0
   

Obama placed under Secret Service protection

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2007 07:33 am
snood wrote:
So, what's your main problem with the whole thing about Obama and secret service protection? That the justification for it isn't being laid out in triplicate, or what?


Who said there was a problem?

It is unusual, a leading news story from yesterday afternoon and cryptic tidbits are being eeked out one at a time. Isn't that enough? Or are discussions to be limited to rehashing the same old things over and over again?

Being that I worked for the USSS for a period of time, I have a personal interest in this sort of thing.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2007 07:44 am
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
The idea that a credible black candidate might have a larger potential for danger from crazies somehow doesn't amaze me.


The key word is "credible"!!!


What are you babbling about?


MM is from Kentucky snood.... there is no such thing as a credible nigra there....
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2007 07:48 am
This article was published back on March 14.

Quote:
Candidates' protection could cost $106.6M

BY CAROL EISENBERG
[email protected]

March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - Democracy, it turns out, comes at a price. A hefty price.

It looks like the expanding field of presidential candidates is going to cost American taxpayers a dime or two. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said yesterday he expected to spend $85.2 million next year for bodyguards and bomb-sniffing dogs to protect the 2008 presidential candidates.

That's on top of this year's $21.4 million, bringing the total for this election cycle to $106.6 million - up from the $73.03 million spent when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ran for re-election in 2004.

The whopping 46 percent increase is a consequence of a wide-open race in which, for the first time since 1952, neither the president nor the vice president - both with full security details - is a candidate.

"With President Bush completing his final term, and with Vice President Cheney indicating that he will not be a candidate for president in 2008, the Service will face an unprecedented situation," according to the department's budget justification. " ... Consequently there will be a greater number of individuals receiving protection. "

And it's not just the candidates the Secret Service is concerned about. Sullivan said he plans to begin hiring and training an additional 103 agents to be ready to guard President George W. Bush as soon as he steps down Jan. 20, 2009.

An agency spokesman declined to say how the size of that detail compares with those of other former presidents. "In a post-911 world - and with the activity levels of former presidents being what they are - we have to plan accordingly," spokesman Eric Zahren said.

The Secret Service has been protecting major-party candidates ever since New York Sen. Robert Kennedy was gunned down in June 1968. Four years later, then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace was shot five times while campaigning in Laurel, Md. He was left paralyzed.

Despite the unusually quick start of the campaign season, only New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, to date, has received Secret Service protection, which she gets as a former first lady, not as a candidate, Zahren said.

"No candidate has been designated for protection so far, he said. "I don't know if anyone has asked. "

While media reports have indicated that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has received unspecified threats from white supremacist groups, his campaign declined to confirm those or to comment on whether he had sought federal protection.

Historically, Sullivan said, protection is usually given to major-party candidates beginning in late January or early February of the election year, but that is not an inviolable rule. For instance, the Rev. Jesse Jackson got bodyguards earlier because of death threats during his two campaigns in the 1980s.

A spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declined to say whether any candidate had sought Secret Service protection.

"Prior to protection being granted, as a matter of procedure, we do not discuss inquiries or requests received," said spokesman William Knocke.

HOW SECURITY DETAIL IS ASSIGNED

The decision to assign Secret Service protection to a presidential candidate is made by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on the advice of five members of Congress: House Speaker and Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leader and one additional member selected by the others. Among the criteria, the candidate:

Must have publicly announced his or her candidacy.

Must be seeking the nomination of a party that received at least 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election.

Must be entered in at least 10 primaries.

Must have registered at least 5 percent in polls conducted by ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, or 10 percent of the votes in two consecutive primaries or caucuses.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2007 07:52 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
MM is from Kentucky snood.... there is no such thing as a credible nigra there....


Careful Bear. You're treading in Imus country.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2007 07:55 am
not at all eoe... I'm from North Carolina.... oops.... never mind... Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 06:55 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
The idea that a credible black candidate might have a larger potential for danger from crazies somehow doesn't amaze me.


The key word is "credible"!!!


What are you babbling about?


MM is from Kentucky snood.... there is no such thing as a credible nigra there....


Hey, watch it, BP. If I am not mistaken, MM is not originally from Kentucky, but moved there. On the other hand I was born and raised in southern kentucky. I admit there is a lot of racism, but not everybody is a racist, nor are we all candidates for a part in in Deliverance. :wink:

Anyway,

Obama have been attracting too many racist comments.

Quote:
Via CBSNews.com :

Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments.

"It's very simple," Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, told me. "We have our Rules of Engagement. They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."

CBSNews.com does sometimes delete comments on an individual basis, but Sims said that was not sufficient in the case of Obama stories due to "the volume and the persistence" of the objectionable comments. Read moreĀ…

This might explain why Obama requested Secret Service protection this early in the campaign. Sadly, this is what you get when racists and bigots are given credibility and unlimited airtime on a national platform who are joined by racist politicians backed by a well funded political party. While we're on the subject, I'd like to thank the C&L site monitor team for all of their hard work.


(links at the site)

Personally I don't understand why people would have a problem with him, he's awfully good looking.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/obamacolorsmall_0.jpg

Maybe that's it?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 07:39 am
Some have a problem because he's black and being taken very seriously by a significant number of people as a presidential candidate. Simple raw racism.

Some because he preaches and practices conciliatory politics - some folks love separation better than reconciliation.

Some people are simply afraid of the unknown, and unwilling and/or unable to venture outside their comfort zones when considering what might become the future of the country.

Yeah, he's a smooth-talkin' good-lookin' guy, but giving credit to that for the antipathy against him would be shallow thinking.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 07:48 am
snood wrote:
Some have a problem because he's black and being taken very seriously by a significant number of people as a presidential candidate. Simple raw racism.

Some because he preaches and practices conciliatory politics - some folks love separation better than reconciliation.

Some people are simply afraid of the unknown, and unwilling and/or unable to venture outside their comfort zones when considering what might become the future of the country.

Yeah, he's a smooth-talkin' good-lookin' guy, but giving credit to that for the antipathy against him would be shallow thinking.


I can be very shallow at times; cause I still think he's cute. But then I thought the same about Clinton.

I have to admit that I haven't really been following or even listening to any of the candidates so I can't say what any of them are like or what they stand for. The only reason I like Edwards is that I remember what he stood for in the last election which was he seems more for the average working person and more concerned with health care and issues like that of what I care about most.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 09:30 am
pssst, revel... If you don't know much about Obama, this is a great place to start:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar

He's a lot more than a pretty face.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 05:26 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
The idea that a credible black candidate might have a larger potential for danger from crazies somehow doesn't amaze me.


The key word is "credible"!!!


What are you babbling about?


MM is from Kentucky snood.... there is no such thing as a credible nigra there....


Careful,the racism you two have is showing.

My meaning should have been clear.
The last to black men to run for President were neither credible or electable.

Surely you remember them...Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

When you try to assign your own racism to other people,you look even more foolish then you normally do.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 06:49 pm
Quote:
The key word is "credible"!!!


And what, do tell us MM, do you find lacking in credibility as regards the Senator in question?

That is, based on either what you have read or observed in his speechs or legislative activities, what are three of the most glaring faults you can find in the candidate?

Joe(or is it, as we suspect, that you just don't like the look of him)Nation
Cool
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 08:05 pm
I didn't insinuate you were a racist; I insinuated you were an idiot - try to keep up.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 08:30 pm
MM: Help me understand what credibility of Barack Obama has to do with the credibility of Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Sharpton? Careful, now....
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 08:33 pm
Dang, VNN - I think you just made MM shortcircuit - I heard the pop!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:20 am
A lot to do with race'
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/371929,CST-NWS-pelosi05.article)

May 5, 2007

BY SHAMUS TOOMEY Staff Reporter

Concerns about Sen. Barack Obama's safety that led to him getting a Secret Service detail "had a lot to do with race," Sen. Dick Durbin said Friday.

"I wished we lived in a country where that is not a problem, but it still is," Durbin said. "The fact that Barack Obama is such a highly visible (African-American candidate, I think increases his vulnerability."

Obama, vying to become America's first black president, received his Secret Service protection Thursday. It was earlier than any other presidential candidate, excluding Hillary Clinton, who is protected as a former first lady.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in Chicago for Rep. Jan Schakowsky's Ultimate Women's Power Lunch at the Chicago Hilton, was on the panel that recommended Obama be guarded by federal agents.

"I would just say this -- the bipartisan leadership committee that makes this decision, it didn't take long to decide that it would be important for Sen. Obama to have this security," Pelosi said.

The country's first female House speaker, flanked by Secret Service agents, said she couldn't share details, but added: "Suffice to say that it was self-evident that Sen. Obama attracts a great deal of attention wherever he goes, so it was thought, under those circumstances, that he should have" it.

Joining Pelosi at the Schakowsky luncheon was Geraldine Ferraro, who in 1984 became the first woman to run for vice president on a major ticket. She said her Secret Service detail "was the best part" of that campaign.

"There are nuts out there, and some of them threaten crazy things to do, but the Secret Service is there," she said. "If I look back on the 1984 campaign, if you were to say what was the best part of it, I'd say the Secret Service because they really do make your life a lot easier. I think it's going to be easier for him to do the number of events that he does because they're there."

Ferraro said she spoke with Obama's wife, Michelle, at the luncheon Friday. "And I said she'll sleep without having to worry about anything. So that's nice," Ferraro said.

Michelle Obama was not made available for comment, but her spokeswoman, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, said, "the family is thankful for the protection and the peace of mind that the Secret Service is providing."

Chicago Sun Times

(Obama's wife has always been afraid that someone would try to kill her husband.)
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:23 am
snood wrote:
The idea that a credible black candidate might have a larger potential for danger from crazies somehow doesn't amaze me.


Based on this website trash, how could anyone think Obama is a "credible black candidate"?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:25 am
eoe wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
MM is from Kentucky snood.... there is no such thing as a credible nigra there....


Careful Bear. You're treading in Imus country.


Shocked
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:26 am
snood wrote:
... try to keep up.


You first!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:30 am
fishin wrote:
snood wrote:


It doesn't surprise me either. I'm just wondering if an actual attempt has already been made or not.


I'm sure the Obamas are fearful of their Hyde Park neighbors, otherwise, they wouldn't have 3 ( or more ) locks on the front door of their house in Chicago. Perhaps they need to move to an upscale condo right now and vacate their Hyde Park gang-infested neighborhood.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 01:39 am
quote="revel"

"Personally I don't understand why people would have a problem with him, he's awfully good looking".

"Good looking"? So's my poodle. Maybe my poodle should run for President, based on his "looks"!


Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/04/2025 at 04:16:25