More Active Posts
Front Page
More Obamamentum
 |
 70 Comments |
Barack Obama continues to pick up prominent endorsements, the latest being Ted Kennedy, which along with John Kerry’s backing gives Obama a sweep of the Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate contingent. Within the Kennedy family, Obama also has received support from Ted’s son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, and John F. Kennedy’s daughter, Caroline, who wrote in yesterday’s New York Times, “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.” However, another prominent member of the Kennedy clan, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is backing Hillary Clinton.
From the world of literature, Obama has gained the support of author Toni Morrison, a longtime admirer of the Clintons who was the one who designated Bill Clinton as the “first black president.” Morrison said that Obama’s “creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.”
Can any man, especially someone as unproven as Barack Obama, live up to all this hype?
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: barack-obama, bill-clinton, campaign-2008, Caroline Kennedy, Hillary-Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Patrick Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Toni Morrison |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Pathetic tradeoff
Obama has served 20 years in public office and worked as a community organizer before that. He is also a constitutional law professor. He is unproven in what regard? Hillary’s experience is one more term in the Senate and being the wife of someone who served elected office.
Regarding thy hype — it’s nice to finally have someone to be hyped about.
DC L,
I was an Edward’s supporter and now I have to choose between Obama and Clinton. Help me out, what are your reasons for being on the Obama side?
Can any man, especially someone as unproven as Barack Obama, live up to all this hype?
With the help of the major media, anything is possible.
Well Luke you didn’t ask me but I will answer anyway. With Hillary you will get more of the same. With Obama you just might and let me emphasize MIGHT get something new and different. For the first time in my life I am considering voting for a Dem in the primary and he is my choice.
Kim: How can you considering voting for a candidate (Obama) who supports partial-birth abortion?
DCL writes: “Obama has served 20 years in public office and worked as a community organizer before that. He is also a constitutional law professor. He is unproven in what regard?”
Foreign policy. He’s never run a major business. He’s a one-term senator.
Only a lawyer could have written the post you did. No wonder people think lawyers are arrogant. Once and for all now, DCL — LAWYERS DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING! They know how the legal system works, they know the Constitution - and they argue about that, too — but other than that, they have no specialized knowledge to run the country. Not to mention how lawyers have a tendency to live very different lives from the average person. Lawyers are more than willing to spend other peoples’ money - that’s why we’re in this mess!
With Barak Obama, we will create a kingdon on earth!” Awesome! On October 7, 2007, addressing an evangelical congregation in South Carolina, Obama said, “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
Obama is for hope, change and for uniting us all.
Thomas Sowell wrote: “Barack Obama says that he wants to ‘heal America and repair the world.’ One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day.”
How does he plan to do all this?
Never mind.
‘I Feel Change in the Air’: Sen. Kennedy Backs Obama for President
VIDEO BELOW
First, I guess the Kennedys own him. If they didn’t before, they do now.
Caroline’s words are interesting. She must mean that Bill Clinton did not inpsire her. Its unusual for a liberal woman to admit that.
Kyle, I don’t support the Kennedy family, but to say as you have “First, I guess the Kennedys own him. If they didn’t before, they do now.” is not fair nor accurate.
I posted this late on 1/23 Whirled Views. It got lost in the shuffle because I came into the discussion late. It was in response to a post that I made stating that all of the hype over Obama has no substance.
“. . . name one significant issue that Obama voted on. Name one bill that he sponsored or co-sponsored. Name one significant issue that he went against the partisan grain because of conviction. Name one bill that he crossed the partisan divide for because of conviction.
The other side can’t always be wrong and your side can’t always be right.
No trash talking here. Just no BHO record. I know, because I am an engaged voter from Illinois. Just the way he got into the State Congress shows you he is opportunistic, not that there is anything particularly wrong with that if after you are elected you do something tangible.
And because the Republican party muffed the U.S. Senatorial race by not fielding a credible candidate, his large majority win was primarily because Republicans didn’t even show up. Although I’ll admit he probably would have won in Illinois if every Republican showed up to vote because of the lameness of the campaign and candidate (Alan Keyes was fielded and was quickly and rightly named an outsider, carpetbagger.)
Don’t suggest that I am not being truthful and engaging in trash-talking when the record is absolutely clear.
BHO has no record of standing for anything that would lead us to believe that he would make a good president.
Smoke and mirrors baby. Smoke and lots of mirrors.”
Joel Mark — your no. 7 says it all.
I also agree with Victoria that KyleA is reaching a bit. JFK didn’t have all that much more experience than Obama, but he did have the ability to inspire just as Obama does. As much as I’m not fond of Ted, I think the Kennedys have been sincere in their attempts to help Black Americans over the years. I’ll probably be clobbered for this, but I don’t think the Kennedys have used Black Americans in the cynical way the Clintons have.
NJ Lawyer bashes her own profession and shows her usual lack of knowledge of history. Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. What experience did he have?
What experience did Lincoln have in foreign policy or business management? How about Ronald Reagan? Governor of a large state isn’t automatically a guarantee of success in the White House — look at Bush II and Clinton.
What matters, and now I turn to the broader argument for Obama, is vision. What matters is the ability to inspire America to be America again. What matters is the ability to reduce cynicism and to encourage new civic engagement. Kennedy had that gift. Reagan had it to some degree, but no other politician in my lifetime has had that gift.
Look what Toni Morrison said today about Barack:
“When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country’s citizens as “we,” not “they”? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?”
Obama makes me want to believe in America again. Obama inspires a new generation that wishes to move beyond identity politics and the politics of personal destruction.
Watch his South Carolina speech. A choice between Clinton and Obama is a choice between
the poisonous politics of the past versus a future that can lift us up.
I’ve been jaded about politics for a long time. Obama makes me write things like that. I can’t not support him.
DCL, I’ve been around lawyers long enough to know that as a group, they are arrogant. The day I was sworn in, even the judges began to treat me differently. I was a member of the “club.” I can’t tell you how many lawyers have said to me that the “others” around us “just don’t understand.” This is horsepucky. And to that extent, yes, I am bashing my own profession. Lawyers have a tendency to think they can do anything. Not so. Just studying the law does not equip you to handle anything and everything. Sorry.
Obama does indeed have the “vision thing.” He is inspiring, but there’s more to being president than being inspiring. I know you can’t stand Bush, but despite all the attacks, all the vitriol hurled at him, he has stuck to his guns, and he hasn’t indulged in personally disgraceful acts–and that’s an inspiration. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you know where he stands. I’ve never gotten that feeling from a Democrat. I don’t get that feeling from Obama. I don’t see the same backbone as GWB.
Obama is still unproven in foreign policy; he’s still never run a major business; he’s a one-term senator. I didn’t know Thomas Jefferson, but Obama is no Jefferson.
Still won’t vote for a Democrat.
Just what is your “lifetime?”
#13 DC L
“Obama inspires a new generation that wishes to move beyond identity politics and the politics of personal destruction.”
I understand your pain. You are a Democrat and you don’t like the latest political contributions of the Democratic Party. You see a fresh way out of the morass of your party’s present and past.
Now, we would like to see just where Obama would take our country. I see where he would take your party but where would you take the US? Where would the Democrats take the US?
Inquiring minds want to know!
I know people want specifics, but I really feel that the first specific is a change in attitude. We can accomplish a lot when we have a mandate for change. When people feel like they matter, they will step up and contribute.
The times make (or break) the leader. Bush campaigned as a noninterventionist and look what he became. In choosing among contestants for a party’s nomination I’m less concerned with specific platform (because they are so similar) than I am with the candidate’s ability to inspire. Obama has it.
I think he’ll restore our standing in the world. I think we can begin to forge a new American century based not on hegemony but on cooperation. I think we can create a new Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. A new Manhattan project for solar/wind/hydrogen energy to protect us from dependence on foreign oil and transform our economy while addressing climate change.
But you know, I’m starting to project, because the fact is none of the candidates are fully explaining their views on these issues. And they can’t — their ability to make dramatic change happen is a function of the moment. But of all the candidates, only Obama, it seems to me has the ability to say we must go here and get people to follow.
Could Clinton move us in any of these directions? Could Edwards? Romney? McCain? Huckabee?
Obama is a transformational leader who will by his face alone end our debate about race, and reinspire the world about the promise America represents.
What’s upset me so much about torture and Gitmo and the other abuses of this administration is what it has done to the American psyche. An America that does not believe in its ideals is not worth defending. I believe Obama will help America be America again.
Wow! So a little guy, politically speaking, gets the endorsement of the Kennedy clan, and people don’t think he will be in their pocket for live, if he isn’t already? That’s a pretty naive thing to think.
I find it a huge slap in the face to the Clintons that somebody with the political clout of Ted Kennedy is turning against them. Money MUST be involved. Does anyone really thing otherwise?
live = life
First, I guess the Kennedys own him
Wow. And people think Outkast is a racist!
Man, Kyle, you better hope Luke never sees your comment!
NJLAWYER: LAWYERS DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING! They know how the legal system works, they know the Constitution - and they argue about that, too — but other than that, they have no specialized knowledge to run the country.
Who knows everything? Lawyers know how to evaluate competing interests, they understand the diverse judgments people make in different walks of life, and they know how to manage contests. Better than most people, they know how America works, and smart people pay them enormous sums for this wisdom and advice. Of the great civic callings (the military, business, the clergy, and the law) history validates the indispensable contributions of lawyers. Representation and governing are closely connected with advocacy. Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman, JFK, Clinton were essentially lawyers.
Here’s some advice that America’s lawyers are giving for free: John Edwards. Note.
Bush would have been a far better president with training in law.
Skirt around it any way you want, but the man has no record of anything worth talking about.
Romney, Hillary, McCain, Huckabee and Guiliani have a record of some sort. Whether you agree with their record is neither here nor there. At least they have one. Inspirational speakers are a dime a dozen. Most of us want action, not promises without substance.
The question is still out there. Name something that Obama has actually done that would lead us to believe that he can get the job done as a president?
In my neighborhood we would say, Flash and dash with no cash.
The greatest triumvirate of candidates a party has ever put forward for nomination are Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Lawyers all! Unfortunately, McCain and Romney are handicapped by lack of legal training.
DCLAWYER is saying that America needs an advocate, somebody who will stand up for us and exress our best interests and ambitions, and know how to give and take.
Tonight, you will see George Bush scold and give orders. He’s a CEO president. The more he talks, the more he turns people off. He argues but never closes, and then resorts to pushing and shoving.
DCLawyer says Obama will persuade us.
#24, “DCLAWYER is saying that America needs an advocate, somebody who will stand up for us and exress our best interests and ambitions, and know how to give and take.”
In typical Obamamanica fashion, this could be said by any supporter of any candidate–and often is.
The greatest triumvirate of candidates a party has ever put forward for nomination are Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.
Please tell me you’re not serious.
Thanks for your patience in explaining your backing for Senator Obama, DCLawyer; you’ve had a lot to juggle today and I appreciate your explanation.
And I understand your enthusiasm for a leader who can inspire. I think you’re right in that we haven’t had one like that since Ronald Reagan.
I share the concern about Obama’s lack of experience–which is the reason I gave the other night when, as an Independent, I was called and asked to vote for him. My huband then reminded me of Obama’s decisive pro-abortion bent, and that’s the other problem I have with him.
I think he would be a more serious opponent than Senator Clinton to whatever beige person the Republicans run.
California is the seventh largest economy in the world. Running my state for eight years provided Ronald Reagan with plenty of foreign policy experience, albeit on the state level. I’m concerned about someone like Obama in charge of foreign affairs for the US, because an inexperienced person can cause a lot of trouble there. And we’re already in a lot of trouble.
I’m not sure any Republicans can better Obama’s experience, however, other than Mr. McCain who actually lived in a foreign country for many years as a POW.
So, I don’t know what to think. But I appreciate your point of view.
JOEL MARK: In typical Obamamanica fashion, this could be said by any supporter of any candidate–and often is.
Except, if you are a George Bush supporter, you would say America needs a man with the balls to demand and scold, as we’ll see him do this evening.
Seeing this headline made me realize that if Obama does somehow become president, we’re certain to see America referred to as an “Obama-nation.” Just thought I’d throw that out as a freebie, though chances are the term has alreasy been used and I simply haven’t seen it yet.
I can support Obama for several reasons. The time has come for a change. America cannot continue to have only white men as the president. The day is coming that a person of color or a female will be president. It may as well happen sooner rather than later.
Second. I CANNOT fathom Hillary Clinton as president. Talk about being a yella dawg democrat. I would vote for a yeller dawg over Hillary any day.
Also as far as being for partial birth abortion. I really don’t think he could do anything to change the status quo.
And please remember that I am the resident southern white trash and if I am thinking this way surely there are others.
So far no takers.
I’m sorry, Kim, but on abortion Senator Obama is an unflagging enthusiast–I do know that much about him.
I don’t think most politicians care, or even realize, how chillingly horrifying their proud statements about “choice” sound to people like me.
Barack Obama cast over 3,000 votes in the Illinois state house. So for a person to claim he has no record is balderdash. He has a record, albeit a record that Metanoia apparently despises.
It is interesting to see the Democrats seize higher ground by declaring themselves the party of hope and change. Meanwhile all the Republicans have come up with is the “boogeywoman” of Clinton to try and scare people into voting for them. They’re on the defensive and they’re negative.
Will fear or hope win the hearts and minds of the American people in November? It remains to be seen. If the Republicans can stoke the fears of enough people, they will win. If the Democrats can get people to have hope, they will win.
As for Barack himself, I’ve been all over the map on him. First supportive, then not, then maybe, then yes, then no, and now supportive again. While I don’t think he’s “all that”, he does seem to inspire people like Reagan did. That gets a big plus in my book, especially after a disastrous 7 years and 3 months of Bush.
Anlir, would you find him just as “inspirational” if he were white and attended a church that named David Duke “Man of the Year”? Somehow, I don’t think you would. I think you’d be on here every day condemning him from here to kingdom come.
#24, Scroop Moth wrote; “DCLAWYER is saying that America needs an advocate, somebody who will stand up for us and exress our best interests and ambitions, and know how to give and take.”
In typical Obamamanica fashion, this could be said by any supporter of any candidate–- including the supp;orters of President George W. Bush.
Night Train,
The answer to your question is: Nope.
I dislike David Duke a lot more than I dislike Minister Farakan.
Besides, I think it’s time we give someone besides a white guy a chance to run this country. So I’m willing to let some things pass. It will be a great step forward for this country if a woman or a black man gets to be President!
Anlir you are so PREDICTABLE! This post is just YOU, in more ways than one.
KIM, #30, wrote; “America cannot continue to have only white men as the president.”
America can indeed continue to have whatever president the people duly elect, be they white men, black men, white women, Black women or whatever. It would be a crying shame to make race or gender a perceived qualifying or disqualifying criteria. Stick to substance when you vote, PLEASE!
KIM continued, “It may as well happen sooner rather than later.”
It should happen when the democratic process makes it happen AND for the right reasons, not just because someone’s skin is darker or lighter, for goodness sake.
All right, you people who think he “should” be president because he’s black, how on earth is that any better than voting against him because he’s black? Neither is the way to run a nation. And for conservatives, what he stands for is horrid; for anybody, he isn’t experienced enough to be leader of the free world. Do you really think our allies and enemies are going to say, “Cool, he’s black” and ignore everything else? I don’t.
“Obamamanica” - the latest right-wing buzzword. It’s designed to elicit a negative response from people. It’s not based on anything positive. It’s meant to tear down and demonize. It’s corrosive on our democratic system and civil society. That a conservative Christians minister would engage in such a tactic is further evidence that some of them have lost their moral compass. I suspect we’ll see a lot more of it in the months to come.
It’s gonna be great fun watching the wailing and gnashing of teeth on here if a Democrat wins the White House this fall.
Voting based on race, gender, age or religion is shallow and unjustifiable. If everyone were to vote based on these criteria, America would be a failed democracy.
I disapprove of Obama’s stance on abortion but I disapprove of the Republican stance on War and Torture so in my book, these balance each other.
What remains is Obama’s ability to inspire people and hopefully build America back to where it should be. Romney would be my 2nd choice followed by McCain.
I am seeking real progress. I think Obama is most capable of achieving this.
Kim - 30
And this Kim is your reason? What other brilliant reasons do you have for voting, which I might have missed.
We vote for a President not a color or female, male.
So you think because Obama is Black it’s his time in the history of the US? What kind of reasoning is that?
The fact that Obama is black is a factor in my hoping he can be elected. Not the only factor, but still a big plus. I want to see our highest office reflect the reality of America: a land of many races and cultures. It also helps to strike a blow against our shameful history of racism.
Plus there’s the added benefit of royally ticking off the “Night Trains” of this world. I want to watch their heads explode in rage when Barack raises his hand and swears the Oath of the Office of the President of the United States of America! That’ll be sweet!
Why would I be enraged that Obama would be President? I couldn’t care less who’s president, for the most part. I’ve said over and over that he won’t be president, and I point out that he goes to a hard core racist church and gets a pass from hypocrites like you because he’s black, but if he were prez it wouldn’t bother me any more than if McCain or Romney or Huckabee were.
I guess I should type this slow so you can follow along, Anlir. The odds of Obama being elected president in 2008 are virtually nil. But if he somehow pulls it off, I’ll be embarrassed that I got it so wrong, but I won’t be mad that he’s president.
What kind of drugs are they giving you for your voicebox, anyway?
I have few ideas about what Obama’s policies would be. He, like so many, is deliberately vague. But I do think that, unlike anybody else running from either party, he brings an aura of excitement and change which is BADLY needed right now. He does have the ability to bring youth and vigor (now there’s an old JFK era word) to politics and to attract people across party lines.
I think the Dems best bet against McCain would be Obama. The age differential is really stark.
But I still think that Romney is the most likely R nominee. I’ll be quite surprised if he isn’t proclaimed the “winner” of Super Tuesday. In that case, the fun differential might be even starker.
But I think Hilary matches up better against Mitt.
And Night Train, I’m still chuckling every time I think of you waking up and gazing upon your new Black President. In the end that might get him my primary vote.
That’s cool. I’m chuckling that you’re crazy enough to believe he has a snowball’s chance in you know where of being elected. Dream on!
I hope your right Night Train!
The fact that Obama is black is a factor in my hoping he can be elected. Not the only factor, but still a big plus.
Anlir, I’m sure a man as culturally hip as you has seen the Larry Sinclair YouTube video (OBAMAS SEX & DRUG LIMO PARTY). He claims that in 1999 he and Obama did cocaine and had gay sex. He says he’s willing to take a polygraph, and is challenging Obama to do the same. If true, would that be even more of a reason for you to vote for him? Not just a black man, but a DL Brutha in the White House?
Also, if you don’t believe Larry Sinclair, how much do you think Hillary paid him?
I hope your right Night Train!
I usually am.
A black man named Barack Hussein Obama, who attends a church that named Louis Farrakhan “Man of the Year”, is NOT going to be POTUS in 2009.
Anlir, imagine Obama taking the oath of office from E. Lynn Harris. Wouldn’t that be something? Instead of the rumored Koran, he could place his hand on a copy of Invisible Life or I Say A Little Prayer.
I’m not saying I believe Larry Sinclair, mind you. I’m just saying what if…
DCL. You sound like what I have always suspected a typical obamafan to be. Full of emotion, emotion, and more emotion. When the time comes for substance, you cleverly respond with… emotion. Your comments say it all. “I’m only interested in the candidate that will inspire me… By his face alone he will (insert mountain moving act here)…” (The preceding was lightly paraphrased).
You have nothing to offer in terms of specific change, except in change of attitude. That’s nice, except that we’re not all democrats. Not all our attitudes are controlled by switches. Some of us require something substantial. We’ve sat through enough dishonest liberal democrats giving us inspiring speeches, that this time, we’re way too reluctant to be sold on a new one.
And as with one must come the other, the emotionalism of the liberal comes with obvious cluelessness. First, you bemoan Bush for gravitating from a non-interventionist policy, without considering that historic events changed the world into which his presidency was introduced. Not that there’s something inherently wrong with a non-interventionalist policy, but when there is a catastrophic attack on your own soil, and the best response you have for the country is “I don’t like to intervene,” if more pressing issues aren’t gnawing at your bones, you are an incompetent idiot. That is something libs as yourself (in your shameless attempts to remind America how unjust they have been to those poor militants,) never understood.
And then as usual, another cluelessness surfaces in this obsession with getting other countries to like you. We do not take foreign alliance lightly, and we shouldn’t. But the problem was more than that. Libs couldn’t envision a scenario where they may have to stand alone for their country’s protection, and till today are still paying the price because their countrymen can’t count on them to (in a manner of speaking), have their backs. French and German leaders got re-elected to their positions of power by directly insulting Americans and their leader, and all the liberals did was cheer. Camaraderie has proven to be irrelevant in the making or breaking of this country. Reagan was hated by foreigners, and this country became the world superpower because of his presidency. Clinton was liked by everyone, diplomats and dictators alike, and the country slowly deteriorated. He learned (or maybe still refuses to learn) that a president can be liked, but not respected, and that is a tragic trade-off. So why in the world are his wife and Obama still obsessed with the feelings of the world? At some point, Obama may have to answer the question of what he would do if protecting his country might mean going against France, Germany and the U.N. Either way, he’s screwed. It’s obvious what would happen if he dismises such a posibility. If you’re confused, ask Kerry. If he say’s he’s willing to go against them, then he would have to answer why he gave Bush such a hard time for doing the same. In other words, when it comes down to brass tacks, bare substance, things are not so childishly dependent on emotions. You’ll need more than just inspirations that turn you on. You’ll need a pair, and if Obama has it, he hasn’t shown it.
Good morning Anlir: I don’t despise Barack Obama. I just say he is highly unqualified for the office. I didn’t say he didn’t vote. I said he has no record. Why do you think the other candidates haven’t been able to pin anything on him
My questions still stand #11-
“. . . name one significant issue that Obama voted on. Name one bill that he sponsored or co-sponsored. Name one significant issue that he went against the partisan grain because of conviction. Name one bill that he crossed the partisan divide for because of conviction.”
I can name a dozen things that McCain, Hillary, Romney, Huckabee and even Ron Paul stand for. But for the life of me, I can’t seem to find much of anything that would lead me to believe that Obama has a conviction about anything.
Anlir wrote at #41; “It’s meant to tear down and demonize.”
To “tear down and demonize” may well be a motive that you are familiar with, I don’t know, but it was not my motive in the least. It is shameless and reprehensible for you to cook up motives for others in your own mind and pretend that you see through people you don’t know.
Obama has just come out against the rule of law with regard to illegal aliens. He wants to give them driver’s licenses (he’s hoping for a surge of California hisanic votes for Super Tuesday) so they can move freely and easily throughout the country–illegally.
Obama would appoint Supreme Court justices who may ALSO have little regard for the law and its enforcement.
Certainly, his Supreme Court nominees would be pro abortion at every possible level and they would not hesitate to decimate the definition of marriage in our time.
Hated groups like the Boy Scouts would probvably have to fold soon (they barely survived a killer case by only one vote in the Supreme Court about 5 years ago).
Obama, if true to his promises, would simply retreat from Iraq wholesale far too quickly and give the juhidist terrorists more hope and momentum for their mission than they have had in 6 years. Our allies and friends in Iraq and the Muslim world would be abandoned and subject to horrific vengeance.
But our media would be in a euphoric mindless trance over the skin color of our president.
Following the SC primary which Obama won, I was told on a thread that come February 5th, my eyes would be opened because the racists in this country will come out full force in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Just so you know — the people who voted for Obama in SC were Democrats (and Independents), so that poster wasn’t talking about the Nation as a whole, that poster was talking about the Democrats who will be voting on February 5th. I guess we really will find out where the racists are to be found on February 5th.
Following the SC primary which Obama won, I was told on a thread that come February 5th, my eyes would be opened because the racists in this country will come out full force in favor of Hillary Clinton.
You were told no such thing, NJL. You’re about as dishonest and deceitful as Outkast. I said it’s NOT racist to prefer a president to be of your same race, it’s human nature, and that on Super Tuesday you’ll see human nature come roaring back.
Why do you continually misrepresent what I said?
The question about experience is one of being able to select personnel. It’s your ability to put together a team that will enact your policies. The way in which Obama has put together his campaign suggests the kind of qualities he would bring. Campaigning reveals leadership in action.
A second aspect of experience is ability to make decisions — what resources one brings to the table, the manner of decision-making, the willingness to include other information. Here, I think is where the rhetoric really does tell us something. Obama’s words suggest that he will listen to others; indeed, this seems consistent from his first days as a community organizer.
Last there is the nature of the problem: by their style/approach politicians indicate the nature of the problem they believe the country faces. Obama’s approach implicitly asserts that one of the real difficulties in our country is bright-line, smash-mouth politics which creates false divisions for political gain. (You can also find the same critique bubbling along in some of the GOP candidates, as well. This theme is not exclusively Obama’s).
Still waiting for someone to take me up on my Barack Obama challenge.
Still waiting for someone to take me up on my Barack Obama challenge.
Metanoia. As a fellow Illinois resident, I hear ya.
This should help Obama break through to Middle America:
Anyone who thinks a man who attends this guy’s church is going to be president is on drugs.
And I’m guessing there’s a lot more where that came from. If Obama should somehow miraculously win the nomination from Hillary, you’ll see a barrage of TV ads with quotes from “Reverend” Wright.
Obama wrestles the nomination from Hills, then he gets slaughtered because of the racists he embraces.
mmmmmmmmmmm…..the thought just makes me feel warm all over!
But Anlir doesn’t mind a a presidential candidate attending a church that honors a man who calls Jews “bloodsuckers”. It’s not a big deal, because he’s black.
Actually, Night Train, Jeremiah Wright is completely correct about the undue attention spent on Holloway.
And the silence is deafening.
Ah, the audacity of hype.
Fyne Jr (#53) is correct in his comments about the emotional support for Obama—all emotion based on his rhetoric and his charisma. There was another man in 1933 who inspired downcast Germans with the same techniques. It was all about change and making them feel good again. They stupidly followed him without really considering where his changes would take them.
At this stage the Obama supporters remind me of the mindless, screaming, gyrating, attendees at rock concerts. Elect a man merely because he is black and he makes you feel good?
Seig heil Obama! Seig heil Obama! Seig heil Obama!