The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[bell110]

I thought it was a differnt account. There was a Kel and Super Kel. Actually, thought it was two separate people at first.

[Kelly]

So....Sharpton found a way to get some attention by bashing Jesse for his attention-whoring. I see. :hehe:

jag


Yeah, but Sharpton made it very clear, that YES, he didn't like what Jackson said, BUT to him that wasn't the real issue. The real issue is the lead that Obama is taking in strengthening black males in the family, etc. He feels that is important.

[Lightning Strykez!]

LMAO.........come on Lightening we need to chill, its GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THING, that we don't have to work now. lol

Well, I don't know about you, but I haven't gotten my Hype Pension yet. So I'm a little...well, bitter. :cmad:

[Kelly]

Well, I don't know about you, but I haven't gotten my Hype Pension yet. So I'm a little...well, bitter. :cmad:



I'm just enjoying the chaos, without having to do anything about it.:yay:

[Superman]

LMAO.........come on Lightening we need to chill, its GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THING, that we don't have to work now. lolWe need to start our own club. "The Former Hype Mods Club":cwink:

Since I was a mod here twice and quit twice I should be the club president.:woot:

[Superman]

Well, I don't know about you, but I haven't gotten my Hype Pension yet. So I'm a little...well, bitter. :cmad:Don't hold your breath, I've been waiting for mine for years now.:csad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Why J. Jackson the only be held to this standard of not exploiting when it is a practice ploy in politics done by ALL?

That's a whole 'nother thread topic girl. :csad:

[Addendum]

There is a part of me that understands the sentiment of Jackson being silent if he has nothing good to offer to the campaign, but there is another part of me that says this is a all a sham if Obama's presidency hinges on people having to keep thier mouth shut. I can't buy that or support that, and I'd rather not see a black president then support not being able to speak my mind...even when the mic is hot.

Are we talking about children or a damn adult? Because it's not Obama's job to tell people to shut up. It's about adults using the grey matter in their skulls to be aware of what they say. I have the misguided and foolish notion that every adult has this thing taught to them when they were younger or that they learned it as they got older

[Lightning Strykez!]

We need to start our own club. "The Former Hype Mods Club":cwink:

Since I was a mod here twice and quit twice I should be the club president.:woot:

Seriously? That's actually not a half-bad idea. Don't give me ideas...You know I'm a whore for controversial discussion threads. :hehe:


Don't hold your breath, I've been waiting for mine for years now.

Mirko is so disgusting. :mad:

:p

I'm just enjoying the chaos, without having to do anything about it.

Meh. Not me. I think I caused more chaos as a mod. Now I'm bored. :csad:

[Superman]

Seriously? That's actually not a half-bad idea. Don't give me ideas...You know I'm a whore for controversial discussion threads. :hehe:Well if you start a thread about it let me know, I'll jump in.:woot:

[Raiden]

In before the lock. :bow:

[charl_huntress]

Are we talking about children or a damn adult? Because it's not Obama's job to tell people to shut up. It's about adults using the grey matter in their skulls to be aware of what they say. I have the misguided and foolish notion that every adult has this thing taught to them when they were younger or that they learned it as they got older

Let me just state in this thread my biggest problem with J. Jackson comment's regarding Obama is as a minister that was out of control, and should be sanctioned by the appropriate persons who are responsible for this within his flock or district. Unfortunately, I don't think Jesse is in the church any more :csad:

Yes, he should be embarrassed, and mocked to some degree. I just don't want people to derail what good the man has actually done because he made a stupid, crass, off-color comment...when his mic was off. Also, it seems this attack on this board in the media is more virulent then it would be against a non-black who happen to get caught slipping with the mic on.

Though, I do agree that he should have stayed away from FOX :oldrazz:

Anywho, this is the Obama thread and I am not hear to take up the space with all this. I just want it to be known that though JJ is not perfect, but neither is any other politician or media celebrity. It's not fair to crucify...though please proceed if you wish.

[Superman4ever]

OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!

If there was a better name that best described a poster other than "Deadhead", I don't want to know because this is TOO perfect and such beauty should never be topped! In fact it should never exist...

[jaguarr]

Yeah, but Sharpton made it very clear, that YES, he didn't like what Jackson said, BUT to him that wasn't the real issue. The real issue is the lead that Obama is taking in strengthening black males in the family, etc. He feels that is important.

Well, Sharpton's gotta put his own two cents in too, ya know.

jag

[charl_huntress]

That's a whole 'nother thread topic girl. :csad:

I'm done...lol. The community forums can be dangerous...I usually try to stick to Supes :o

[Addendum]

Let me just state in this thread my biggest problem with J. Jackson comment's regarding Obama is as a minister that was out of control, and should be sanctioned by the appropriate persons who are responsible for this within his flock or district. Unfortunately, I don't think Jesse is in the church any more :csad:

Yes, he should be embarrassed, and mocked to some degree. I just don't want people to derail what good the man has actually done because he made a stupid, crass, off-color comment...when his mic was off. Also, it seems this attack on this board in the media is more virulent then it would be against a non-black who happen to get caught slipping with the mic on.

Though, I do agree that he should have stayed away from FOX :oldrazz:

Anywho, this is the Obama thread and I am not hear to take up the space with all this. I just want it to be known that though JJ is not perfect, but neither is any other politician or media celebrity. It's not fair to crucify...though please proceed if you wish.

Even though Jackson's comments are receiving more attention than other asinine comments made by others in the past, my criticism equally applies to those past comments as well

[charl_huntress]

Even though Jackson's comments are receiving more attention than other asinine comments made by others in the past, my criticism equally applies to those past comments as well


*hugs* Thank you Addendum...that's my thing. Just vilify them all equally.

[Kelly]

Has Sharpton come out publicly and announced his discontent with Jackson? I hadn't seen that.

If he has, see my post above. It is a constant jockeying for first place between who can keep the spotlight on them. They aren't taking a fading into obscurity very well, they never have. And probably never will. They will continue to project themselves into the limelight even if it means undermining their own cause.


Yes, he did lastnight on Hannity and Colmes.

[Kelly]

Let me just state in this thread my biggest problem with J. Jackson comment's regarding Obama is as a minister that was out of control, and should be sanctioned by the appropriate persons who are responsible for this within his flock or district. Unfortunately, I don't think Jesse is in the church any more :csad:

Yes, he should be embarrassed, and mocked to some degree. I just don't want people to derail what good the man has actually done because he made a stupid, crass, off-color comment...when his mic was off. Also, it seems this attack on this board in the media is more virulent then it would be against a non-black who happen to get caught slipping with the mic on.

Though, I do agree that he should have stayed away from FOX :oldrazz:

Anywho, this is the Obama thread and I am not hear to take up the space with all this. I just want it to be known that though JJ is not perfect, but neither is any other politician or media celebrity. It's not fair to crucify...though please proceed if you wish.

As far as staying away from Fox, that would mean that they would be staying away from the cable station that beats the other cable news stations in ratings.....kind of a dumb move, IMO.

Exactly how do we do this equally?

What is equal? 50% each.

Its all about perception.....to others they could say the same thing, but simply the other direction.

What Jackson said was stupid....
What Imus said was stupid....
What Wright said was stupid....
What Gramm said was stupid....

There ya go....50/50.

BTW, if you think "JJ" is getting crucified here, you need to go to some of the political blogs on the internet, this is nothing.

[Matt]

We are well past the time of being critical, Matt. If it's a lesser of 2 eveils for some people, thats too bad, but your gonna have to pick.


Past the time of being critical? Maybe if more Republicans didn't blindly follow Bush and were critical, we wouldn't be in the cluster **** we are now. Pick the lesser of two evils? Not really? I can just as easily vote third party or select uncommitted.


As for flip-flopping, again it's a tough call. Hillary was a flip flopper, and an obvious one, on NAFTA. It wasnt used as an example of changing her opinions to get elected moreso that she has horrible judgement in determining what will and will not work for the country, as she thought it would work, and it didnt.

What Barcks done (same goes for Mitt Romney) is change as circumstances change, which is what I want in a President. The last thing you want is a stubburn President who sticks to his guns just for the sake of sticking to them ala Bush, or McCain if he is elected.

There is a huge difference between what Romney did (change his stances to adapt to how he ran the state at different times during his eight year tenure as governor) and flip-flopping in a one week period to win votes.

[Matt]

If Obama were smart, he would've simply said...

"I moved to a new town, and I went to the church my wife went to. Plain and simple."

Not only would this issue suddenly be over, basically every married man in America would relate. :woot:

Leaving this thread open because I want to get bac to the hospital and hold my little angel again and I do not want to waste another second in this thread. Have fun with it guys. :up:

[kainedamo]

Your little angel? :huh:

[Matt]

My daughter Claire was born today Kaine. I just stopped home to shower, eat, and pick up some things for her mommy.

[kainedamo]

Congradulations Matt! I kid you not!

Don't waste anymore time here.

[Marx]

Yes, he did lastnight on Hannity and Colmes.

I wasn't aware of that. I'm not surprised though. One fame-whore has to fight for the spotlight against another fame-whore. :whatever:

[Marx]

My daughter Claire was born today Kaine. I just stopped home to shower, eat, and pick up some things for her mommy.

Oh wow! Congratulations Matt! :yay:

[BlackLantern]

Yes...this is an attention *******

[charl_huntress]

There ya go....50/50. BTW, if you think "JJ" is getting crucified here, you need to go to some of the political blogs on the internet, this is nothing.

:up: Excellent. I'm glad we got that squared. I've been to other political blogs and I know this sort of things goes down all the time. However, the virulence against J. Jackson feels and seems more virulent. I don't support that, but never let me stop anyone who feels that is necessary or productive. I'd crucify Singer everyday if I could so...meh :word:

[Superman]

Matt had sex?:wow:


Congratulations Matt.:woot:

[Marx]

Matt had sex?:wow:


Congratulations Matt.:woot:

I would hope so! You never know though, it is the new millenium. There are all kinds of new options for the creation of children! :hehe:

[rdh007]

Yes...this is an attention *******

That's only funny to a certain percentage of people. Thankfully, I'm one of those :up: :D

[Tag279]

Congrats Matt!!:woot:

My wife and I will be having a little angel also in late August/ early September I have three sons 11, 5, & 3. We know our new addition will be a girl we are going to name her Taedra...

There is no greater joy than being a father...

I'm happy for you congrats...

[Marx]

Congrats Matt!!:woot:

My wife and I will be having a little angel also in late August/ early September I have three sons 11, 5, & 3. We know our new addition will be a girl we are going to name her Taedra...

There is no greater joy than being a father...

I'm happy for you congrats...

Well congratulations to you too Tag! Geesh! Everyone's having kids!

[Tag279]

Well congratulations to you too Tag! Geesh! Everyone's having kids!

Thanks Marx, I appreciate it :woot:

[The Major]

Obama was not in the center of the political spectrum during the primaries, nor was he even close. It was not until he gained the nomination that he made a mad dash for the center.

It seemed like he became centralist over night after meeting Hillary's donors to me.

[BlackestNight]

That's only funny to a certain percentage of people. Thankfully, I'm one of those :up: :D

That makes me wonder what The Daily Show or even better The Colbert Report will do with this Jessie Jackson story as soon as they come off there 2 week vacation. I can just imagine all the
Testicle/Castration Jokes.:applaud

I can’t wait till next week.:hehe:

[BlackestNight]

enjoy your baby while its cute.:oldrazz:Matt

[SentinelMind]

Obama is a gifted politician, brilliant man and is running the best campaign I can possibly see him run. He's making the best moves he can possibly make.

I think Jesse Jackson is old man trying to make himself relevant,..it kinda funny and sad to watch liberals and blacks throw the man under the bus so quickly now that he's tested the Obama. I think he's sincere in his concerns about Obama "talking" down to black people, but he like Wright are arrogant and bitter that they're not in the spot light and not being consulted as much as they want to be on these issues and what to belittle those who don't listen to them. I've met people like this before.

There is still some generational gap among black community towards Obama, although all the blacks who will vote will vote Obama. Obama comes across kind of elitist and someone who's entitled to position of Presidency after not having worked that long in politics....he's a rock start candidate. Older blacks are suspicious of him, they don't view him much as a populist (like Edwards), but rather off-standish academic who's going to "tell us how it ought to be". That's Obama's biggest problem right now, people think he's exciting, but the middle of the road voter is suspicious of what agenda he'll bring to the White House. they know what McCain is about (old, pro-military, moderate on-everything else, doesn't really care, pragmatist...likes the environment 'conservative-sort-of'), but don't really know what type of America Obama is going to bring.

[The Major]

SM:

Why is Obama elitist?

He's actually quite down to Earth compared to McCain.

[Tag279]

What Jessie said was wrong...truth be told he needed an oops up-side his head.

Jessie's comments come from the school of thought that we [black people] should not air our dirty laundry in mixed company because it gives individuals with racist views and negative perceptions about blacks food to feed their negative views.

I disagree with his mindset because I feel that honestly discussing our negative issues helps to begin the dialog on how we can correct them.

I also think that there is a level of envy present in Jessie because Obama is doing successfully what he could not.

[Kelly]

SM:

Why is Obama elitist?

He's actually quite down to Earth compared to McCain.


You very well could be correct in your assessment, unfortunately he has not shown that. Doing townhall meetings with McCain, or hell without McCain, would do alot to quell the elitist feelings of MANY.

[Kelly]

Well congratulations to you too Tag! Geesh! Everyone's having kids!

Bite your tongue.



Of course, people do need to continue to have babies in order for me to have a job.













oh wait, no they don't................................hell I retire in 13 years.

My job security is already born. *big smile*

[Tag279]

Jesse Jackson's son is a douche bag. What pissed me off is what he said about Hillary Clinton during the New Hampshire Primaries. I believe he said something like he didn't see Hillary Clinton crying during hurricane Katrina or something to that effect during an interview.

It has noting to do with his color. Its wither you trust or believe him. To a lot of African American, he hasn’t been addressed a lot of specific issue that concern African Americans. He constantly has to distance him self from any thing that is Black or Muslim for fear that he will be type cast by his enemies and they will used it to scare Blue Collar white voters away. Some African American (and Muslim American and lol (Muslim African Americans doublely) are taking it personally and they feel that Obama is taking there votes for granted.

Don't you all get it?

Obama has to walk a fine line.

If he is viewed as too black more white people and hispanics will rail against him.

If he is viewed as not being black enough black folks won't support him and call him a sell out. Look at Alan Keyes.

He damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Obama has to be President for ALL of America not just black America.

The Muslim things sucks he is in a catch 22 there are folks on the right where their whol dig against Obama is that they think he is a muslim.

Heck 54% of voters in WV and 58% of voters in KY thought Obama was a muslim and they said that they would not vote for someone who could be a terrorist sympathizer.

It sucks big-time but that is the truth. Calling Obama a muslim is the number-1 smear/ whisper campaign being used against him.

WTF is he supposed to do?

[souvlaki]

What is all of this FISA business? And telecom companies and such? I don't really understand it. Obama has come under some scrutiny about it? What's goin' on?

The short story with the whole thing is FISA is a court which approves warrants used for the purpose of wiretapping individuals receiving suspicious phone calls/emails from overseas hotspots (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, etc.). How this works is through highly advanced filters and voice recognition software that scans massive dumps of recorded calls and electionic communications. They scan for keywords, or phrases which may suggest terrorist plots. If I understand the bill correctly (and there are plenty of different interpretations of the bill), what it does is allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA courts in situations of national security, but also gives congressional oversight, meaning that if the executive branch abuses this and uses it to spy on people just for the hell of it, they may be subject to prosecution and impeachment. This was one of the powers the executive branch has (at least to my understanding) had for a while, but it was clearly abused during the Bush administration.

That is the other part of the bill that is controversial. The bill provides retroactive immunity to the Telecom companies that the Bush administration used to spy on individuals during his administration. Several people during Bush's administration were spied on without probable cause, and have since filed lawsuits against these Telecom companies for spying on them. After this bill, those lawsuits would be dropped. However, what people complaining about this don't take into account is that a.) only the Telecom companies that were ordered directly by the President to spy on people would be granted retroactive immunity, and b.) the retroactive immunity only applies to civil cases. What that means is when Obama is elected President, he can still order for criminal charges to be filed against those Telecom companies, as well as people within the Bush administration if he so wishes.

All in all, it's a big deal over nothing, and a bunch of left wing nutjobs that have read 1984 a few too many times are freaking out over it.

[The Major]

You very well could be correct in your assessment, unfortunately he has not shown that. Doing townhall meetings with McCain, or hell without McCain, would do alot to quell the elitist feelings of MANY.

I agree it could have helped but those town hall meetings would have been a bad idea.

At the time he was still distracted by Hillary, was getting out of "primary mode" to "general", giving into McCain's would make him look weak to the public and McCain would be in the driver's seat where he would get the upper hand.

I do think Obama needs to do something similar now but on his own terms.

I'm really looking forward to the debates. Obama's going to eat McCain alive in those.

[Kelly]

I agree it could have helped but those town hall meetings would have been a bad idea.

At the time he was still distracted by Hillary, was getting out of "primary mode" to "general", giving into McCain's would make him look weak to the public and McCain would be in the driver's seat where he would get the upper hand.

I do think Obama needs to do something similar now but on his own terms.

I'm really looking forward to the debates. Obama's going to eat McCain alive in those.

Then he should have never said that he would....and why not do them NOW, because he has never said, no, he just hasn't returned McCain's calls.lol

To me he seems weak by NOT doing them, is he scared? That how it comes across to me.

[SentinelMind]

What Jessie said was wrong...truth be told he needed an oops up-side his head.

Jessie's comments come from the school of thought that we [black people] should not air our dirty laundry in mixed company because it gives individuals with racist views and negative perceptions about blacks food to feed their negative views.

I disagree with his mindset because I feel that honestly discussing our negative issues helps to begin the dialog on how we can correct them.

I also think that there is a level of envy present in Jessie because Obama is doing successfully what he could not.

I agree.

[jaguarr]

My daughter Claire was born today Kaine. I just stopped home to shower, eat, and pick up some things for her mommy.

Welcome to the Daddy Club, mate. I just got my membership about 7 weeks ago, myself. The next couple of weeks are going to be INSANE for you and the Missus. I hope Mom and baby are both happy and healthy. Congratulations and enjoy these moments because they're pretty special and you only get one chance to enjoy them, so take advantage of it. :up:

jag

[Marx]

Obama mocks Gramm comments
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/10/obama-mocks-gramm-over-mccain/

[jaguarr]

Obama mocks Gramm comments
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/10/obama-mocks-gramm-over-mccain/

I laughed at his Dr. Phil comparison. :D

jag

[Marx]

I laughed at his Dr. Phil comparison. :D

jag

I did too. :funny:

[jaguarr]

http://www.thesunblog.com/frosting/dr_phil.jpg
See, what YOUR problem is is that you're in a MENTAL recession. What you need to realize is that there are no economic problems in this country and just get over it!






:funny:

jag

[The Major]

Then he should have never said that he would....and why not do them NOW, because he has never said, no, he just hasn't returned McCain's calls.lol

Doing them now would not be the same as before. It would be different circumstances.

Obama's no longer got Hillary trying to publically fight him for control of the party, he is used to operating as a general nominee now and he'd have more control in how it would be set up so McCain couldn't make sure he got the benefits while getting Obama in the worst possible position during the meeting.

There's probably a political reason why he never denied McCain's request publically. Maybe he didn't want to risk giving the Republican party and the media a new opening to make him look bad.

Not responding actually tells McCain he's not worth a reply.


To me he seems weak by NOT doing them, is he scared? Obama has nothing to be scared of. He just realizes it's a bad idea to do what your rival wants. That rival will do everything to give themselves an advantage and him a disadvantage.

That how it comes across to me.That's how the media played it up.

They wanted it more then McCain did. That's another reason it was a good idea for Obama not to do it.

[StrainedEyes]

I can't even really imagine what the debates will be like. Obama is going to be quick, witty, loud and coherent, and McCain is going to be McCain.

[Kelly]

McCain wanted to do them just 3 or so weeks ago (which was when he did the few that he asked Obama to be a part of, he wasn't fighting Hillary for anything by that time. That was all over. McCain proposed it AFTER Obama had the votes for candidacy, not before.

And no, sorry I disagree, it was a bad idea, for him to not at least do one. IMO.

[charl_huntress]

WTF is he supposed to do?

Exactly what he is doing now IMO, but I don't think it should be expected that people of color, religion or creed should give up up their right to question him simply because we need a black president. I, personally, don't need cookies like that.

[Matt]

I dunno about that. Obama cracked like an egg shell the first time in a debate that the moderators did not completely favor him. He also got flustered during his press conference on Wright (where the reporters were allowed to ask questions) any time he did not get a soft ball and he didn't do too hot in the early debates when Clinton and Edwards tag teamed him.

Obama is very strong at giving pre-written stump speeches, but he seems to suck when he is actually questioned or forced to break his pre-designated answers. Debate does not seem to be his strongest point. Meanwhile, McCain has been in the game for a very VERY long time and taken part in many debates. To underestimate him because he lacks the charisma of his opponent could very well be a fatal mistake for Obama.

[Matt]

Thanks for the well wishes, guys :woot:

[Tag279]

I dunno about that. Obama cracked like an egg shell the first time in a debate that the moderators did not completely favor him. He also got flustered during his press conference on Wright (where the reporters were allowed to ask questions) any time he did not get a soft ball and he didn't do too hot in the early debates when Clinton and Edwards tag teamed him.

Obama is very strong at giving pre-written stump speeches, but he seems to suck when he is actually questioned or forced to break his pre-designated answers. Debate does not seem to be his strongest point. Meanwhile, McCain has been in the game for a very VERY long time and taken part in many debates. To underestimate him because he lacks the charisma of his opponent could very well be a fatal mistake for Obama.

During the early debates I'll agree that Obama wasn't too saavy. As time progressed he got better and he actually did well. When it got down to him and Hillary he did a better job holding his own; and remember he did not go on the attack against Hillary even when she attacked him. The last debate that he had when George Stephanopolis was one of the moderators he did not do as well because he would not go on the offensive very strongly against Hillary.

I am sure that against McCain he will not try to play nice so-to-speak. Don't think Obama will treat McCain with kid gloves like he did Hillary. He is ready to respond strongly against the tabloid attacks and he is ready to attack. Don't make the mistake of underestimating Obama in a debate against McCain, Nader, and Barr this is not the primary any longer.

Obama is a more saavy politician than you give him credit for :cwink:

[Tag279]

Exactly what he is doing now IMO, but I don't think it should be expected that people of color, religion or creed should give up up their right to question him simply because we need a black president. I, personally, don't need cookies like that.

I never said that people don't have a right to question him. What I dis say was that he has to walk more of a tightrope than any other Presidential candidate has.

Jessie has every right to have issue with the way that Obama does things but his crass remarks were not called for. Jackson's statements come across as petty even envious. I lived in Chicago for seven years. I even had the chance to meet Jessie when Harold Washington ran for mayor in the 80s. I have a lot of respect for Jessie.

But I still think the testical remark was beneath him. Jessie had issue with the fathers day speech I know some blacks that did, but I also know a lot of black people including myself that think that he said what needed to be said.

[rdh007]

My daughter Claire was born today Kaine. I just stopped home to shower, eat, and pick up some things for her mommy.

Congratu-friggin-lations! It is the most important thing you'll ever do. Great stuff man, great stuff.

[rdh007]

I dunno about that. Obama cracked like an egg shell the first time in a debate that the moderators did not completely favor him. He also got flustered during his press conference on Wright (where the reporters were allowed to ask questions) any time he did not get a soft ball and he didn't do too hot in the early debates when Clinton and Edwards tag teamed him.

Obama is very strong at giving pre-written stump speeches, but he seems to suck when he is actually questioned or forced to break his pre-designated answers. Debate does not seem to be his strongest point. Meanwhile, McCain has been in the game for a very VERY long time and taken part in many debates. To underestimate him because he lacks the charisma of his opponent could very well be a fatal mistake for Obama.

Reminds me of another two-term president. And his one-term president father. Just because McCain is a masterdebator does not mean he's more likely to win the office. Also, it appears all Obama would have to do is bring up insurance companies and erectile dysfunction and apparently McCain can't ermmmmm, keep up.

[jaguarr]

Thanks for the well wishes, guys :woot:

I'll give you the two pieces of advice I have EVER been given that were worth a damn by all the "know it alls" that suddenly appear when you have a child:

1. Sleep whenever you can.
2. Don't listen to anyone's advice. Every kid is different as are their circumstances. Raise your kid your way and don't be afraid to make mistakes.


Everything else is trite and *****e. Enjoy your daughter, bro.

jag

[jaguarr]

Yeah, Obama's advanced pretty rapidly as far as his debate skills go. There's a pretty stark difference between the guy who was overwhelmed in those first debates and the guy who was spanking Hillary on a regular basis by the end of the Primaries. I think he'll be just fine against McCain. Especially since McCain's given him so much ammo to work with (all this economic policy stuff like $3M for "America's Inventor" contests, "there is no recession", etc. are going to bury McCain in the debates...watch and wait).

jag

[The Chairman]

The only thing that video proves is that Fox News is insatiably biased and Jeremiah Wright is, for all accounts and purposes, insane. It really says nothing about Obama.

As for Michelle Obama's comment on being proud for the first time in her adult life, the woman's 44, which technically means she became an adult in 1982 (when she turned 18). Thinking back, I can't think of any events between then and now that would make us particularly proud of America. We really haven't done aything significant like we did in the 1960s' with The Civil Rights movement.

Also, Matt, congratulations on your new daughter! Beautiful name you picked out. God Bless and Good Luck as a dad. Hoepfully she and jag's son can someday breed and create the most powerful Hypester known to man.

[kainedamo]

What is Obama's stance with the whole FISA thing? I understand he's come under some flak.

[jaguarr]

What is Obama's stance with the whole FISA thing? I understand he's come under some flak.

Are you serious? Someone already answered you the first time you asked that question a page or three back. :huh:

jag

[kainedamo]

Are you serious? Someone already answered you the first time you asked that question a page or three back. :huh:

jag

Ah hah! Thanks Jag. I totally missed it.

[Mr Sparkle]

All in all, it's a big deal over nothing, and a bunch of left wing nutjobs that have read 1984 a few too many times are freaking out over it.

plus, in the end, if you're going to elect someone that's not going to listen to the people anyway, might as well elect the moderate.

[BlackLantern]

plus, in the end, if you're going to elect someone that's not going to listen to the people anyway, might as well elect the moderate.

For most Americans, they only seem to react to things that adversely affect their existence...the war, the economy, gas prices....someone listening to their phone calls and e-mails doesn't seem too important.....otherwise we'd see rallies and protests wall to wall

[Mr Sparkle]

For most Americans, they only seem to react to things that adversely affect their existence...the war, the economy, gas prices....someone listening to their phone calls and e-mails doesn't seem too important.....otherwise we'd see rallies and protests wall to wall

well, we saw that these protests mean nothing.
in the run up to the Iraq war there protests all over the world and the US and all the other countries that had protests were like "meh...whatever" and went ahead anyway.
government rarely listens to the people anymore.

[BlackLantern]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance

I know it's a bit late but this was on the Yahoo

[Mr Sparkle]

hahahahahaha, but CAN you afford to elect a President with 3 "Islamic" names?!
ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

[Varient]

My officiasl position on THIS thread:


Open Laughter.

... With leanings toward Sending a LINK to the merged 6x Obama hate thread.


TSK>

[Lightning Strykez!]

Matt. I didn't realize you were sexually active! :eek::up: Jokes aside, I am thrilled for you man. Congrats on your new addition (and 18 year investment)!

Superman: With regards to the Former Hype Mods Thread...as the club's president (to whom I offer my unwavering endorsement) I recommend you start the club. It's a brilliant idea. Let's do it!

[Lightning Strykez!]

Don't you all get it?

Obama has to walk a fine line.

If he is viewed as too black more white people and hispanics will rail against him.

If he is viewed as not being black enough black folks won't support him and call him a sell out. Look at Alan Keyes.

He damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Obama has to be President for ALL of America not just black America.

The Muslim things sucks he is in a catch 22 there are folks on the right where their whol dig against Obama is that they think he is a muslim.

Heck 54% of voters in WV and 58% of voters in KY thought Obama was a muslim and they said that they would not vote for someone who could be a terrorist sympathizer.

It sucks big-time but that is the truth. Calling Obama a muslim is the number-1 smear/ whisper campaign being used against him.

WTF is he supposed to do?

The key to remember here is that Barack is not exactly "BLACK". He is biracial--or multi-ethnic to be more accurate. He is the consummate of the melting pot that is America. The problem now is that people from both sides of his heritage are trying to put him into some sort of box.

Does anyone recall Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice going through this sort of grief when Bush put them in their high-ranking positions? I know Jesse didn't have to go through it. :whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

By the way, Obama is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr from an elitist. He danced on Ellen Degeneres' show. :cool:

McCain rejected and denounced the opportunity. LOL

[charl_huntress]

I never said that people don't have a right to question him. What I dis say was that he has to walk more of a tightrope than any other Presidential candidate has.

Jessie has every right to have issue with the way that Obama does things but his crass remarks were not called for. Jackson's statements come across as petty even envious. I lived in Chicago for seven years. I even had the chance to meet Jessie when Harold Washington ran for mayor in the 80s. I have a lot of respect for Jessie.

But I still think the testical remark was beneath him. Jessie had issue with the fathers day speech I know some blacks that did, but I also know a lot of black people including myself that think that he said what needed to be said.

Oh I agree about the remark. I am curious as to why there aren't several prominent pastors calling him out. Personally, I thought the Father's Day speech was done well, and it is something that needs to be said. Yet, I'm concerned that he will contine to "talk down" instead of providing solutions to the problems that are abundant in the inner city.

Obama is walking a tightrope, and though Jackson's comments were totally out of line. Black activitists etc...shouldn't be afraid to question him for fear that WE will derail his candidancy.

[charl_huntress]

The key to remember here is that Barack is not exactly "BLACK". He is biracial--or multi-ethnic to be more accurate. He is the consummate of the melting pot that is America. The problem now is that people from both sides of his heritage are trying to put him into some sort of box.

Does anyone recall Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice going through this sort of grief when Bush put them in their high-ranking positions? I know Jesse didn't have to go through it. :whatever:

I've always contended that if Obama was darker, or his wife was white we wouldn't be talking about him right now.

I think the issue is no one really knows him. I had never heard of him before, and now he's the man on everyone's mind. I don't think Powell or Rice got this sort of flack because their knowledge/know-how..etc was lauded by peers and foes. Whereas there is still a lot that people don't know about Obama. I think people are trying to find out who he is and what he stands for. He seems kind of....blank to me right now...like not totally full of substance.

[Spade]

Jesse Jackson, along with Al Sharpton, have long believed that they hold co-presidency over da blakk ppl. Hearing Obama speak truth rather than sugar-coated gum drops probably made Jackson rage something furious. I'm inclined to agree with LS on this. This nation needs a man who'll tell it like it is regardless of race issues, and if Jackson's so juvenile that he can't see that past his own ego then he needs to shut up and learn how to be a better minister.

[terry78]

Black folks are saying they're proud of the first black candidate, then I hear white folks say, "well, he's not 100% black, he's mixed." Which is true, but it's like they're trying to get away from his blackness by saying that, like, he's not one of you, so don't think he's going to be all pro-black.

[Kelly]

I've actually heard very little about him being half white. All I've heard is......"first black president".

[BlackestNight]

Damn I’m tired of all these white commentators talking about Bill Cosby and the black community. For God sakes, I wish they would under stand that Bill Cosby said what a lot of Black people normally say in private publicly. There acting like Obama and Bill Cosby said something that the Black community that the black community rejected. Jackson isn’t mad because he’s jelosus he is mad because Obama said it publicly when in fact Jackson agrees with what Obama said.

Me personaly im gald he said it publicly.

lol

Unwritten Black Code number one don’t criticize black people in front of white people.

Side Note

If Obama Mother was a black woman from Michigan instead of a white woman from Kansas he would loose his ability to connect with Midwestern white voters.

If he would have married a white woman. He would have lost the female Black vote to Hillary. He would have also lost the older Black vote.

If he would have never gone to Chicago he would have never had the Black vote in the first place with the acceptation of black youth.

If he would have never been involved with Trinity united church of Christ or even Reverend Wright he would have lost any hope of Siphoning the Evangelical left from the Republican Party.

[charl_huntress]

I've actually heard very little about him being half white. All I've heard is......"first black president".


Very true. My mother didn't know for the longest time until I told her.

[BlackestNight]

This may sound conspiratorial but does anyone believe that the Administration would attack Iran right before the debates; thus giving McCain an upper hand during the debates by pushing national Security concerns up above the Economy. In my eyes the Administration has a sort of a permanent campaign mentally. Seems like every thing they do is politically motivated.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I've actually heard very little about him being half white. All I've heard is......"first black president".

Which, when you think about it, is racist in itself--it harkens back to the "one drop" rule. Fact of the matter is he's is biracial. To say that he is simply the "first black" anything denies half of who the man is.

To me, he is a better consummate for the country as a biracial man, than an African American man solely. Because the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, and pretty much everyone here is biracial or of some sort of mixed heritage...if you climb everyone's family tree's high enough.

[Lightning Strykez!]

http://www.thesunblog.com/frosting/dr_phil.jpg
See, what YOUR problem is is that you're in a MENTAL recession. What you need to realize is that there are no economic problems in this country and just get over it!






:funny:

jag

:lmao:

I wonder if this stupid comment will register as much heat as "Bittergate"??? :whatever: In my opinion, this has a much, much broader "slap your face" effect for the country.

[Kelly]

I don't, not at all. Obama was speaking to a specific demographic of people about a specific demographic of people. He HAS YET, to explain his statement.

Gramm in theory was correct in his statement about the economy, he simply tacked on the whining statement trying to be funny, and he's just not funny, hell he's an economist, how could he be funny?

McCain has said numerous times the direct opposite of what Gramm said, if people were actually watching, listening to both candidates, they would already know this.

[Kelly]

Which, when you think about it, is racist in itself--it harkens back to the "one drop" rule. Fact of the matter is he's is biracial. To say that he is simply the "first black" anything denies half of who the man is.

To me, he is a better consummate for the country as a biracial man, than an African American man solely. Because the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, and pretty much everyone here is biracial or of some sort of mixed heritage...if you climb everyone's family tree's high enough.


I've always thought that, BUT I think that many in America are so ready for something different, something historical, something bigger than we are.......they latched on to that. It's one of the reasons why I was never that upset about Ferraro (SP?) said, sorry, but I think she's correct.

We are quick to label, we are quick to follow, we are quick judge.....we are Americans. :yay: But, we so want to be different from all of those things that when someone comes along that pushes the envelope on all of those things, the media latches on, and creates a bigger than life person. That's not Obama's fault, that's entertainment.:whatever:

[Zen]

After watchin whats going on with fannie may and freddy mac... and indie mac being taken over by the federal government... whats going on with the housing market, inflation, the dollar, gas prices... the stock market dippin below 11000

i dont think gramm is correct... even if the theory rubs him off slightly. perhaps we need to recalibrate how we define recession.

Most economists are very concerned over the economy.

many are surprised, and are saying they havn't seen volitility like this in 25 years.

[Tag279]

I've always thought that, BUT I think that many in America are so ready for something different, something historical, something bigger than we are.......they latched on to that. It's one of the reasons why I was never that upset about Ferraro (SP?) said, sorry, but I think she's correct.

We are quick to label, we are quick to follow, we are quick judge.....we are Americans. :yay: But, we so want to be different from all of those things that when someone comes along that pushes the envelope on all of those things, the media latches on, and creates a bigger than life person. That's not Obama's fault, that's entertainment.:whatever:

If Obama was white with the same speaking ability and charisma he would have beaten Hillary badly in the primary and McCain would not be as close in the polls.

The very reason McCain still has a shot at winning the November election is because of the fact that Obama is identified as black.

[Matt]

This may sound conspiratorial but does anyone believe that the Administration would attack Iran right before the debates; thus giving McCain an upper hand during the debates by pushing national Security concerns up above the Economy. In my eyes the Administration has a sort of a permanent campaign mentally. Seems like every thing they do is politically motivated.

No, because for such a strategy to be successful a war in Iran would need public support and nothing short of an attack on American soil would obtain that.

[Tag279]

I don't, not at all. Obama was speaking to a specific demographic of people about a specific demographic of people. He HAS YET, to explain his statement.

Gramm in theory was correct in his statement about the economy, he simply tacked on the whining statement trying to be funny, and he's just not funny, hell he's an economist, how could he be funny?

McCain has said numerous times the direct opposite of what Gramm said, if people were actually watching, listening to both candidates, they would already know this.

Oh my gosh here is someone else hung up on bitter gate :whatever:

McCain said earlier in his campaign that we were not in a recession, he has mirrored Gramm's views on our nations economic status three times.

Obama was referring to the fact that people are bitter about the government not answering their concerns. His point was that people cling to what is familiar when times are hard and shun what is different.

[Superman]

Superman: With regards to the Former Hype Mods Thread...as the club's president (to whom I offer my unwavering endorsement) I recommend you start the club. It's a brilliant idea. Let's do it!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=306942
:hehe:

[IRON_Lad]

that vid was...retarded

[Lightning Strykez!]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=306942
:hehe:

:hehe:

Thanks; I've posted a suggestion for the staff to consider. Let me know what you think (although I wasn't exactly serious about the purple).

Also, do we need to round up the others? Some I think are over at LSP.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Oh my gosh here is someone else hung up on bitter gate :whatever:



She's not hung up on anything; she simply drew a correlation for me to consider.

Remember, not everything is designed to be an "attack". :cool:

[Kelly]

If the ex-mod thread was in the Political Forum, I might post in it.......I'm not going out of this forum. It's crazy out there.

[Lightning Strykez!]

If the ex-mod thread was in the Political Forum, I might post in it.......I'm not going out of this forum. It's crazy out there.

:(

Well, technically, leaving or joining the staff sometimes involves a certain amount of politics, so I guess it cooooould fit here...but it'd be a stretch.

[Kelly]

Well it ain't seein my shadow unless its in the comfort of the Political Forum.


*goes back to the bar and orders another drink*

[SentinelMind]

If Obama was white with the same speaking ability and charisma he would have beaten Hillary badly in the primary and McCain would not be as close in the polls.

The very reason McCain still has a shot at winning the November election is because of the fact that Obama is identified as black.

Not too sure about first part. If an exciting white American came along against Hillary, the black vote would have stayed Hillary......and the only constituency that white male would had a chance with is the white male vote. The black vote was instrumental in Obama winning in several primaries. I'm not saying the white male opponent would not have won, but I don't know if it would have been a landslide.

In the end, all this hypothesis thinking, what-if alternate scenarios is pointless really.

[SentinelMind]

I've always thought that, BUT I think that many in America are so ready for something different, something historical, something bigger than we are.......they latched on to that....


We are quick to label, we are quick to follow, we are quick judge.....we are Americans. :yay: But, we so want to be different from all of those things that when someone comes along that pushes the envelope on all of those things, the media latches on, and creates a bigger than life person. That's not Obama's fault, that's entertainment.:whatever:

I agree with most of this, although I think Obama recognizes this and knew the media would play this up...he knew how to tap into this "we want to be bigger than life, we want to evolve to a higher plane" sensationalist crap all the while mastering the identity political game that they all play. It's funny, as a black male, I've been amused but slightly disappointed with this election cycle. The past few months, I think I finally woken up to the fact that that national politics, like all politics, is all identity, ego-festive entertainment, where flash, perception, and talking points are the tools to get what you want. The point is we shouldn't take all this seriously.

[charl_huntress]

Even though this election is historic, I still think we are voting between a turd and douche bag (South Park).

[terry78]

Even though this election is historic, I still think we are voting between a turd and douche bag (South Park).

That's all it ever will be. Has there ever been a candidate that is 100% likeable?

[charl_huntress]

Billy had me fooled, but I was very young then...

edit:

I actually like McCain more than Obama, but that may be because I am squid. However, I am black...so not sure what it all means.

[jaguarr]

I've actually heard very little about him being half white. All I've heard is......"first black president".

I don't give a s**t what color his skin is, I just want him to at least somewhat undo even a small fraction of the stupidity and empire building the current administration has done and at least set us down the path to getting our s**t together. He doesn't even have to actually fix anything completely...just get the boat turned around and headed in the right direction again and I'll be happy.

jag

[Superman]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=306942
:hehe:

If the ex-mod thread was in the Political Forum, I might post in it.......I'm not going out of this forum. It's crazy out there.Oh come on, All you have to do is click on the link and it takes you right to it. Then you can come right back here without ever seeing Comm. :woot:

[Kelly]

Billy had me fooled, but I was very young then...

edit:

I actually like McCain more than Obama, but that may be because I am squid. However, I am black...so not sure what it all means.

I do to, I actually "like" McCain, I don't "like" Obama.

I actually believe McCain believes what he says, and we are seeing McCain.....BUT, I don't know that I believe in the same things he does.

I don't trust Obama, but I want change.

I'm screwed at the moment.

[Kelly]

If Obama was white with the same speaking ability and charisma he would have beaten Hillary badly in the primary and McCain would not be as close in the polls.

The very reason McCain still has a shot at winning the November election is because of the fact that Obama is identified as black.



He would have done as well as John Edwards did, and I believe Hillary would have won the candidacy. BUT, there is no way to know that so debating that scenario would be a waste of time.

The reason McCain has a shot at winning the November election is because he is trusted by the largest voting demographic 55+ baby boomers. His problem is with all of the other voting demographics. His main problem is that he has not tapped into the Hispanic voting block like Bush did. Not sure why he hasn't.....but that is a voting block that he needs. He will not get the black vote, nor the young college vote, but that doesn't matter if they follow what they have always done in previous elections. Sooooooo, he has to get as much of the independent vote as he can. If he continues his campaign in the mode that he has thus far, he will keep the baby boomers, get some of the Hispanic vote, and lose the independent vote. It has nothing to do with Obama being black. IMO

[SentinelMind]

Billy had me fooled, but I was very young then...

edit:

I actually like McCain more than Obama, but that may be because I am squid. However, I am black...so not sure what it all means.

Off note, I always thought it was offensive blacks called Clinton the first Black President...as if the best thing blacks can ever hope for is a white Southernor who plays the saxophone and cheats on his wife.

On the secodn point, I kind of understand that...I'm Black myself. Regardless of views on their policies, McCain comes across a little more transparent in his personality and demeanor...someone who doesn't really make much effort hiding his flaws. His personal flaws, (his temperment, old age) are something you should strongly consider.

McCain of 2000 came across as a honest, independent man...McCain of 2008 seems more like a panderer, but I think Americans don't question his good intentions and loyalty to this country. Obama comes across as exciting, intelligent person, but arrogant and little mysterious...like he came out of nowhere and is a product of a carefully crafted marketing campaign that certain voters WANT to buy into. If Obama can tap into that American Idol fan base and transfer it into the election, he's gold...of course those guys have better register to vote first.....its easy to forget to do that sometimes. :whatever:

[Kelly]

Off note, I always thought it was offensive blacks called Clinton the first Black President...as if the best thing blacks can ever hope for is a white Southernor who plays the saxophone and cheats on his wife.

On the secodn point, I kind of understand that...I'm Black myself. Regardless of views on their policies, McCain comes across a little more transparent in his personality and demeanor...someone who doesn't really make much effort hiding his flaws. His personal flaws, (his temperment, old age) are something you should strongly consider.

McCain of 2000 came across as a honest, independent man...McCain of 2008 seems more like a panderer, but I think Americans don't question his good intentions and loyalty to this country. Obama comes across as exciting, intelligent person, but arrogant and little mysterious...like he came out of nowhere and is a product of a carefully crafted marketing campaign that certain voters WANT to buy into. If Obama can tap into that American Idol fan base and transfer it into the election, he's gold...of course those guys have better register to vote first.....its easy to forget to do that sometimes. :whatever:

You hit the nail on the head........Obama HAS to win the black & young vote demograhic to win, and in both those cases, history shows they do not vote. Will it be different this time? sure, but that is a big question.

[Scar Predator]

Um, "Amen to that!"

I too found that statement rather morbid and shocking considering it's supposed to be from a so-called "man of god". Jesse is Satan's tool. Talk of castrating anyone--let alone someone you've endorsed is the epitome of "Weird".

What hypocrites.

I agree that the comments were extremely foolish but "Satan's tool"? Let's not go crazy.


I'm telling you, we as black people don't like to see each other succeed. We can't be happy for one another. You do anything remotely positive suddenly it's, "you're too good for us now, huh?" And then that makes the succeeder feel bad as hell about doing something good.

Ugh. That's depressing but I've heard that sentiment echoed among quite a few black friends/collegues.

[Tag279]

You hit the nail on the head........Obama HAS to win the black & young vote demograhic to win, and in both those cases, history shows they do not vote. Will it be different this time? sure, but that is a big question.

Your asserion is correct. However, voter turnout for young voters and black voters is substantially better than it has been sice JFK.

More people voted in this primary cycle than ever before and it is reasonable to surmise that turnout will go up just like it has done in the past.

I know brothers and sisters, white and black, that have never voted that voted for Obama in the primaries

[Johann Krauss]

Jesse needs to stfu

[The Major]

Regardless of views on their policies, McCain comes across a little more transparent in his personality and demeanor...

McCain came across to me like he is frightened of speaking in public and shows no belief in what he's saying he just speaking what's on the teleprompter or cue cards.

I expect better from someone who is in the general election to be the president of the United States. It's not his first time he's done this, either. He's literally had decades of practice yet still fails to be convincing in front of a camera.

someone who doesn't really make much effort hiding his flaws.

How do you think Obama is hiding his flaws?

His personal flaws, (his temperment, old age) are something you should strongly consider.

I'd say those are a negative for a presidential campaign. Do you really think
it would be a good thing to have hotly tempered guy who forgets where where his enemies are anywhere near a nuclear arsenal?

McCain of 2000 came across as a honest, independent man...McCain of 2008 seems more like a panderer,

Agreed.

but I think Americans don't question his good intentions and loyalty to this country.

I'm sure he has good intentions but just because he served the in the military doesn't make him a patriot or loyal to the country.

IIRC he voted against a bill to aid the military veterans, doesn't seem to care what Bush does that much and has no problem keeping a surrogate in his campaign who thinks America are whiners who are going through a mental recession. This guy is likely to be in charge of America's economy if McCain wins, too.


Obama comes across as exciting, intelligent person,

Agreed.

but arrogant and little mysterious...

How is he arrogant or mysterious? He seems very straight forward during interviews to me.

like he came out of nowhere and is a product of a carefully crafted marketing campaign that certain voters WANT to buy into.

There is some truth to what you say but I think you're just looking for a reason to not like him.

Obama isn't perfect but he's the best chance America has to clean up its mess.

If Obama can tap into that American Idol fan base and transfer it into the election, he's gold...of course those guys have better register to vote first.....its easy to forget to do that sometimes.

Obama does have substance in what he says.

It's McCain who changes his opinion every week then gets angry when the media call him on it.

[C.F. Kane]

hahahahahaha, but CAN you afford to elect a President with 3 "Islamic" names?!
ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

I know! That's like bashing John Wayne, Theodore Roosevelt and Jeff Goldblum solely because they have the same first names as famous serial killers.

[jaguarr]

I know! That's like bashing John Wayne, Theodore Roosevelt and Jeff Goldblum solely because they have the same first names as famous serial killers.

Well, technically, John Wayne has the first AND middle names of a famous serial killer. :suspicious:

jag

[Bunker]

What a load of milarchy, whoever made this watches too much FOX news, and Deadhead's name fits him like a glove.

[Kelly]

Your asserion is correct. However, voter turnout for young voters and black voters is substantially better than it has been sice JFK.

The voting age was not reduced from 21 to 18, until 1971, they are now looking closely at reducing it to 16.


Prior to 2004, turnout among 18-24 year olds had declined from a high of 52 percent in 1972 to 36 percent in both the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections, with a brief spike in interest during the 1992 election. But, in 2004, 47 percent of young adults went to the polls, fully 3 million more than went to the polls in 2000.

"Winning this election among young voters is likely to come down to who [they] trust on terrorism, Iraq and the cost of college," noted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who conducted the survey in partnership with Republican pollster Ed Goeas.

However, while polling suggests strong support for Democrats, young Republicans have traditionally been more reliable voters. "The turnout question for the Democrats is the big one -- they have to turn them out," said Young Voter Strategies' Smith. "The ray of hope for Republicans is that there is a set of young people who are very intensely Republican, and are more likely to vote."


Which ever candidates begins talking about bringing "Pell Grants" back, (BTW, is what paid for 50% of my college) will win this voting demographic hands down.

Source: "Generation Next, Speak Up, Be Heard" (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/generation-next/demographic/election-preview_11-3.html)

[Kelly]

I actually watch alot of Fox, CNN, PBS, etc.......and I wanted this thread closed, so please don't generalize. *smiles*

[SentinelMind]

McCain came across to me like he is frightened of speaking in public and shows no belief in what he's saying he just speaking what's on the teleprompter or cue cards.

I expect better from someone who is in the general election to be the president of the United States. It's not his first time he's done this, either. He's literally had decades of practice yet still fails to be convincing in front of a camera.

That is a serious problem he should have worked upon a long time ago, I agree. But this does play into the idea that his personality is more transparent, that he is not good at faking it with planned slogans and gimmick one-liners....he prefers to be himself in the campaign and going through the motions to getting his thoughts together. He's pretty good at throwing Mitt Romney, the master of planned speeches, off base during the Republican primary.

Why are town hall meetings his expertise over scripted cue card speeches? Obama is great giving a prepared speech in front of 50,000+ people....but he couldn't handle the last primary debate with George Stephonopolous (SIC? probably). He then later complained the debate was unfair and he wasn't going to do anymore. And he also formally declined McCain's offer to do townhall meetings.

It demonstrates, Obama is better with a scripted speech and planning/controlling the message, and McCain is better being interrogated and handling himself off-the cuff. That plays into the theme that McCain is "more transparent" in personality than Obama.


How do you think Obama is hiding his flaws?

I think its obvious to most people his relationship with Reverand Wright, the church, William Ayers is much stronger and complex than OBama would prefer to let on ....people don't think he's been completely forthcoming about Wright did and didn't preach to him when he was attending that church. While I don't beleive he agrees with the views these people advocate..it seems to be he at one point was quite sympathetic to them, but doesn't want to admit it to alienate certain audience members.

His response to being caught saying "cling to guns, cling to religion"..etc..was ambigious...he first said he was standing by what he said because its true...to then admitting he misspoke. This cloud of uncertainty surrounding these tennats of the American value system makes voters uncomfortable.

I'd say those are a negative for a presidential campaign. Do you really think
it would be a good thing to have hotly tempered guy who forgets where where his enemies are anywhere near a nuclear arsenal?

That's fair... (although forget where enemies are...eh), those are significant negatives one should consider before voting for President.



I'm sure he has good intentions but just because he served the in the military doesn't make him a patriot or loyal to the country.

Ehh....if you were willing to give up several years of your life to stay with your fellow soldiers as POW who fought against American's enemies...I think that's pretty damn patriotic. Enlisting in the military, maybe not automatically loyal.....but serving in the military to the extent John McCain does....I don't see how you can argue that is not patriotic. I'm not buying into Obama's definition of patriotism....that its about changing America and redistributing wealth...Patriotism is sticking with your country through the good and bad times.........not being patriotic only when your policies have a chance of passing or your husband has a chance to be President of the United States.

IIRC he voted against a bill to aid the military veterans, doesn't seem to care what Bush does that much and has no problem keeping a surrogate in his campaign who thinks America are whiners who are going through a mental recession. This guy is likely to be in charge of America's economy if McCain wins, too.

McCain voted against the free college education bill because he felt it created an incentive to leave the military early...that a legitimate argument even if you don't prefer it.


How is he arrogant or mysterious? He seems very straight forward during interviews to me.

I don't think his speeches regarding his relationship to the United Church and Reverand Wright was Obama at his best. When Obama is on the defensive like this, its as if he can't handle unscripted interrogation, he thinks up answers and talking points DURING the interview....takes very long to formulate his thoughts and that comes across as shady to most viewers. "I'm not condemning Wright, I'm just condemning his words."..etc..then he has to say he didn't know Wright the way he thought he did, a man he listed to for 20 years......its this weird tango that makes voters nervous. What are his loyalties...what is his ambition,...what drives him. Certain voters don't know this and that's really the only thing holding Obama back.



There is some truth to what you say but I think you're just looking for a reason to not like him.

Obama isn't perfect but he's the best chance America has to clean up its mess.



Obama does have substance in what he says.

It's McCain who changes his opinion every week then gets angry when the media call him on it.

Both candidates have changed positions, but it impacts Obama's campaign more because he ran a campaign as an agent of change, outsider who's honesty is going to change Washington DC at his core. He plays the same games as other politicians do at his core, it undermines his message. His opponents did not create the same high standards that Obama has in his own campaign.

[Kelly]

McCain came across to me like he is frightened of speaking in public and shows no belief in what he's saying he just speaking what's on the teleprompter or cue cards.

I expect better from someone who is in the general election to be the president of the United States. It's not his first time he's done this, either. He's literally had decades of practice yet still fails to be convincing in front of a camera.

Apparently you haven't seen him in his town hall meetings.

No one is going to come across as well as Obama, but just like you don't like McCain for the fact that he's not a good speaker, I don't think the fact that Obama is a great speech giver is all it takes either.

I know more of McCain's platform (of which I don't agree with alot of it), and I know very little of the specifics of Obamas. Obama is great at generalities, and for the ignorant voter (of which I think is about 60% of the voting population) this will work well.

[The Major]

SM:

McCain thought al Queada was in Iran not Iraq. Lieberman had to correct him on camera in front of the press.

JERUSALEM — Senator John McCain’s trip overseas was supposed to highlight his foreign policy acumen, and his supporters hoped that it would showcase him in a series of statesmanlike meetings with world leaders throughout the Middle East and Europe while the Democratic candidates continued to squabble back home.

But all did not go according to plan on Tuesday in Amman, Jordan, when Mr. McCain, fresh from a visit to Iraq, misidentified some of the main players in the Iraq war.

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a *****e country, has been training and financing *****e extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

Mr. McCain has based his campaign in large part on his assertion that he is the candidate best prepared to deal with Iraq, and the Democrats wasted little time in jumping on his misstatement to question his knowledge and judgment.

“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, responded: “In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda — as is reflected in the transcript. The reality is that the American people have deep concerns about the Democratic candidates’ judgment and readiness on matters of national security, and that’s why the D.N.C. launched their attack today.”

The Democrats noted that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, had made similar comments about Iran training Al Qaeda in an interview with “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” a radio program he called from Amman. “As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, according to a transcript posted on the show’s Web site.

It was not the first time that Mr. McCain’s remarks during a Congressional trip overseas have caused headaches for his campaign. It was nearly a year ago that his talk about the improving security situation in Iraq made headlines, after a trip he made to a marketplace there was guarded by more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees and attack helicopters, becoming fodder for Democrats and critics of the war.

Mr. McCain later said he misspoke. And in a speech he gave last April about the need to succeed in Iraq, he made light of it. “I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq,” he said. “Unlike the veterans here today, I risked nothing more threatening than a hostile press corps.”

The latest trip was a Congressional fact-finding mission, but Mr. McCain, a presidential candidate, planned to hold a fund-raiser on Thursday at a stop in London. He traveled with two senators who strongly support his presidential bid: Mr. Lieberman, an independent of Connecticut, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Their trip to Iraq on Sunday coincided with one by Vice President Dick Cheney; both trips, in which the visitors spoke about the improvements in Iraq, were somewhat overshadowed by a bombing on Monday that killed more than 40 people in Karbala.

From Iraq, Mr. McCain traveled to Jordan, and then here to Israel, where he and his colleagues paid their respects at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum, and then met with President Shimon Peres of Israel at his residence.

Mr. Peres called Mr. McCain a good friend of Israel. And noting that Mr. McCain had been hopping all over the Middle East, Mr. Peres told him, “I really admire your courage and stamina.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/L/Lieberman,%20Joseph%20I.

Your other replies I have no argument with.

[Tag279]

The voting age was not reduced from 21 to 18, until 1971, they are now looking closely at reducing it to 16.

Which ever candidates begins talking about bringing "Pell Grants" back, (BTW, is what paid for 50% of my college) will win this voting demographic hands down.

Source: "Generation Next, Speak Up, Be Heard" (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/generation-next/demographic/election-preview_11-3.html)

Remember 21 is considered young also; when Kennedy ran first time voter turnout was substantial. It was just that first time voters were 21 then it's 18 now.

[Tag279]

Double post i think

[comicgirl]

Apparently you haven't seen him in his town hall meetings.

No one is going to come across as well as Obama, but just like you don't like McCain for the fact that he's not a good speaker, I don't think the fact that Obama is a great speech giver is all it takes either.

I know more of McCain's platform (of which I don't agree with alot of it), and I know very little of the specifics of Obamas. Obama is great at generalities, and for the ignorant voter (of which I think is about 60% of the voting population) this will work well.Meh.....he just doesn't seem into it....very laissez-faire.

[kane9321]

ahhhh...we black folks have that "crab in a bucket" syndrome..its sad but true

[Tag279]

Why are town hall meetings [Mccain's] expertise over scripted cue card speeches? Obama is great giving a prepared speech in front of 50,000+ people....1) but he couldn't handle the last primary debate with George Stephonopolous (SIC? probably). He then later complained the debate was unfair and he wasn't going to do anymore. And he also formally declined McCain's offer to do townhall meetings.

It demonstrates, Obama is better with a scripted speech and planning/controlling the message, and McCain is better being interrogated and handling himself off-the cuff. That plays into the theme that McCain is "more transparent" in personality than Obama.

I think its obvious to most people his relationship with Reverand Wright, the church, William Ayers is much stronger and complex than OBama would prefer to let on ....2) people don't think he's been completely forthcoming about Wright did and didn't preach to him when he was attending that church. While I don't beleive he agrees with the views these people advocate..it seems to be he at one point was quite sympathetic to them, but doesn't want to admit it to alienate certain audience members.

His response to being caught saying "cling to guns, cling to religion"..etc..was ambigious...he first said he was standing by what he said because its true...to then admitting he misspoke. This cloud of uncertainty surrounding these tennats of the American value system makes voters uncomfortable.

Ehh....if you were willing to give up several years of your life to stay with your fellow soldiers as POW who fought against American's enemies...I think that's pretty damn patriotic. Enlisting in the military, maybe not automatically loyal.....but serving in the military to the extent John McCain does....I don't see how you can argue that is not patriotic. I'm not buying into Obama's definition of patriotism....that its about changing America and redistributing wealth...Patriotism is sticking with your country through the good and bad times.........not being patriotic only when your policies have a chance of passing or your husband has a chance to be President of the United States.

McCain voted against the free college education bill because he felt it created an incentive to leave the military early...that a legitimate argument even if you don't prefer it.

I don't think his speeches regarding his relationship to the United Church and Reverand Wright was Obama at his best. When Obama is on the defensive like this, its as if he can't handle unscripted interrogation, he thinks up answers and talking points DURING the interview....takes very long to formulate his thoughts and that comes across as shady to most viewers. "I'm not condemning Wright, I'm just condemning his words."..etc..then he has to say he didn't know Wright the way he thought he did, a man he listed to for 20 years......its this weird tango that makes voters nervous. What are his loyalties...what is his ambition,...what drives him. Certain voters don't know this and that's really the only thing holding Obama back.

Both candidates have changed positions, but it impacts Obama's campaign more because he ran a campaign as an agent of change, outsider who's honesty is going to change Washington DC at his core. He plays the same games as other politicians do at his core, it undermines his message. His opponents did not create the same high standards that Obama has in his own campaign.

1) The debate where George Stephanopolis was one of the moderators was a double-team to say the least. Stephanopolis worked for bill Clinton as his press secretary How is that not a conflict of interest.

And what since would it make to play on Mccain's turf. I saw one of his so-called town hall meetings on C-Span and it seemed that he stacked the deck with supporters. It was a love-fest and no one asked him any really hard questions during that particular event.

2) While I don't agree with every thing Wright said and i will also say that I feel that some of the things that he said were totally bogus or negatively spun perceptions. For instance:
A. Wright asserted that the government engineered aids to elaminate undesireables ie homosexuals, drug users, and black people. While this assertion is fallicious in itself.....

It is true, however, that the Reagan administration was made aware that AIDS could explode into an epidemic in 1982. President Reagan was not willing to head off the problem because he regarded it as a "gay plague" Consider Jesse Helms view. Helms was a friend and confidant of President Reagan and they held many of the same views on policy.

Helms was "bitterly opposed to federal financing of AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS) research and treatment".[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#cite_note-NYTObit-48) Opposing the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988, Helms stated, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#cite_note-49) When Ryan White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White) died in 1990, his mother went to Congress to speak to politicians on behalf of people with AIDS. She spoke to 23 representatives: Helms refused to speak to her even when she was alone with him in an elevator.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#cite_note-50) Despite opposition by Helms, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Care (CARE) Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act) passed in 1990.

B. Consider the Tuskeege Experement. The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment#cite_note-0) (also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiment) was a clinical study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial), conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee%2C_Alabama), in which 399 poor — and mostly illiterate — African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) sharecroppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecroppers) were studied to observe the natural progression of the disease if left untreated.

By 1947 penicillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin) had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Prior to this discovery, syphilis frequently led to a chronic, painful and fatal multisystem disease. Rather than treat all syphilitic subjects with penicillin and close the study, or split off a control group for testing penicillin; the Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment#cite_note-2) resulted in its termination.

B. Continued: Considering thie information above could Wright's suspicion not be expected?

C. Hillary Clinton has never been called a N****R and she has no idea what it is like to be a black man in America.

D. Wright in quoting a white U.S. ambassador said that 911 was America's chickens coming home to roost. Pastor Heggie said that 911 was he fault of Ammerica's acceptance of homosexuals. Rev. Ron Parsley also said that 911 was the fault of America.

Why is it when a white person is critical of our nation he is speaking his mind and we have seen whan a black person criticizes America he is regarded as unpatriotic?

Yes John McCain sacrificed much for his country and I commend him for it. But just because Obama was not in the military does not mean that he cannot be an effective president.

What specific policy points do you think makes McCain's platform more effective than Obama's?

[charl_huntress]

ahhhh...we black folks have that "crab in a bucket" syndrome..its sad but true

Association brings on assilimation. Hang around haters and you'll get hated on.

I find responses like these to be a cop out, but unfortunately it seems to be the mantra on everyone's lips.

sad...but...Hate on...

[jaguarr]

Wow.....The New Yorker went and caught a massive, massive case of stupid:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-slams-satirical-new-yorker-magazine-cover/

Obama Camp Slams Satirical ‘New Yorker’ Magazine Cover
by FOXNews.com
Monday, July 14, 2008

July 21, 2008, cover of 'The New Yorker' magazine.

Aides to Barack Obama are blasting a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts “President Obama” in the Oval Office, wearing a Muslim-style outfit and doing a fist-bump with his wife, Michelle, who is dressed in camouflage with an automatic rifle slung over her back.

A picture of Usama bin Laden hangs above the mantel of the fireplace, which has an American flag burning in it.

The July 21 cover, titled “The Politics of Fear,” is intended to be a parody, an attempt to show how “scare tactics and misinformation” are being used to try to derail Barack Obama’s campaign, says cover artist Barry Blitt.

“I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous,” Blitt wrote in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. “It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”

The Obama campaign has had to fight an intensive e-mail spam campaign that claims Obama is secretly a Muslim, and his wife is a black radical. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the New Yorker cover over the top.

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” Burton said.

“But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Obama did not reply to a question about the cover when he answered reporters’ questions on Sunday in San Diego. John McCain’s campaign also slammed the cover as “tasteless and offensive.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/07/obama_newyorkercover_320.jpg


Stupid is as stupid does.

jag

[BlackLantern]

I've always considered the New Yorker as ..... what exactly is their function?

[jaguarr]

I've always considered the New Yorker as ..... what exactly is their function?

I've always considered them a bit of a snarky, self-important magazine run by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who aren't nearly as intelligent as they'd like to think. Just my personal opinion. :)

jag

[BlackLantern]

I've always considered them a bit of a snarky, self-important magazine run by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who aren't nearly as intelligent as they'd like to think. Just my personal opinion. :)

jag

Sounds like an accurate description to me....I view 'The Onion' that way as well...they think they are funny and witty when they really aren't

[Matt]

Wow.....The New Yorker went and caught a massive, massive case of stupid:




Stupid is as stupid does.

jag


Its satire about public perception. Its not as if they are actually calling the Obamas terrorists. They are playing off the public fears that are being created. Why is this guy above simple satire now? Lets not be so overly sensitive.

[terry78]

A lot of people don't get satire, unfortunately. That's just how the populous is. The ones that read the New Yorker will get it, but for the rest that just see the cover in passing...not so much.

[Darthphere]

Jesus, this is getting ridiculous.

[Matt]

So the New Yorker should just ignore parodying something as important as a presidential candidate because some won't get it?

[BlackLantern]

So the New Yorker should just ignore parodying something as important as a presidential candidate because some won't get it?

I think the New Yorker needs to realize that cover will be posted on every quasi political pro-Obama blog from here to East Bumble....

[Darthphere]

Yes, upping their circulation by 33%!

[Kelly]

I think the New Yorker is basking in their abundant magazine sales with this......


Because, we all know thats the bottomline.

[Kelly]

aaarrrggghhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Darth, get out of my brain.....

[kainedamo]

So the New Yorker should just ignore parodying something as important as a presidential candidate because some won't get it?

I think the guys running the New Yorker knew exactly that their cover would get this kind of attention. They knew what they were doing.

It would be more appropriate as a picture below an article, where someone can see and be like, "ah, they're making fun of people that believe this about Obama".

But you take the picture by itself - search around youtube. Guys that do believe these crazy things about Obama draw cartoons like that.

[Varient]

Ref the New Yorker:
No real surprise there - their sense of "humor" has never been mine - in fact they seem to border on an "elitist" mindset in regards to "what's interesting" or funny.

This picture just adds fuel to the fire that feeds the ignorant.

tsk.

V.

[Raiden]

I think that if the New Yorker had added a text along with the picture, and made a comment about the fear-mongering of this presidential election, then their explaination that it's a satire makes more sense. But by having the picture by itself, it brings to question what their motives were, and it is clear that they were counting on the controversy and the publicity that it will generate. It's just a low-ball way of creating PR for the magazine.

[kainedamo]

Just read the comments in response to the New Yorker cover...

http://ie.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=86xRYjk0qnk&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D86xRYjk0qnk

See?

[jaguarr]

Its satire about public perception. Its not as if they are actually calling the Obamas terrorists. They are playing off the public fears that are being created. Why is this guy above simple satire now? Lets not be so overly sensitive.

Oh, please, Matt. I love satire. LOVE it! It's pretty apparent what's going on with that illustration. You can dress it up in a pretty bow and call it satire but this is far beyond the intended target they were supposedly trying to hit.

jag

[BlackLantern]

in the words of Michael Westen...."Don't sprinkle sugar on this bull and call it candy"

[Varient]

Just read the comments in response to the New Yorker cover...

http://ie.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=86xRYjk0qnk&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D86xRYjk0qnk

See?
Scary.
That people are that stupid.

Oh, please, Matt. I love satire. LOVE it! It's pretty apparent what's going on with that illustration. You can dress it up in a pretty bow and call it satire but this is far beyond the intended target they were supposedly trying to hit.

jag

point.

[StrainedEyes]

I don't like it either. There's nothing in the image that says "Right wingers think this will happen." If this was posted anywhere else, and not on the New Yorker, I don't think people would say it was parody.

Give me a funny billboard, or put the image in a thought bubble of a well known right-winger, anything. This, to me, comes off more like a jab from the right side, then a hardy joke from the left.

What they should do, to even this mess out, is have a McCain cartoon along the same lines on the cover of their next issue.

[Kelly]

As what? An old man? We already know that....

[Varient]

I don't like it either. There's nothing in the image that says "Right wingers think this will happen." If this was posted anywhere else, and not on the New Yorker, I don't think people would say it was parody.

Give me a funny billboard, or put the image in a thought bubble of a well known right-winger, anything. This, to me, comes off more like a jab from the right side, then a hardy joke from the left.

What they should do, to even this mess out, is have a McCain cartoon along the same lines on the cover of their next issue.

Won't happen.
Some folk take themselves too seriously and McCain would probably show that infamous temper of his if they jabbed at him the same way.

I just remain amazed at the level of ignorance and one-way-ness of the Obama bashers.

I've heard more reasonable discussion on elementary school playgrounds.

Tsk.


V.

[Varient]

http://www.voteforbreakfast.com/archive/major_candidates/flashback_mccain_calls_vietnam.php

[BlackestNight]

ahhhh...we black folks have that "crab in a bucket" syndrome..its sad but true

Yep sad but unfortunately true

[StorminNorman]

Apparently you haven't seen him in his town hall meetings.

No one is going to come across as well as Obama, but just like you don't like McCain for the fact that he's not a good speaker, I don't think the fact that Obama is a great speech giver is all it takes either.

I know more of McCain's platform (of which I don't agree with alot of it), and I know very little of the specifics of Obamas. Obama is great at generalities, and for the ignorant voter (of which I think is about 60% of the voting population) this will work well.

I disagree about Obama being a great speaker. He is great on a script, on the cuff, however, he fumbles - his debate performance was an example of this. A Town Hall debate is the perfect format for McCain because it takes Obama out of the more structured environment where Obama thrives.

[Cosmic]

Assuming that the observer is literate, or at least, generally aware of current events, the cover should be immediately recognized as satire. It shouldn't need to be explained why. If the observer is illiterate, or unaware of current events, then that is no fault of The New Yorker.

The public reaction to the cover so far as I've seen only serves to demonstrate and reinforce one key aspect of the joke: the simple fact that the American public is very easily misled by pervasive right-wing propaganda, even when it's so obviously and blatantly false.

The cartoon has also exposed the intense, irrational hatred of intellectuals in America, which is a shame.

[terry78]

You don't have to get every joke from Frasier to understand the New Yorker....but it probably helps.

Buzz Killington : It looks like this man is having some trouble riding this bicycle. Do you know why? Because he's a Scot!

How droll.

[StorminNorman]

I am already tired of this story.

[BlackLantern]

Assuming that the observer is literate, or at least, generally aware of current events, the cover should be immediately recognized as satire. It shouldn't need to be explained why. If the observer is illiterate, or unaware of current events, then that is no fault of The New Yorker.

The public reaction to the cover so far as I've seen only serves to demonstrate and reinforce one key aspect of the joke: the simple fact that the American public is very easily misled by pervasive right-wing propaganda, even when it's so obviously and blatantly false.

The cartoon has also exposed the intense, irrational hatred of intellectuals in America, which is a shame.

Most people do not understand satire in any form.....not to sound horrible....but most black people don't get satire....all they will see in that picture is the white media demonizing Obama....

[Marx]

I think the New Yorker knew what kind of reaction this cover would get - satire or not.

[terry78]

Most people do not understand satire in any form.....not to sound horrible....but most black people don't get satire....all they will see in that picture is the white media demonizing Obama....

I hate to even agree with that, but the Boondocks cartoon is a clear example. I know people that hate the show because they think it's strictly a jigaboo-type minstrel thing, even though the entire basis is satirizing the culture.

[charl_huntress]

I think the cover is funny.

[BlackLantern]

I hate to even agree with that, but the Boondocks cartoon is a clear example. I know people that hate the show because they think it's strictly a jigaboo-type minstrel thing, even though the entire basis is satirizing the culture.

The Boondocks is a gift from Black Jesus

[charl_huntress]

If it had been this no one would care...
http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/caricature/artists/nakanishi_k/nakanishi_k_bush.jpg

I think people are also too sensitive and overly hostile for Obama. This is common stuff in politics, but you would think folks here wouldn't know it :huh:

[kainedamo]

If it had been this no one would care...
http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/caricature/artists/nakanishi_k/nakanishi_k_bush.jpg

I think people are also too sensitive and overly hostile for Obama. This is common stuff in politics, but you would think folks here wouldn't know it :huh:

You would never, ever see that as a cover for a popular magazine and if you did Fox News would be the first people on it talking about what a disgrace it is.

[charl_huntress]

You would never, ever see that as a cover for a popular magazine and if you did Fox News would be the first people on it talking about what a disgrace it is.

You can find these sort of caricartures anywhere. I just don't see the big deal, and people eventually get it even if they still think it's done in bad taste. My point is this is done all the time.

[luke1234]

many things are always misinterpreted because lets face it. People are stupid. This Magazine along with a lot of things will accidentally send out the wrong idea. Thats why Dave Chappell left his show, he was making fun of the way we perceive other races (Race Draft lol) but instead it back fired on Americas youth. Everyone believed that Black People overall act like that which is the exact opposite of the What Dave Chappell was doing. Same with the Boondocks. Theres just nothing you can do without being predictably obvious

[jaguarr]

I think the New Yorker knew what kind of reaction this cover would get - satire or not.

Exactamundo, Potsy! :up:

jag

[BlackestNight]

I can't understand why people a zoning in on the New Yorker when other TV shows have actually done similar things. I mean look at the Daily Show, Colbert Report and the Onion. They have done and said some things that could complete over shadow the New Yorker Cover.

Sometimes I can't understand who people don't get satire or post modern Irony.

[charl_huntress]

Btw...didn't the New Yorker portray Bush as Nero? I think people get it...at least the folks who read the New Yorker do.

[Sandman138]

That New Yorker cover is brilliant.:up::up:

[Sentinel X]

Does anyone here watch Lou Dobbs on CNN?

This guy is very very annoying. He has been biased in everything he says about Obama. His hatred for Obama is clear and obviously affects the quality of the show. Every news story he brings up must somehow lead to Obama being an idiot or an egotistical maniac. I've never seen someone go so much out of their way to bring someone down, he acts like a fourth grader. I watch CNN daily and he always has something bad to say about Obama. The weird thing is that he showed audience that he was a democrat and a Hilary supporter, now that Hilary has lost he is leaning toward McCain...wtf? those are two completely different cannidates. I wonder if he is mentally well. :o

[jaguarr]

I can't understand why people a zoning in on the New Yorker when other TV shows have actually done similar things. I mean look at the Daily Show, Colbert Report and the Onion. They done and said some things that could complete over shadow the New Yorker Cover.

Sometimes I can't understand who people don't get satire or post modern Irony.

Btw...didn't the New Yorker portray Bush as Nero? I think people get it...at least the folks who read the New Yorker do.

I don't think it's a matter of "not getting it", I think it's a matter of understanding that the New Yorker is trying to perpetuate the sterotype of Obama and his wife as undercover extremist-Muslim terrorists under the guise of supposed satire. Is it satire? Sure. Does it hit the mark they claim they were supposedly aiming for? Absolutely not; it overshoots it by 100 miles, and I don't think that miss was accidental. It's like shooting your neighbor's dog and claiming you were really aiming for a different target when you really meant to shoot the damn dog anyway.

jag

[rdh007]

http://amrep.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/bush-as-nero-on-the-cover-of-the-new-yorker/

[Sandman138]

Dobbs will side with whoever he feels will best handle first immigration and, after that, outsourcing. He has been running his show on those two issues for years now. He has his constituents to think of.:o

[charl_huntress]

I don't think it's a matter of "not getting it", I think it's a matter of understanding that the New Yorker is trying to perpetuate the sterotype of Obama and his wife as undercover extremist-Muslim terrorists under the guise of supposed satire. Is it satire? Sure. Does it hit the mark they claim they were supposedly aiming for? Absolutely not; it overshoots it by 100 miles, and I don't think that miss was accidental. It's like shooting your neighbor's dog and claiming you were really aiming for a different target when you really meant to shoot the damn dog anyway.

jag

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I would venture to say that anyone who didn't "get that" or thinks it is an undercover attack to reinforce that image is probably not registered to vote.

edit:

Or already planning on not voting for him.

[Sandman138]

I don't think it's a matter of "not getting it", I think it's a matter of understanding that the New Yorker is trying to perpetuate the sterotype of Obama and his wife as undercover extremist-Muslim terrorists under the guise of supposed satire. Is it satire? Sure. Does it hit the mark they claim they were supposedly aiming for? Absolutely not; it overshoots it by 100 miles, and I don't think that miss was accidental. It's like shooting your neighbor's dog and claiming you were really aiming for a different target when you really meant to shoot the damn dog anyway.

jag

This would be true if The New Yorker's target audience was the general public, but, as we all agree, The New Yorker is an elitist publication. It caters to a very specific consumer and carries the price tag to make it worth their while to cater to that specific niche. Anybody who reads The New Yorker got the joke at face value. It is the kind of cartoon that people read The New Yorker for.

[Marx]

Does anyone here watch Lou Dobbs on CNN?

This guy is very very annoying. He has been biased in everything he says about Obama. His hatred for Obama is clear and obviously affects the quality of the show. Every news story he brings up must somehow lead to Obama being an idiot or an egotistical maniac. I've never seen someone go so much out of their way to bring someone down, he acts like a fourth grader. I watch CNN daily and he always has something bad to say about Obama. The weird thing is that he showed audience that he was a democrat and a Hilary supporter, now that Hilary has lost he is leaning toward McCain...wtf? those are two completely different cannidates. I wonder if he is mentally well. :o

I cannot stand Lou Dobbs. I still fail to see how that man warrants a talk show. (But that can be said for a number of other talk show hosts as well.)

[Marx]

Reed not interested in Obama VP role
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/reed-says-not-interested-in-vp-role/




(The no's just keep coming...)

[Tag279]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I would venture to say that anyone who didn't "get that" or thinks it is an undercover attack to reinforce that image is probably not registered to vote.

Or already planning on not voting for him.

The purpose of that cover on the Newyorker is to sell magazines. And I am sure that it's circulation will increase by at least a third.

With that being said I think the cover was in bad taste and I also think it was to serve a more insidious agenda...self-affirming-negative-perception.

There are some people that have such cognitive dissonance about Obama's canadacy that they are actively working to find support for their negative views. Any gaff, picture, sound bite, or position is fuel for their discontent.

Yes the Newyorker is trying to move copy. And Yes they had every intention of inciting a fire storm. The writer of the article in question wanted to paint obama in a negative light and marginalize his canadacy. I gleened this from the things he said earlier today.

When a person has contempt for another person that contempt is easily fed.

[charl_huntress]

The purpose of that cover on the Newyorker is to sell magazines. And I am sure that it's circulation will increase by at least a third.

With that being said I think the cover was in bad taste and I also think it was to serve a more insidious agenda...self-affirming-negative-perception.

There are some people that have such cognitive dissonance about Obama's canadacy that they are actively working to find support for their negative views. Any gaff, picture, sound bite, or position is fuel for their discontent.

Yes the Newyorker is trying to move copy. And Yes they had every intention of inciting a fire storm. The writer of the article in question wanted to paint obama in a negative light and marginalize his canadacy. I gleened this from the things he said earlier today.

When a person has contempt for another person that contempt is easily fed.


I really didn't get any of that from a caricature. I think people are just overly sensitive about the "first black candidate".

[ANTOINE X]

If it had been this no one would care...
http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/caricature/artists/nakanishi_k/nakanishi_k_bush.jpg

I think people are also too sensitive and overly hostile for Obama. This is common stuff in politics, but you would think folks here wouldn't know it :huh:


No one would care because this is authentic

[Kelly]

Reed not interested in Obama VP role
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/reed-says-not-interested-in-vp-role/




(The no's just keep coming...)


I think the "no's" are going to keep coming, until we get to Hillary. They have to make Obama look strong in that scenario.

We shall see......................................

[Marx]

I think the "no's" are going to keep coming, until we get to Hillary. They have to make Obama look strong in that scenario.

We shall see......................................

Good point Kel. Do you know if Hagel has said no yet?

[Tag279]

I really didn't get any of that from a caricature. I think people are just overly sensitive about the "first black candidate".

Yes there is a level of sensitivity. But it is still a fact that 54% of voters in Kentucky thought Obama was a muslim.

It is a fact that 57% of voters in West Virginia thought Obama was a muslim.

It is also a fact that being a muslim is regarded as a major negative for those voters that belive that Obama is a muslim.

It is another fact that there is a significant percentage of the total electorate that think Obama is a muslim.

And i submit that Obama and mcCain are in a statistical dead heat because Obama is black.

Check out stormfront if you think i'm wrong.

[Tag279]

Good point Kel. Do you know if Hagel has said no yet?

He better not pick Hagel that would be a win for McCain for sure.

[Marx]

He better not pick Hagel that would be a win for McCain for sure.

I see his campaign imploding if he went with Hagel.

[Tag279]

I see his campaign imploding if he went with Hagel.

Imploding wouldn't be the word total F**k up is more like it.:hehe:

[Marx]

Imploding wouldn't be the word total F**k up is more like it.:hehe:

Fair enough. :funny:

[charl_huntress]

Yes there is a level of sensitivity. But it is still a fact that 54% of voters in Kentucky thought Obama was a muslim.

It is a fact that 57% of voters in West Virginia thought Obama was a muslim.

It is also a fact that being a muslim is regarded as a major negative for those voters that belive that Obama is a muslim.

It is another fact that there is a significant percentage of the total electorate that think Obama is a muslim.

And i submit that Obama and mcCain are in a statistical dead heat because Obama is black.

Check out stormfront if you think i'm wrong.

Those people are misinformed. There are a lot of people that are misinformed. However, people being misinformed is not a reason to "not" do a satirical caricature of a politician.

[Sandman138]

I think the "no's" are going to keep coming, until we get to Hillary. They have to make Obama look strong in that scenario.

We shall see......................................

Did Biden say no? That would suck. Obomber needs Biden bad, if not as VP then at least as Secretary of Defense.

[Tag279]

Those people are misinformed. There are a lot of people that are misinformed. However, people being misinformed is not a reason to "not" do a satirical caricature of a politician.

I agree; but I don't think the aim was just satire I think there was an element of negative re-enforcement.

[Marx]

Did Biden say no? That would suck. Obomber needs Biden bad, if not as VP then at least as Secretary of Defense.

Biden made it clear that he does not want to be asked some time ago, but also said that he wouldn't turn it down.

[Sandman138]

Yes there is a level of sensitivity. But it is still a fact that 54% of voters in Kentucky thought Obama was a muslim.

It is a fact that 57% of voters in West Virginia thought Obama was a muslim.

It is also a fact that being a muslim is regarded as a major negative for those voters that belive that Obama is a muslim.

It is another fact that there is a significant percentage of the total electorate that think Obama is a muslim.

And i submit that Obama and mcCain are in a statistical dead heat because Obama is black.

Check out stormfront if you think i'm wrong.

When did it become The New Yorker's job to consider their effect on stormfront? How many members of stormfront, would you guess, subscribe to The New Yorker? What do you think their sales, per household and businesses, are in West Virginia? How about Kentucky?

[Sandman138]

Biden made it clear that he does not want to be asked some time ago, but also said that he wouldn't turn it down.

Then they need to ask the man right quick.

[charl_huntress]

I agree; but I don't think the aim was just satire I think there was an element of negative re-enforcement.

I think it was to sell their magazine, but I found the cover funny and I laughed when I saw it. I didn't see it for anything then what it was.
And, I didn't see it as some sort of hidden attack aimed at Obama. Also, like someone brought up earlier the Daily Show does this all the time, but maybe they're just more obvious with it. idk...but I understand why you feel as you feel. I just don't feel that way.

[Tag279]

When did it become The New Yorker's job to consider their effect on stormfront? How many members of stormfront, would you guess, subscribe to The New Yorker?

I should have been more clear. I imagine that most Stormfront members don't read the Newyorker. But my point was, however, that there are a large number of people that hold those negative beliefs and perceptions about Obama's canadacy and truly regard him as a muslim terrorist.

[Marx]

Then they need to ask the man right quick.

I would love to see Biden as VP. (I really would have liked to see him as the Democratic nominee...)

[Sandman138]

I should have been more clear. I imagine that most Stormfront members don't read the Newyorker. But my point was, however, that there are a large number of people that hold those negative beliefs and perceptions about Obama's canadacy and truly regard him as a muslim terrorist.

How many of them, would you guess, subscribe to The New Yorker?

[Sandman138]

I would love to see Biden as VP. (I really would have liked to see him as the Democratic nominee...)

I voted for him in the primaries. Basically, if Obama wants to make this race about foreign policy and Iraq, he needs Biden in a prominent position.

[Kelly]

Did Biden say no? That would suck. Obomber needs Biden bad, if not as VP then at least as Secretary of Defense.

If he takes Biden he has just lost my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I loved him in the 90's, but when started looking at the Presidency, he got stupid, and consistently put his foot in his mouth.

He's more effective as a Senator.

[Tag279]

How many of them, would you guess, subscribe to The New Yorker?

IDK but they have been looking for an excuse to support their negative assertions.

One stormfront blogger said...

"This magazine shows Obama's true nature we don't need a terrorist or a n****r for a President he will surrender us to the towel heads. Maybe some our confused white brothers and sisters will see this n****r terrorst and his ugly wife for what they are"

the individual recieved a large number of amens from other posters.

[Kelly]

*sighs*

[charl_huntress]

IDK but they have been looking for an excuse to support their negative assertions.

One stormfront blogger said...

"This magazine shows Obama's true nature we don't need a terrorist or a n****r for a President he will surrender us to the towel heads. Maybe some our confused white brothers and sisters will see this n****r terrorst and his ugly wife for what they are"

the individual recieved a large number of amens from other posters.

What does that have to do with a caricature on the New Yorker? Those people probably have been saying that...probably said it before the cover. Again, the only people reinforced for by this already believed it.

[Marx]

If he takes Biden he has just lost my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I loved him in the 90's, but when started looking at the Presidency, he got stupid, and consistently put his foot in his mouth.

He's more effective as a Senator.

Biden just tells it like it is. :cwink:

[Kelly]

Biden just tells it like it is. :cwink:

Biden contracted diarrhea of the mouth when he started running for president. He is a friend to women in America, there is no doubt in that.....but damn he got stupid in 2004.

[charl_huntress]

Biden contracted diarrhea of the mouth when he started running for president. He is a friend to women in America, there is no doubt in that.....but damn he got stupid in 2004.

Who would you like to see as Obama's VP?

[Tag279]

What does that have to do with a caricature on the New Yorker? Those people probably have been saying that...probably said it before the cover. Again, the only people reinforced for by this already believed it.

True, but have you considered that there may be some that are emblazoned by the cover?

Yes the Newyorker had every right to place whatever they wanted on the cover of their magazine.

But in doing so they have given a bit of credibility to the whisper campaign villifying Obama.

[charl_huntress]

True, but have you considered that there may be some that are emblazoned by the cover?

Yes the Newyorker had every right to place whatever they wanted on the cover of their magazine.

But in doing so they have given a bit of credibility to the whisper campaign villifying Obama.

I have considered it, but I still don't think that is a reason not to do it. Additionally, anyone who takes this caricature as credible evidence probably believe that beforehand. Had they shown him wrapped in a flag they still would have had something negative to say.

[Kelly]

Who would you like to see as Obama's VP?


*sighs*.....honestly, I don't know. But I have a feeling it is going to be the drawing point for sure.


Which kind of saddens me......usually I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the VP choices.

[charl_huntress]

*sighs*.....honestly, I don't know. But I have a feeling it is going to be the drawing point for sure.


Which kind of saddens me......usually I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the VP choices.

I'm still not sure myself. I don't know if it will be the making or breaking point for me, but I am curious to see who he chooses for strategy purposes.

I still think the dream ticket is the plan all along. They just don't want to be too obvious about it.

[Sandman138]

If he takes Biden he has just lost my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I loved him in the 90's, but when started looking at the Presidency, he got stupid, and consistently put his foot in his mouth.

He's more effective as a Senator.

It's funny what people will say when they know they won't win. Regardless, Biden is still the only person who has a plan for Iraq that isn't a fantasy and has had a good track record in similar situations. Biden and Dobbs have a more consistent voting record on foreign policy than any of the other potential VPs. I don't agree with him on nearly 80% of his positions, but if this is going to be a race about foreign policy and Iraq then Obama needs Biden.

[jaguarr]

This would be true if The New Yorker's target audience was the general public, but, as we all agree, The New Yorker is an elitist publication. It caters to a very specific consumer and carries the price tag to make it worth their while to cater to that specific niche. Anybody who reads The New Yorker got the joke at face value. It is the kind of cartoon that people read The New Yorker for.

I think you give too much credit to people who read The New Yorker. ;)

jag

[Kelly]

I think you give too much credit to people who read The New Yorker. ;)

jag

I read the New Yorker.


As I'm getting my manicure and pedicure, 2x a month.

[jaguarr]

I read the New Yorker.


As I'm getting my manicure and pedicure, 2x a month.

See? I rest my case! :oldrazz: :hehe: :grin:

jag

[Kelly]

See? I rest my case! :oldrazz: :hehe: :grin:

jag



*slowly extends middle finger*













ON BOTH HANDS..........:hehe:

[jaguarr]

*slowly extends middle finger*













ON BOTH HANDS..........:hehe:

Just the sort of classless response I'd expect from a New Yorker reader. :lmao:

:D

jag

[Varient]

Most people do not understand satire in any form.....not to sound horrible....but most black people don't get satire....all they will see in that picture is the white media demonizing Obama....

Sigh.
"But most black people."

Please don't say stupid stuff like you can't relate or you don't have certain issues because you do stuff that negates racism from whites,... (which starts arguements with blacks who have experienced much more than you have just by living.), and then try to speak as an authority on black folk as to whether "we" understand satire.

You come across as a hypocrite because on the one hand you throw up your hands and play "No problem here boss" / "I really don't understand how blacks get treated the way they do" on the boards, But then Spout Silly crap like this - LIKE YOU WOULD KNOW.

TSK.

I'm disgusted since the majority of Black on black humor involves satire - You simply have NO clue about what you are typing about.

[Varient]

Just to "Nip" your silliness in the Bud "Black Lantern"

The FIRST Google response on the topic which goes into more than a casual explanation to readers who ALREADY KNEW THIS:


The new literary blackface.
Author: Jordan, Jennifer

COPYRIGHT 2002 Cox, Matthews & Associates

"Satire has a long history in African-American culture. The very language that black people created once they arrived in America is filled with ironic rituals and stories, which like all satire point out failures and foibles using humor. Throughout African and African-American culture, satire exists in many forms, both oral and written, in art, and even in dance, such as slave parodies of white movements in the "cakewalk."

The verbal tradition of satire embraces the oral invective of the "dozens" as well as the postmodernist offerings of poet and novelist Paul Beatty's The White Boy Shuffle. In tone, satire can range from the sly needling of Langston Hughes's Simple stories to the take-no-prisoners assaults of Ishmael Reed.
(Thats a thought,.. do YOU even know what the "Dozens" are/is? If you had I'm thinking you'd not have had to "sound horrible")

For reasons that are not quite clear, the tradition has been dominated mostly by men--both as creators and practitioners. Scholars contend that men from various African tribes regularly traded gibes about each other's mother. When the game was transported to America, it became known as the dozens. The dozens and other ritualized insults--called joning, capping or sounding--are an inventive but transparent kind of satire called invective. These attacks involve exaggerated often artful ridicule that is not always aimed at the actual frailties of the intended victim...."

The book goes on to fully explain Blacks and their use of "Satire" as part of the package of "Black Humor."

Are you understanding YET why you irritate so many "people" when you make ignorant statements like you are an expert on stuff you don't experience??

Seriously???:whatever:

[Kelly]

Just the sort of classless response I'd expect from a New Yorker reader. :lmao:

:D

jag




Where I'm from, we call it the "Southern Lady Wave".....:cwink:

[jaguarr]

Where I'm from, we call it the "Southern Lady Wave".....:cwink:

:funny:

jag

[BlackLantern]

the dozens are NOT satire.....I guarantee if you took that New Yorker cover, blew it up, and drove it through black communities, people would NOT find it satirical or amusing....

You are aware that there is an african-american group attempting to take the Boondocks off the air?? that Aaron Macgruder has received death threats from the black community because of the subject matter in The Boondocks?? that is satire....not "Your mama jokes"

[jaguarr]

This was a very good read and tries to offer different perspectives and alternative insights on the New Yorker cover:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071500836.html?hpid=topnews

When Art Gives Offense

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 15, 2008; 10:42 AM

From the second I saw the New Yorker's cover on Obama-as-Muslim-terrorist, I knew it was a ticking time bomb. But when I reached David Remnick, the magazine's editor, over the weekend, he was in what's the big deal? mode. Obviously, he said, people would see that it was a sharp-edged satire.

Maybe the world looks different from midtown Manhattan, but it was obvious that the illustration was going to draw immediate fire--in fact, both the Barack Obama and John McCain camps united in denouncing it.

From a marketing point of view, it was pure genius: Take all the worst rumors and slurs against Obama, splash them on the cover of a liberal magazine, sit back and enjoy the buzz.

But let's face it, the cover was offensive. It was deliberately offensive, in the sense that Remnick and company felt they were going overboard in mocking all the phony smears. But that involved putting the smears out there in high-impact, strikingly visual form.

Did the cover succeed in skewering the very thing it depicted? I don't think so. Few commentators, on the left or right, seem to like it.

It would have been smarter for Remnick to write a little essay about why he was publishing the cover, rather than having to play defense on CNN yesterday, saying his magazine was channeling Stephen Colbert. Instead, there was nothing in the magazine to explain why the art--titled 'The Politics of Fear'--was not what it seemed at first glance.

Perhaps it could be argued that a liberal magazine that has been sympathetic to Obama has the standing to make fun of what Remnick says are clearly lies. But imagine if the Weekly Standard had run the same cover, and then Bill Kristol said well, don't worry, it's just a satire. Liberal commentators would be calling for his head.

The artist, Barry Blitt, defended his work to the Huffington Post: "I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

And he did put the New Yorker on the cultural map this week.

HuffPost's Rachel Sklar says that "presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign -- all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism-- well, here's your image."

National Review's Jim Geraghty sees the cover as some kind of . . . liberal alibi?

"If Obama loses, the editors of The New Yorker would prefer to be able to blame it on 'paranoid fearmongering' rather than the public actually rejecting Obama on the basis of his positions or lack of experience.

"Inevitably, in response to this cover, we will hear several days of discussion about the cover, whether it was out of line or tasteless (yes), and what spurred this decision, etc., what Obama's actual ties to Islam are, what his ties to various shady donors are, his ties [to] longtime supporters who tried to blow up the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, etc.

"Thus, if McCain wins, we will see someone -- probably in the pages of The New Yorker -- write, 'Of course the Republican smear artists fooled the American people into seeing a great man as a terrorist; Google the terms, 'Obama,' and 'terrorist', and 80 bazillion links come up,' even though the context could just as easily be, 'Obama pledges to capture terrorists,' 'New Yorker cover portrays Obama as terrorist' and 'McCain denounces New Yorker cover portraying Obama as a terrorist.' "

At least he treats it as (bad) satire. Power Line's John Hinderaker says, wait a minute, there are nuggets of truth here:

"Obama isn't a Muslim, and his wife doesn't carry an AK-47. But Obama's long-time associations with anti-Americans like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Jeremiah Wright are not 'rumors' or 'misinformation.' Nor is it 'crazy ignorance' to note that Obama's candidacy was endorsed by Hamas (although Hamas later withdrew its endorsement when Obama tacked toward the center) or that his wife says America is 'just downright mean.' Obama doesn't want to deal with these very real issues, and prefers to respond to the straw man that he's a Muslim. The New Yorker tried to help him in that effort, apparently, but I doubt that it did him any good. That image of a flag burning in the fireplace hits uncomfortably close to the mark."

Flag-burning? Close to the mark? He's an America-hater? I'm missing something here.

Elsewhere on the right, Michelle Malkin has a simple message: Get used to it.

"Welcome to public life.

"Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one . . .

"Wipe your nose, grow a pair, do your little Jay-Z dance move, and take your own advice to your daughters: No whining.

"It clashes with your glow."

Lefty bloggers are taking the cover seriously. The Nation's John Nichols says that "the problem, of course, is that not everyone in America is as up as Remnick might hope with the cocktail chatter at the right parties on the fashionable upper west side -- or, as summer progresses, the Hamptons.

"The Obama camp complains that the image of a robed President Obama and a combat-fatigued First Lady Obama is 'tasteless and offensive.'

"While it is surely true that Obama's campaign specializes in whining, this gripe ought not be dismissed quite so casually as most of the headquarters hand-wringing.

"To be sure, the New Yorker cover art is satire -- perhaps not as smart or stylish as what you will find in a random issue of The Onion, but satire all the same. The problem is not that The New Yorker has tried to make a mockery of right-wing efforts to smear the Obamas. It is that The New Yorker has not done a very good job of it."

The even larger problem, Nichols says, is that "Barack Obama has yet to fully or functionally introduce himself to the American people." Well, he is new on the national scene. But hasn't he established that he's not a Muslim terrorist?

At the New Republic, Eve Fairbanks says the cover "seems to me ultimately more dull than provocative -- a collection of the most obvious smear narratives about Obama, lumped together and mediocrely illustrated. It's no better than Perry Bacon's infamous Washington Post story, 'Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.' Both outlets claimed not to support the allegations they were visually or rhetorically putting forward -- ob viously! -- and yet a reader would have to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of each outlet's ethos to immediately intuit the intended ironic distance."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum has a different reaction--a failure of nerve:

"I had two reactions, myself. To be honest, my first one was that it was kinda funny, a clever way of mocking all the conservative BS that's been circulating about the Obamas.

"But at the risk of seeming humorless, that reaction didn't last too long. Maybe it's because this kind of satire just doesn't work, no matter how well it's done. But mostly it's because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth -- implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama."

McCain may be playing hardball, but he's hardly suggesting that Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist.

Doesn't anyone out there like the cover?

John McQuaid, for one, detects "an absurd decorousness in the denunciations":

"Free expression is a bulwark of American liberalism, part of what makes it what it makes it superior to political philosophies that rigidly enforce what words can be uttered and images can be shown. When liberals start policing the 'poor taste' of cartoons so that some people don't get the 'wrong idea,' it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right -- and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains."

The New York Times investigates and discovers a humor deficit when it comes to the Obama campaign:

"There is no comedic 'take' on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton's womanizing, or President Bush's goofy bumbling or Al Gore's robotic persona.

" 'The thing is, he's not buffoonish in any way,' said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson's monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. 'He's not a comical figure,' Mr. Barry said."

Hey, give us time.

Meanwhile, the media's veep-vetting continues. TNR's Jonathan Cohn is uneasy about Sen. Jack Reed, who's supposedly in the mix because he's going to Iraq with Obama--a rather thin, ah, reed if you ask me:

"What's giving me pause? Reed's appearance on ABC News 'This Week' last Sunday. He was there as an Obama surrogate, squaring off against Joe Lieberman, who was speaking for John McCain. And Reed was, I thought, terrible. Over and over again, Lieberman made harsh accusations about Obama--that Obama was irresponsible, radically changing his positions, etc. And Reed seemed capable neither of answering those criticisms or launching similar ones against McCain. (And, no, this is not because Lieberman was right; mostly, I thought, Lieberman was wrong.)

"It's no secret that Reed isn't the most lively and exciting speaker. And, by itself, that's not a huge deal, since Obama has enough charisma for the entire ticket. If anything, picking a reserved, steady running mate might help Obama assuage voters who find the prospect of electing such a young and dynamic candidate unnerving.

"But debating ability is an essential skill for the vice president, and not just in the campaign: A successful president needs a surrogate who can fight for him. Charisma may not be important, but the ability to hit back against critics is--particularly for somebody like Obama, whose appeal rests in part on his ability to transcend (or, at least, to seem to transcend) such fights."

I wonder if Reed even knows he's trying out--in the media's eyes.

Talking Points Memo unearths an e-mail exchange between the AP's Ron Fournier, now its Washington bureau chief, and Karl Rove. The subject was fallen soldier Pat Tillman. Rove had asked: "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this."

Fournier's reply: "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Finally, unlike some previous GOP presidential candidates, McCain passed up the chance to take a pop at the news media in this NYT interview:

"Easiest thing for me to do in my life is to complain about the media. That's the easiest thing to do, I enjoy it, it makes me feel so much better, and I feel persecuted, and picked on -- No! Look, this isn't beanbag, this is a tough business. I've just got to go on with my campaign and put one foot ahead of the other. The media in America, I think, at the end of the day, is going to judge all of us as fairly as possible because I think most of the media -- of course not all, look, not all politicians are honest, not all mayors are good mayors, OK, but I think at the end of the day most journalists, particularly those are involved in national campaigns, are interested in journalistic standards and reporting the facts to the American people.''

And while McCain hasn't yet mastered the art of getting online himself, he says his aides show him Drudge, Politico and Real Clear Politics. Talk about a free plug!

jag

[Crowforge]

The boondocks is offensive. And you're generalizing a whole group of people based on the actions of a few.

[Varient]

the dozens are NOT satire.....I guarantee if you took that New Yorker cover, blew it up, and drove it through black communities, people would NOT find it satirical or amusing....

You are aware that there is an african-american group attempting to take the Boondocks off the air?? that Aaron Macgruder has received death threats from the black community because of the subject matter in The Boondocks?? that is satire....not "Your mama jokes"

(SMH @ You.)

1. I'm Considering the source when reading more than one source online list "the Dozens" as Satire and a person who less than a month ago couldn't relate (your words) to blacks running face first into prejudice that they should have been able to avoid (like you). Sorry,.. your credibility as far as being able to define "black satire" is lacking.

2. BLACKS ARE NOT MONOCENTRIC.

This means that not all of us like/accept the same things. I know EXACTLY why a portion of the Black Population doesn't like the BoonDocks Animated. It has MORE to do with use of the "N" word and putting forth a satirical primer on Black people that TOO MANY WHITE FOLK accept as "reality". than the fact that it is Satire. Your current problem appears to be the concept that anyone could find Satire offensive. You keep trying to say that the offended don't realize it is satire.
Tsk.
..... Sorta like the idiots online are doing right now with the New Yorker cover.

V.

[terry78]

The boondocks is offensive. And you're generalizing a whole group of people based on the actions of a few.

No it isn't. It's offensive to those that live the lifestyle and don't like being called out on it. This cover was just done in an extremely wrong context.

[Varient]

This was a very good read and tries to offer different perspectives and alternative insights on the New Yorker cover:



jag

Good read.
Props.

[BlackLantern]

(SMH @ You.)

1. I'm Considering the source when reading more than one source online list "the Dozens" as Satire and a person who less than a month ago couldn't relate (your words) to blacks running face first into prejudice that they should have been able to avoid (like you). Sorry,.. your credibility as far as being able to define "black satire" is lacking.

2. BLACKS ARE NOT MONOCENTRIC.

This means that not all of us like/accept the same things. I know EXACTLY why a portion of the Black Population doesn't like the BoonDocks Animated. It has MORE to do with use of the "N" word and putting forth a satirical primer on Black people that TOO MANY WHITE FOLK accept as "reality". than the fact that it is Satire. Your current problem appears to be the concept that anyone could find Satire offensive. You keep trying to say that the offended don't realize it is satire.
Tsk.
..... Sorta like the idiots online are doing right now with the New Yorker cover.

V.

I would say that outside of a certain chunk of people (be it regular readers of the New Yorker or those merely familiar with what they do) will simply find it offensive and not care whether it is satire or not....

I think a lot of humor today (tv and movies) are sorely lacking in satire...it seems to be a lot of boob and poop jokes....someone at my job actually tried defending White Chicks as a good comedy...I wanted to cry

[Crowforge]

No it isn't. It's offensive to those that live the lifestyle and don't like being called out on it. This cover was just done in an extremely wrong context.
I beg to differ. The sheer amount of time they (gleefully) used the N-word was enough to turn me off.

[Superman]

Oh darn, He's read it already. :(

Never mind.

[Raiden]

How many of them, would you guess, subscribe to The New Yorker?

I think this New Yorker cover has reached more people than the subscribers of this magazine. I don't subscribe to it but I saw the cover in various websites anyway. And it will reinforce a negative stereotype that isn't true in the first place. I'd imagine that alot of anti-Obama people using this cover to try to validate their own hostile feelings toward Obama.

[jaguarr]

I would say that outside of a certain chunk of people (be it regular readers of the New Yorker or those merely familiar with what they do) will simply find it offensive and not care whether it is satire or not....

I think a lot of humor today (tv and movies) are sorely lacking in satire...it seems to be a lot of boob and poop jokes....someone at my job actually tried defending White Chicks as a good comedy...I wanted to cry

It's not that humor in today's society is lacking in satire. Not by a long shot. There is a large amount of satire out there. The problem is that a huge chunk of it is BAD satire that's poorly conceived and executed and doesn't manage to really pull off what it intended to (the New Yorker cover being a prime example of that). Too many people mistake insulting for satire in this day and age it would seem and there's a line between the two that's apparently invisible to many who seem to find gainful employment creating bad satire.

jag

[Varient]

I beg to differ. The sheer amount of time they (gleefully) used the N-word was enough to turn me off.

QFT.

Boondocks isn't being ragged for "satire content".

It is being harrassed for "N" content and topics that MOST understand to be parodies,... but mainstream wants to attribute to ALL BLACK PEOPLE AS REALITY.

Meh.

But that is off topic.

Bottom line remains the same,... the satire in this case was poorly done and has found offense with three sides out of four.

V.

[Varient]

I would say that outside of a certain chunk of people (be it regular readers of the New Yorker or those merely familiar with what they do) will simply find it offensive and not care whether it is satire or not....

I think a lot of humor today (tv and movies) are sorely lacking in satire...it seems to be a lot of boob and poop jokes....someone at my job actually tried defending White Chicks as a good comedy...I wanted to cry

You can say it.

But there is no way you can prove it either way. Bottom line in this case is your talking around the foot in your mouth in regards to saying that blacks can't/don't recognize satire.

Good satire is recognized as such. I agree with Jag that poor satire in most cases is all about the insult. being raised with Flip Wilson, Red Fox, and the original cast of SNL,.... I can tell the difference.


New Yorker = "poor".


V.

[charl_huntress]

Sigh.
"But most black people."

Please don't say stupid stuff like you can't relate or you don't have certain issues because you do stuff that negates racism from whites,... (which starts arguements with blacks who have experienced much more than you have just by living.), and then try to speak as an authority on black folk as to whether "we" understand satire.

You come across as a hypocrite because on the one hand you throw up your hands and play "No problem here boss" / "I really don't understand how blacks get treated the way they do" on the boards, But then Spout Silly crap like this - LIKE YOU WOULD KNOW.

TSK.

I'm disgusted since the majority of Black on black humor involves satire - You simply have NO clue about what you are typing about.

:up::up:

[Sandman138]

I think you give too much credit to people who read The New Yorker. ;)

jag

Read the audience submitted captions for cartoons in the back of every issue.:o

[Sandman138]

I think you give too much credit to people who read The New Yorker. ;)

jag

Read the audience submitted captions for cartoons in the back of every issue.:o

[Varient]

:up::up:

ref your sig:
Good luck - too many folk want more of the same with the death of lois's live in boyfriend and somewhat more "super" foes.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a more "super" man.


(Probably why I liked Will Smith I could relate to someone who went thru the crap he had.)

[jaguarr]

Read the audience submitted captions for cartoons in the back of every issue.:o

A vocal minority that bothers to write in doesn't necessarily represent the bulk of their readership. ;)

jag

[Yurka]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who found the cover funny. No from a "republican" mind-set but understanding that it is satirical. I got sucked into watching the View yesterday (:o) and all the women were saying that this is offensive and it would be different if it were McCain, portrayed as in a wheelchair with a puzzled look or such.All were offended except Goldberg, she understood that its satirical,for which I agreed with her (a first). Honestly I would also laugh if they did a cover of McCain, in a wheelchair with a puzzled look. I think people need to stop being so up-tight sometimes and just laugh about it, because it is quite funny.
:o

[terry78]

I think the thing is that, making fun of someone for being dumb, or being an old fart is funny, but the Muslim thing is something that a lot of Americans seem to be extremely divided on, and even hate, so it comes off a little more harsh.

[kainedamo]

The ironic thing is you know the cover is going to appear on a lot of anti-obama youtube vids.

[Yurka]

I think the thing is that, making fun of someone for being dumb, or being an old fart is funny, but the Muslim thing is something that a lot of Americans seem to be extremely divided on, and even hate, so it comes off a little more harsh.

Thats very true.

[charl_huntress]

I think the thing is that, making fun of someone for being dumb, or being an old fart is funny, but the Muslim thing is something that a lot of Americans seem to be extremely divided on, and even hate, so it comes off a little more harsh.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/09/muslim-humor-muslim-jokes.html

I have taken it upon myself to supply the world with more Muslim jokes. It goes without saying that Muslims are perhaps the least humorous folk on Earth; whereas Jews have learned to laugh at themselves, even turning that laughter into a business: Vaudeville.

When I was growing up, my father never failed to tell me at least three jokes a day, most of them involving Jews and their eccentricities, customs, and travails. I'd like to continue that long tradition of Jews telling jokes, but with Muslims as the butt of the joke. You can't be civilized until you can laugh at yourself.


Perhaps in this way, someday, even radical fundamentalist Muslims may find themselves laughing. In fact, it would do my heart good to hear that a billion Muslims laughed themselves to death.

Many of these are probably in poor taste, to which I say tough camel *******. :o

Q: What do female Muslims use for birth control? (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/04/sopranos_and_quantum_mechanics.html)
A: Their faces.

Q: What's the difference between a Muslim and a dead horse?
A. It's no fun beating a dead horse.

Q. What's the difference between an American BBQ and an Islamic BBQ?
A. In America, Humans roast animals over a fire. In Islam, it's the other way around.

Q. What do you say to a Muslim with his arm all the way up a camel's rump?
A. "Having car trouble?"

Q. What's the difference between Cindy Sheehan (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/10/why_liberals_killed.html) and a terrorist enemy?
A. I don't know either.

Q. What's the difference between Michael Moore (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/10/michael_moore_overlooked_this_in_sicko.html) and a one ton CARE package?
A. Michael Moore, if sliced real thin, can feed a larger Afghan village.

Those are bad jokes....

[charl_huntress]

ref your sig:
Good luck - too many folk want more of the same with the death of lois's live in boyfriend and somewhat more "super" foes.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a more "super" man.


(Probably why I liked Will Smith I could relate to someone who went thru the crap he had.)

It's a long battle...lol...but I'm strong.

I see the fight to turn "haters" away from the 'haterade' is stronger :cmad:

[BlackestNight]

The boondocks is offensive. And you're generalizing a whole group of people based on the actions of a few.

Boondocks is no more or less offensive than SouthPark. The only difference is the Boondocks mostly satirizes black culture from the perspective of the black creator (The Positive and the negative).

The only problem is that most Old black people don't get the underlying messages of the boondocks.

[charl_huntress]

Boondocks is no more or less offensive than SouthPark. The only difference is the Boondocks mostly satirizes black culture from the perspective of the black creator (The Positive and the negative).

The only problem is that most Old black people don't get the underlying messages of the boondocks.

Most old black folk do, but like my great-grandmother said, "you don't hear "honkey", "white trash","white devil", and "white jesus" nearly as much on NBC.

[Marx]

Obama downplays satirical magazine cover
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/lkl.obama/index.html

[kainedamo]

Obama handled that with a lot of grace.

[Sandman138]

Most old black folk do, but like my great-grandmother said, "you don't hear "honkey", "white trash","white devil", and "white jesus" nearly as much on NBC.

Obviously she has never seen Jerry Springer.:o

[Sandman138]

Also: rock on Obama!