Obama '08?

Why are you trying to get your leg up on Walter? Do you two need some privacy?

0 Replies

It is a commonplace and old phrase here - means get a step ahead of...

0 Replies

Oh George, George, George..

Just two days ago, in this very thread,

maporsche wrote:

Nimh, I'm encouraged every time I see an Obama supporter deeply criticize their chosen candidate. I understand that you still support him, but I'm encouraged that some (I'm still not convinced that it is 'many') can take an objective look at this guy. I know you've always been this way, and you're not the only one who is, but it is refreshing and needs to be pointed out to those who do not support Obama right now....so that we may feel more comfortable about supporting him in the future.

Now if you could only get some other supporters to tone down the rhetoric........

And today:

georgeob1 wrote:

I am repeatedly amazed by the shrill indignation of the Obamaniacs here (most notably Nimh and Diest TKO) when any doubts about the perfection of their esteemed and saintly candidate are expressed by any of the lesser beings on this thread. No criticism, however mild or qualified, or however well put into context and balanced with equivalent criticism of the other candidates, is tolerated. It appears that opposing thoughts or interpretations relating to their chosen candidate must be utterly suppressed, and those who expressed them villified, their thought processes and motives exposed as deviant or worse, and on to subsequent generations I suppose.

What am I to make of this? I'm so confused!!

Am I a proto-fascist Obamamaniac, or a rare critical observer? Oh, the identity crisis of it all!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Am I a proto-fascist Obamamaniac, or a rare critical observer? Oh, the identity crisis of it all!

Well, I have a pretty good sense of what to make of this, actually... It means one of you is talking bollocks. And George, it's you.

("Bollocks"! Now thats what I wanted to say last time already, but I still went for "poppycock" that time because I like you. But "bollocks" is pretty good.)

I am about as much an "Obamamaniac" as you are a centrist. Which is not much. Anyone who follows my posts here can easily discern that: just the day before yesterday I was criticising Obama in the Hillary thread again in ways that made Soz object - and not for the first time. My reaction to Obama's latest remarks about Wright is ambiguous enough too, as you could have seen.

No George, my negative reaction to your posts had nothing to do with knee-jerk Obamanism. It had to do with your posts. On the specific claim at hand. As I explained, I think they ducked a reasonable question, blithely claimed that you had "clearly demonstrated" things that you had merely asserted, mixed in haughty put downs of your questioner, and kept repeating a canard.

This summarises the core of my specific criticism of your contention on this subject:

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I have .. rather clearly pointed out that none of us can really know what influence any advisor like Wright might have or not have exercised on any candidate on any specific issue.

I think you have "rather clearly" contended [this], yes, but [it] has left me mostly incredulous. If Wright's black militant views which Fox, Tico, Okie etc assert might very well influence Obama's politics as President did indeed exercise an influence on Obama's views, surely there must be any kind of example from throughout his decade or so of public service to illustrate it?

That is hardly an impossible or hypothetical or nonsensical question. It's merely a longer version of, "where's the beef"?

It's a pretty specific criticism, really. To go into rhetorical paroxysms about how all but brown-shirted Obamamaniacs like me just cannot tolerate any criticism of our sainted leader over it seems pretty unhinged.

I do admire the flowery virtuosity of your broadsides. But when you are catapulted into them merely by someone criticising the way you addressed a fellow poster and questioning your logic and assertions on a specific claim at hand and, one can't help but take offense a little.

georgeob1 wrote:

This strange and slavish certainty, and the rage and indignation that goes with it, have rather bad associations with the most ghastly political movements the world has seen. Though I'm quite sure the Obamaniacs would find any connection between themselves and brownshirts or the Red Guards of other like movements as antithetical in the extreme, the fact is they have gone to a great deal of trouble to make the analogy apt. [..]

Perhaps Obama should publish his positions on issues in a little red book so the Obamaniac guard will have something to wave at us as they condemn all non-believers

Thats right. If I question your assertion that it's impossible to say anything at all about whether Wright has instilled black militant beliefs in Obama, regardless of all Obama has said, done and written, that makes me little short of a proto-Nazi/Maoist, suppressing any Obama-heretic thought.

Dear God George. I mean, really... <tut-tuts>.

0 Replies

http://thepage.time.com/letter-from-andrew-to-other-superdelegates/

Quote:

May 1, 2008

Dear Friends:

I have been inspired.

Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.

Here is my message, explained in this lengthy letter that I hope is perceived as a thoughtful analysis of how to save America from four more years of the misguided polices of the past:

Read more at the link.

Joe Andrew is one of five new superdelegate pledges to announce their support for Obama today.

0 Replies

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/01/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

Quote:

Bonus Quote of the Day
"It's the dumbest thing I've heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view...."

-- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, quoted by the New York Observer, on eliminating federal gas taxes for the summertime. The proposal is supported by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003575.html?hpid=topnews

Quote:

Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized
Economists Share Obama's View

By Alec MacGillis and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 1, 2008; A01

A growing chorus -- including a top congressional Democrat -- labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's proposal for suspending the federal gasoline tax ineffective and shortsighted yesterday, even as she continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as insensitive to drivers' woes for not endorsing the plan.

Read more at the link.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Mrs. Bill Clinton is using Rev Wright's racists rants as a personal trait of Obama and it is HER campaign that will benefit in trying to label Obama as a racist or Anti American.

McCain cleverly is keeping quite as he should.
Turn off the grease Monkey's; Woiyo has made a very good point about how McCain's benefiting from the mudslinging while staying out of the fray. Hillary is arguably doing as much for Republican Presidential bid as McCain.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Where is your confidence for all the bets you've been challenging here?

0 Replies

Nimh wrote

Quote:

I think you have "rather clearly" contended [this], yes, but [it] has left me mostly incredulous. If Wright's black militant views which Fox, Tico, Okie etc assert might very well influence Obama's politics as President did indeed exercise an influence on Obama's views, surely there must be any kind of example from throughout his decade or so of public service to illustrate it?

A point of order please:

Not I, not Tico, not Okie have made an issue of "black' militant views. Angry anti-American views yes. Racist views yes. But 'black militant views' I specifically rejected as I do not believe Wright's screeds to be at all typical of the black church. Nor have I thought that any of them were militant in the sense that they are spurring people to angry action.

There are probably a number of black people, including other pastors, who share Wright's views. But I think these are a distinct minority and I think it is incorrect and suspect to attribute Wright's message to the black church or black people in general.

It is not Jeremiah Wright's influence that has been of concern to anybody that I can see. It is a willingness to be exposed to, to admire, to endorse a Jeremiah Wright over a 20-year period that is of concern and could reflect a tolerance or sharing of such views which in turn could suggest the way a candidate sees his country and the people in it. And that in turn could affect the kinds of programs or actions a candidate might endorse and/or promote as President.

Thomas Sowell's remarks that I posted yesterday pretty well summed up my concerns though he framed it more astutely than I had been able to do. Obama is recommending a social agenda that is right out of the 1960's. He is recommending an international policy that is right out of he 1930's.

In both instances, his point of view dovetails with a lot of Jeremiah Wright's social gospel. (My comment. Sowell didn't mention Jeremiah Wright at all.)

0 Replies

Georgeob1 - What's your problem? Why parade around like an asshole?

If you think that I'm a fool for following a candidate's platform and history, fine. I'm comfortable with my methodology.

Meanwhile go use your gut. Rolling Eyes

Foxfyre - You were doing weel talking about policy and platform, but here you are back at Rev Wright. You're talking the same points that have been talked and talked. Do as you wish, but it's a waste of time. Unlike george's idea of what an intellegent voter will do, some people will actually base their choices on practical information.

Jerry Springer or C-SPAN?

Choose wisely.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Georgeob1 - What's your problem? Why parade around like an ****?

If you think that I'm a fool for following a candidate's platform and history, fine. I'm comfortable with my methodology.

Meanwhile go use your gut.

Foxfyre - You were doing weel talking about policy and platform, but here you are back at Rev Wright. You're talking the same points that have been talked and talked. Do as you wish, but it's a waste of time. Unlike george's idea of what an intellegent voter will do, some people will actually base their choices on practical information.

Jerry Springer or C-SPAN?

Choose wisely.

T
K
O

The Sowell article dealt with real issues independent of Jeremiah Wright. But if Obama's social and international policies reflect those woven into Jeremiah Wright sermons, you think that unworthy to note?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Mrs. Bill Clinton is using Rev Wright's racists rants as a personal trait of Obama and it is HER campaign that will benefit in trying to label Obama as a racist or Anti American.

McCain cleverly is keeping quite as he should.
Turn off the grease Monkey's; Woiyo has made a very good point about how McCain's benefiting from the mudslinging while staying out of the fray. Hillary is arguably doing as much for Republican Presidential bid as McCain.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Where is your confidence for all the bets you've been challenging here?

Whatever do you mean? Pick one; I'm still game.

Translation: I believe Hillary is doing damage to Obama... but not enough to defeat him. McCain's been sitting at around a 40% shot for some time now (thanks to Hillary, IMO), which isn't bad, but: If/When Hillary goes away, I still expect Obama to defeat McCain as well.

0 Replies

Nimh,

I want you to know that, despite your angry outbursts and proclivity for defending the indefensible, I still like you.

I agree that, taking your whole commentary here into account you are not an Obamaniac by the definition I gave here. It is merely unfortunate that you exhibit occasional Obamaniac tendencies, and, at the critical moment in question had aligned your self in defense of one of the worst of that unhappy breed (while I was engaged in putting down his egregious attempt to bully anyone who expressed the slightist reservations about his illogical and, frankly, stupid demands - all offensively expressed in a very patronizing manner in big bold letters).

I have gone to great lengths to describe the illogical character of his position, and you can see for yourself how he has persisted in truly belligerent demands that anyone who asserts or even entertains the slightest reservation about any element of Obama's character, motives or intentions based on his past associations, or frankly anything else, must not only justify it, but also express it, in terms of specific details of Obama's past actions on some specific policy matter, or a prediction of specific future action on the same. He was categorical in this demand, asserting there is no other possibility, and that absent, such an observation or prediction, no inference can be taken by anyone: indeed character issues themselves are irrelevant in his eyes - it is only the associated specific policy observations and predictions that he will accept as relevant.

Now, from your latest post I infer that you - almost - agree with him on this matter: saying that some such specific observation or prediction should almost always be available (but stopping short of the other ridiculous propositions).

I have countered with accurate (in my view) descriptions of how people really think about and make judgements on such matters, and noting that most historians and analysts agree that perceptions of character issues, even those that are not easily associated with specific policy issues, usually dominate the political process, at least in this country.

In addition I have pointed out the unreliability of judgements of candidates for high political office, based exclusively on their policy statements, pointing out several salient examples over the last century. I'll provide others - In 2000 G.W. Bush campaigned on the promises of "compassionate conservatism" and the need for a more modest and lower profile for the United States in its international relations, and increased cooperation with our allies. I think you will agree that, even before 9/11 he had exhibited quite the opposite behavior in office. You could also look to Francois Mitterand of France who gained office on a decidedly left-wing socialist platform, and went on to govern as an almost Gaullist conservative. There are many more - indeed, they are the rule, not the exception.

I am generally a guy of moderate views, willing to acknowledge the merits of those who hold views that oppose mine, and and avoid personalizing disagreement over external issues. However, there are limits to everything - I'll confess to a certain impatience with extreme foolishness in argument or positions taken, particularly when it is accompanied by a belligerent unwillingness to consider new information or logical alternatives, a large dose of self-importance, and a woefully inadequate sense of personal limitations that are all-to-obvious to others. That was - and is - the case here.

I'm glad to learn that you appreciate the esthetic merits of my "broadsides" as you call them. I think you should pay some more attention to their content.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is a commonplace and old phrase here - means get a step ahead of...

I know. But it amused me to picture you attempting to hump Walter. Carry on.

0 Replies

An unhappy prospect from any perspective. Laughing

There are other possibilities though. However even in Diest's case I would recomment he take the advice that VP Dick Cheny so famously offered Sen. Pat Leahy on the Senate floor,

Go ---- yourself.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

An unhappy prospect from any perspective.

There are other possibilities though. However even in Diest's case I would recomment he take the advice that VP Dick Cheny so famously offered Sen. Pat Leahy on the Senate floor,

Go ---- yourself.

Now, you've brought yourself down to my level. LOL I still respect you, though.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/01/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

Quote:
Bonus Quote of the Day
"It's the dumbest thing I've heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view...."

-- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, quoted by the New York Observer, on eliminating federal gas taxes for the summertime. The proposal is supported by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003575.html?hpid=topnews

Quote:
Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized
Economists Share Obama's View

By Alec MacGillis and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 1, 2008; A01

A growing chorus -- including a top congressional Democrat -- labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's proposal for suspending the federal gasoline tax ineffective and shortsighted yesterday, even as she continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as insensitive to drivers' woes for not endorsing the plan.

Read more at the link.

Here's another link saying the same thing. Clinton says she doesn't need to listen to experts because the working man is hurting, even though her proposal will hurt them more after the votes are tallied. You have to like that Obama is not selling out for a few votes.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

An unhappy prospect from any perspective.

There are other possibilities though. However even in Diest's case I would recomment he take the advice that VP Dick Cheny so famously offered Sen. Pat Leahy on the Senate floor,

Go ---- yourself.

You've got a great gut for character. Rolling Eyes

T
K
O

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

You have to like that Obama is not selling out for a few votes.

This is EXACTLY why I like him.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm glad to learn that you appreciate the esthetic merits of my "broadsides" as you call them. I think you should pay some more attention to their content.

I did pay it attention, and simply did not find it very persuasive. Whereas you say that you "demonstrated" the truth of your fundamental contention, I observed you mostly just asserting it, if in a confident and unusually agressive manner. I was rather taken aback that for saying so, I got dismissed elaborately as part of a pseudo-facist crowd, and that my objections to your argument merely illustrated that people like me brooked no dissent. I mean, I appreciate rhetorical flourish as much as anyone, but as you say, there are limits.

georgeob1 wrote:

I want you to know that, despite your angry outbursts and proclivity for defending the indefensible, I still like you.

Well of course you do -- am I not your mirror image in these respects? Razz

No, really, I do like and respect you too. Even if sometimes you drive me to "a certain impatience" much like Diest and I did to you - and for a surprising number of the same reasons. It's always easier to see it in the other, I suppose, especially if stark differences in style cloak the essential similarities of one's flaws.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Mrs. Bill Clinton is using Rev Wright's racists rants as a personal trait of Obama and it is HER campaign that will benefit in trying to label Obama as a racist or Anti American.

McCain cleverly is keeping quite as he should.
Turn off the grease Monkey's; Woiyo has made a very good point about how McCain's benefiting from the mudslinging while staying out of the fray. Hillary is arguably doing as much for Republican Presidential bid as McCain.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Where is your confidence for all the bets you've been challenging here?
Whatever do you mean? Pick one; I'm still game.

Translation: I believe Hillary is doing damage to Obama... but not enough to defeat him. McCain's been sitting at around a 40% shot for some time now (thanks to Hillary, IMO), which isn't bad, but: If/When Hillary goes away, I still expect Obama to defeat McCain as well.

As I said, I'm not a bettin man, but just noticed the confidence level was waning just a bit. McCain will sit at 40% until nearer election. Nobody cares about McCain now because he is not in the news, which is both good and bad. I think folks may wake up near election day to realize oh yeah, I don't have to vote for Clinton or Obama anymore, and they will be so tired of them that they will breathe a sigh of relief and pull the lever for McCain. They will breathe an extra sigh of relief after seeing the train wreck in Denver at the DNC and vote McCain.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know