Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:29 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
teenyboone wrote:

Not necessarily my own thoughts, but the way Rev. Wrights statements were totally taken out of context and woven together to make a hate-filled statement, means that civil unrest can still be churned up, racial divisions are still present, if they ever left, that a Black candidate has about a snowball's chance in hell, of ever being elected or considered electable, as long as people like the Clinton's use race and race advantage, to futher their own greedy aims, which have you nor me in mind, that ALL Americans of any color or ethnic background, should join together to knock down vestiges of hate, race and division out of our society, because United We Win! That's all I'm trying to say. A political party doesn't make us who we are, nor does left and right.
:wink:

Thanks for reading my response with an open mind, and I am glad that we at least better understand each other's positions now.

I agree that Rev. Wright's words were carefully selected & quoted to project the divisive images we all saw - is was grist for the political mill. As things turned out with Wright's subsequent interviews & speeches, it became clear that he really does hang on to these old (outdated, I think) beliefs in a continuing struggle between Blacks and White oppression. The only difference was that instead of the impassioned, shouting, we later saw a serious, thoughtful person, who has developed - and apparently is guided by - a fairly complete theory of continuing racial struggle. This is, of course, fundamentally contrary to the image that Obama has worked so hard to project, and , in my view, was the reason Obama finally so clearly rejected him.

I believe the widespread enthusiasm Obama has excited among voters is in large part a result of the remarkable public (White and Black) appetitite right now for such a unifying message. The degree to which this truly represents Obama's inner motives is clearly important to many (indeed this is the reason why the Wright controversy became so critical ). I am inclined to give Obama the benefit of any doubt here, and believe the powerful public appetite for this message is, itself, one of the most encouraging things that has appeared on our political stage in a long time.

I wish that Obama's for reform of our tax structure and educational system were different from those he has articulated, and that he was running as a Republican.


I think that you will find many Republicans wishing that as this campaign goes along. The differences between the two candidates are only going to grow more stark over time, as the focus on the contrast between the two is played up in the media; it's hard to imagine McCain ever being an inspirational figure. It's believable that he will be seen as competent, even knowledgeable; but will that overcome excitement and a sense of purpose? And, I should add, a large money advantage?

Naturally, I doubt it, but we'll have to see.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:38 pm
"it's hard to imagine McCain ever being an inspirational figure."

A highly decorated Navy Office, former POW, distinguished leader in the US Senate.

You may not find these "inspirational, but I am sure many will.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:44 pm
woyio wrote:
distinguished leader in the US Senate
really?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:44 pm
woiyo wrote:
"it's hard to imagine McCain ever being an inspirational figure."

A highly decorated Navy Office, former POW, distinguished leader in the US Senate.

You may not find these "inspirational, but I am sure many will.


He has past accomplishments - nobody denies that.

But 'inspirational?' Let me ask you, what about his message do you find inspirational?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:46 pm
Brand X wrote:
Obama cannot choose her after running a 'change' campaign.

He'll have to get a bit more fresh than her.


Ted Kennedy didn't suggest she was 'stale' however. He suggested that she wasn't a 'real leader' in Obama's noble aspirations.

I don't know how he could have been much more insulting than that.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Obama cannot choose her after running a 'change' campaign.

He'll have to get a bit more fresh than her.


Ted Kennedy didn't suggest she was 'stale' however. He suggested that she wasn't a 'real leader' in Obama's noble aspirations.

I don't know how he could have been much more insulting than that.


Well, he could have offered to give her a ride.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 01:06 pm
Brand X wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Obama cannot choose her after running a 'change' campaign.

He'll have to get a bit more fresh than her.


Ted Kennedy didn't suggest she was 'stale' however. He suggested that she wasn't a 'real leader' in Obama's noble aspirations.

I don't know how he could have been much more insulting than that.


Well, he could have offered to give her a ride.


More likely she'll suggest he give Obama one.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 01:08 pm
Ouch Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 01:11 pm
Metaphorically speaking of course. She wouldn't want Obama seriously hurt. Just bloodied up enough to let McCain win so she can run against his 'failed presidency' in 2012.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 01:33 pm
Down to a 3.5 S-D lead as of today. By tomorrow he will be in the lead.

I just realized something: the Conservatives on this thread, and in general, are scared. Not confident in the least.

It's nice to be on that side of the fence in a presidential election for once...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 01:57 pm
Brand X wrote:
Obama cannot choose her after running a 'change' campaign.

He'll have to get a bit more fresh than her.


If he chooses Hillary as his running mate, I will be so pissed off and even more, so incredibly disappointed in him that I may not ever vote again.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:11 pm
dyslexia wrote:
JPB wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
... If the woman has any integrity whatsoever; that is precisely what she'll advise you to do.


Being the skeptic that I am, I'm more curious about what back room deals are offered to her for her support than being concerned about her integrity. Unfortunately, the game must go on...
My guess as to back room deals would be something along the lines of Obama paying back to Hill her loans to her campaign (something like 11 Million)



Won't happen for several reasons, one of them being that it will be a very hard sale to make to Obama's supporters.

More likely, what will happen is what happens in many election campaigns where the winner helps to promote the loser's own fundraising efforts to pay off their own debts.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:20 pm
Looking ahead...

Obama will lose to McCain. The combination of racism and the fact that young people always talk a good game and then don't show up to vote on election day will assure that.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:21 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't understand how there can be any question left about whether Hillary is doing damage to the party... nor why her supporters, that do consider themselves Democrats first, don't recognize it. Arguably; the second most influential member of the party is doing everything she can to damage the party's candidate for President of the United States. Isn't that the opposing party's job?

I fully expect the vast majority of Democrats to vote Democrat once she's gone anyway, but: If she were to succeed in stealing the nomination, against the wishes of the people she supposedly aspires to represent, isn't it obvious that the party would splinter? Had she won fair and square; I would expect Obama-Democrats to vote Democrat just the same, but that is no longer a possibility… so where is the dilemma?

Even if she were to steal the nomination thru some dirty trickery; she would simultaneously piss off enough people to make her unelectable IMO, so she may as well be working for John McCain at this juncture. Democrats should not appreciate this.


It would be a mistake for Obama to encourage her to leave the campaign before the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. We know she's going to win those two states. It would look awful for her to have dropped out of the race and then have him lose to her in the next two primaries.

If there is going to be movement, it won't happen until after those two primaries. The remaining ones are Obama states and will go to him. My prediction is she'll drop out after the first of those remaining states goes to him. That way she has can retain the graciousness of having "protected him" for the good of the party during the KY and WV votes and the graciousness of dropping out before the race is over "for the good of the party" while continuing to campaign for the party (and 2012).
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:


For most candidates it isn't a matter of 'turns' but rather a matter of timing. But for Hillary, I am certain that she felt she had paid her dues and it was her turn to be President.


Not entirely true. Hillary wanted to run in 2004 but was convinced it wasn't the right time and agreed to wait until 2008. That's why she feels it is her turn. She kept her part of the timing agreement but, in the meantime, the country moved on without her.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:51 pm
kickycan wrote:
Looking ahead...

Obama will lose to McCain. The combination of racism and the fact that young people always talk a good game and then don't show up to vote on election day will assure that.


Not show up? But hasn't the big story of the primaries been all the young people showing up?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:53 pm
kickycan wrote:
Looking ahead...

Obama will lose to McCain. The combination of racism and the fact that young people always talk a good game and then don't show up to vote on election day will assure that.


For real?

The young showed up in pretty high numbers for the primaries...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 02:53 pm
Down to 1.5 sd lead for Clinton.

When he moves past Clinton, it will be a happy day for me; it's a metric I've been waiting a long time for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 03:29 pm
Gargamel wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Looking ahead...

Obama will lose to McCain. The combination of racism and the fact that young people always talk a good game and then don't show up to vote on election day will assure that.


Not show up? But hasn't the big story of the primaries been all the young people showing up?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Looking ahead...

Obama will lose to McCain. The combination of racism and the fact that young people always talk a good game and then don't show up to vote on election day will assure that.


For real?

The young showed up in pretty high numbers for the primaries...

Cycloptichorn


I don't remember a guy who has needed them as much as Obama needs them now, but they are a fickle and lazy bunch. Maybe the war in Iraq will spur them to show up though. We can hope. The race factor is definitely going to be in play though.

No?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 03:38 pm
I know, Cycloptichorn! ABC has already called it (that Obama's in the lead re: superdelegates), but there are all these different counts out there... I agree that the demconwatch one is good.

Kicky, that's one piece of conventional wisdom that's been pretty well shot to pieces in the primaries -- for whatever combination of reasons, THESE young people are showing up. Can't imagine that they'd show up in the primaries and then blow off the general election...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 834
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 07:49:55