Obama '08?

Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...

Foxfyre wrote:

Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...

A search of FF's posts key word Wright turned up 42,745 hits.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...

A search of FF's posts key word Wright turned up 42,745 hits.

Or 152....

A search of Roxxxanne's name, and Wright brings up 128 hits.

And I wish you would find some other woman to stalk.

.... 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.

nimh wrote:

.... 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.

Very perceptive and well said. You are right.

I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.

I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.

Generally, betting on the intelligence of the American public is a bad move. But, like Noam, I think this is a great fight for Obama right now. Here's how pointing out his refusal to pander on the gas tax helps Obama:

1. Obama needs to move the narrative past race/class/gender splits, and the gas tax -- a substantive issue where the campaigns clearly differ -- is the only path that's offering itself right now.

2. Mark Schmitt once wrote, "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you." In other words, the specific substance of a candidate's positions matters less than the meta-narrative those issues create around the candidate. John McCain's endorsement of campaign finance reform helped him, not because the public was champing at the bit to ban soft money, but because it suggested that McCain was an independent-minded reformer. Opposing the gas tax suspension positions Obama the same way.

3. As Noam has pointed it, it allows him to tie Clinton to McCain. Her political strength is her wonkiness, and her weakness is her reputation for dishonesty and ruthlessness. This issue cuts away at her strength and reinforces her weakness.

4. It lets him tie McCain to Clinton. McCain's biggest asset is his reputation as a truth-teller. By pandering on an issue where the whole news media knows he's wrong, McCain is squandering his most precious asset. So Obama hammering this issue now will pay dividends in the general election.

nimh wrote:

.... 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.

Very perceptive and well said. You are right.

I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.

I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.

... yet you simultaneously through out some idea that you can't be critisized for your view on making choices?

Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me because I don't support their idea. In fact, yesterday Senator Clinton demanded that everyone go on the record on this issue. She even borrowed one of President Bush's favorite phrases, and said that every member of Congress had to tell her - "are they with us or against us?"

Well, folks have been weighing in. And you know what? It turns out that people want to be on the side of the American people - they don't want to be for something that is such an obvious election year gimmick; they don't want to line up behind an idea that's more about trying to get a few votes than getting you meaningful relief.

....

But Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. So I guess when she says "are you with us or against us" - Senator Clinton is referring to her and John McCain. That's one vote she's got, because on this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.

This isn't a real solution. It's a political stunt. This is what Washington does whenever there's a big problem. Politicians pretend that they're looking out for you, but they're just looking out for their poll numbers. Senator Clinton's own staff even told the Washington Post that they knew the idea might not make much of a difference for you, but it could make a big difference for her campaign. And when the Clinton campaign was pressed to find a single expert who supported her plan - I'm not making this up - they put her campaign pollster on the phone to talk about how the idea polls well.

Good stuff here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/obama-compares-clinton-to_n_99813.html

Quote:

Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me because I don't support their idea. In fact, yesterday Senator Clinton demanded that everyone go on the record on this issue. She even borrowed one of President Bush's favorite phrases, and said that every member of Congress had to tell her - "are they with us or against us?"

Well, folks have been weighing in. And you know what? It turns out that people want to be on the side of the American people - they don't want to be for something that is such an obvious election year gimmick; they don't want to line up behind an idea that's more about trying to get a few votes than getting you meaningful relief.

....

But Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. So I guess when she says "are you with us or against us" - Senator Clinton is referring to her and John McCain. That's one vote she's got, because on this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.

This isn't a real solution. It's a political stunt. This is what Washington does whenever there's a big problem. Politicians pretend that they're looking out for you, but they're just looking out for their poll numbers. Senator Clinton's own staff even told the Washington Post that they knew the idea might not make much of a difference for you, but it could make a big difference for her campaign. And when the Clinton campaign was pressed to find a single expert who supported her plan - I'm not making this up - they put her campaign pollster on the phone to talk about how the idea polls well.

Some people still want them to be our president. Go figure.

This temporary elimination of the federal gas tax is worthless. I say impose an even bigger tax so that we can pay for some improvements on the federal highway system. What really wastes my gas is the hour I need to sit in traffic almost at a standstill.

Clinton and McCain are obviously using election year politics here. Good on Obama for standing out against it.

nimh wrote:

Finn:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Returning every Sunday,for two decades, to a church where the minister makes crude and hateful comments about homosexuals

David Mendell:

Quote:

Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday.

This is not at all unusual in any UCC congregation most of which also ordain gay clergy, participate in anti-war protests, and are pro-illegal immigration. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American racist message is not typical of your typical UCC congregation, however, and probably would not be tolerated in any UCC congregations other than TUCC.

I do Blueflame. And, according to Barack Obama earlier today, so does he.