, and the mantra "change" I am fed up with. Its nothing more than fluff.

It is more then fluff. It represents a deeply-held desire to change the way that Washington has been ran for the last two decades, something which both parties can be blamed for, but, let's be honest, people weren't running on much of a 'change' message after Clinton's term. Bush's incredibly poor record in office is what has brought this desire about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Don't ALL candidates run on "change"...except the incumbent?

0 Replies

A person needs mouthwash after reading some of these posts.

Did you even read Audacity of Hope Okie; I am betting my few dollars you haven't. Obama never claimed not to know what Wright was about, that is just the spin you guys have put on it.

People living in poor neighborhoods have a hard time getting an education even if they do get grants or scholarship because it is just so hard to have enough to live on and go to school at the same time and parents of these children don't have to money to help them out. Also chances are these children went to a poor school so they are unprepared in the first place. They have to work twice as hard as those who come from privileged backgrounds. Those are simply facts.

Also there has been an outsourcing problem which has caused people in factories and other such things to be out of work, and an unemployment problem since the bubble burst in the technology market. These things are not the fault of the person but just circumstances.

But I understand you think people would just rather live on welfare since it pays so good or even in jails because the meals at least are free.

There are good things in America and Obama has talked about those things at length when he talks about how remarkable that someone in his background even has a chance to be president. But there are areas where we can stand some improvement. We have not always done things 100% right nor do we do things 100% right in this time in history.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

On a (fairly) unrelated note - what do you think: is there anything to this observation?

It's Jonathan Chait reflecting on Obama's presser yesterday about Obama.

Quote:
I do see a pattern here: Throughout the campaign, Obama has made very good tactical moves, but he's made them slowly. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has made a lot of mistakes, but she does grasp the 24-hour news cycle and she acts very quickly.

I like Chait but I pffed when I read that. I think Obama has acted quickly several times and in good ways.

A big problem here is that yesterday's press conference is seen as an "overdue" reaction to Wright. In fact, it wasn't a reaction to Wright qua Wright -- that was the Philadelphia speech, (which also happened pretty quickly once it became clear that things were escalating). It was a reaction to specific things Wright had said THE DAY BEFORE. A one-day turnaround!! That ain't slow.

The SC race flap also moved quickly once it was clear it was escalating. Hillary went on Meet the Press to bash Obama for an hour including laying the race row at his feet, Obama reacted immediately with "what the heck, I haven't even talked about it until this very comment," then by the next day he gave the "hey the Clintons are good people, let's take this down a notch, OK??" speech.

She had to play catch-up on that one.

0 Replies

okie,
Glad to learn you are feeling better now. :wink:

There are no shortages of things to be concerned about in all of the political camps out there, and, as well, of shallowness in public affairs.

Whether one is a fan or a hater of G.W. Bush, the shortcomings of his administration cannot be denied. As a minimum, we all must concede his failure to beneficially engage the public - and our allies - in the policies he made such a priority in his administration, and his failure to take any detectable action to curtail the growth of Federal spending (no vetos for seven years) --- and that is the good end of the spectrum.

Hillary is a politician of a long familiar type, who presumably will continue the somewhat centrist, politically expedient, and self-serving "triangulations" that are the hallmarks of the Clinton formula. She has the benefit of at least being predictable - we can easily get a sense of what to expect with her.

Obama is a bit of a mystery. His rhetoric and the persona he projects are undeniably attractive - they have given him a large base of truly energized (almost frighteningly so) supporters, and he projects features that are particularly resonant with the moment in the trajectory of our social and political history (almost too good to believe). He is clearly both intelligent and articulate, and that gives him the gravitas that his relative inexperience would otherwise deny him. For me the questions are (1) Is it real: does he really have all the wisdom he projects? ; (2) Can he deliver on the promise he so easily excites? ; (3) Can he control the political forces that have lined up with him, given all their inherent contradictions? ; (4) Does he have the ability to really lead people up close in a difficult, complex endeavor - as opposed to merely exciting large numbers of them from afar ?

This may seem like an unfair burden of proof on him, compared to what is applied to the other candidates. However, I believe it is appropriate in light of the high hopes he deliberately excites, compared to the others, and the lofty (and necessarily vague) promises of transcendent unity he promises to achieve. Moreover, given the emphasis he has put on CHANGE, I want to know much more detail about it than I would that of his competitors. I truly find him (and his rhetoric) very attractive. However I am also mindful of the unhappy fates of other similarly exciting figures from Alcibiades of Athens to General Boulanger of France, Robert LaFolette of Wisconsin and Huey Long of Louisiana. ( He might make a wonderful senator, but a lousy president.)

I know John McCain and the background from which he came. He really is a fairly straight-talking guy, but he has also learned some important political lessons in his second career. I think he is correctly focused on the venality and corruption that has so infected our legislative process; the need to curtail Federal spending; and the many errors that have accompanied our interventions in the persian Gulf. However I worry that he may not see beyond these things and look for necessary remedies to more deeply underlying issues. An example is his fairly complete acceptance of the cant of the frighteningly effective Israeli lobby -- we simply cannot solve the issues underlying our confrontation with the Islamic world (as McCain proposes to do) without also reexamining our reflexive support of whatever Israel wishes to do and the huge, unnecessary subsidies we give them. Analogous issues can be found with respect to his tax and economic policies. (his proposed gas tax holiday is merely silly.)

All that said, I am much inclined to vote for McCain. However, I do wish the picture was clearer and more complete with all three.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know