The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[charl_huntress]

Obviously she has never seen Jerry Springer.:o

LOL....I don't think she has...lol. Though that is probably the white trash show of America! I think I forgot that...:o

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4Wm4DXkcj0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4Wm4DXkcj0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Tag279]

I still think the cover of the Newyorker was in severe bad taste in their attempt at satire.

But I have to say, and I am aware of the Obama dislikers on this forum, Obama is a class act.

He is level headed and smart and I applaud his response to being questioned about the article was a good one.

"It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment," Obama said. "And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it."

"I've seen and heard worse," he said. "I do think that in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But that was their editorial judgment." (Barack Obama)

[Tag279]

Double post my bad

[Marx]

Two possible Obama VP picks coy on their prospects
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_obama_dc

[Marx]

Obama calls criticism of wife 'infuriating'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_el_pr/obama_glamour

[Matt]

Obama calls criticism of wife 'infuriating'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_el_pr/obama_glamour

Then he should side line her. If he wants her campaigning for him and giving stump speeches for him and holding fundraisers for him, then she is fair game as she is as much a part of the campaign as he is. If he doesn't want her to be under that kind of scrutiny, he ought to sideline her.

[SentinelMind]

I agree with Varient and Jaguar, Obama had good reason to hit back hard on that New Yorker cover. The fact of the matter is a significant portion of the population associate Obama with terrorist-sympathy. Just go to www.urbandictionary.com and type in Barack Obama and go to the second page. My God. Type in John McCain, ...the insults there hardly compares..and are quite tame.

The New Yorker may have 'tried' to throw satire or ...whatever, but you have to judge the social impact of the piece, not just the writer's intent. I care less about the intent of a writer...what is the impact of what he does...when he plays around ideas...does he legitimize them or deride them? This cover hardly made any effort to satirize the views, he could of used thought bubbles, captions, anything, but nada, just stereotype on top of stereotype. Te cover further legitimizes thoughts that Obama is sympathetic with enemies of America...humor is the best way to throw around ideas to be accepted without being taken seriously.

I recall two incidents something similar happened when I was in college...the first involved a white comic strip writer making a joke involving two characters..the two characters were depicted as like mice.......the first character says "oh my....I hit a n---- riding on his bike"...and the other character says "only one?"
the writer thought it was funny...and this made it past several editorial board members who thought the joke was acceptable...many groups on campus got hold of the comic strip and it became a firestorm. The writer tried to defend the article by using typical Family Guy rationale..."its funny because someone got offended" . the writer made other lame excuses, etc..etc...People had to resign and management replaced over the incident.

Another incident happened in satire publication at my school... where a white writer tried to depict a black "dogcatcher"...and would use slang and saying "I'm looking for some b****"...where that refers to a female dog. the chief editor writer tried to defend his piece by saying "oh...I'm sorry you offended, it wasn't racist....it was meant to demonstrate the racism of the reader because he thought the slang meant women...but actually meant the dog, its to expose the reader's racism"...and other horse crap.

The writers may think they have 'good intentions', but pushing forward stereotypes again and again allows them to be commonly accepted. You have to fight hard against these things or they become common culture.

I watch Boondocks now and then,...enjoy the show, but I can understand why one would be offended and what that show off the air......humor is means of communicating truth without it being taken seriously.

Regardless of your views of Obama, Obama had to hit back hard on that or he'd get massacred in the elections.

[Tag279]

I agree with Varient and Jaguar, Obama had good reason to hit back hard on that New Yorker cover. The fact of the matter is a significant portion of the population associate Obama with terrorist-sympathy. Just go to www.urbandictionary.com (http://www.urbandictionary.com) and type in Barack Obama and go to the second page. My God. Type in John McCain, ...the insults there hardly compares..and are quite tame.

The New Yorker may have 'tried' to throw satire or ...whatever, but you have to judge the social impact of the piece, not just the writer's intent. I care less about the intent of a writer...what is the impact of what he does...when he plays around ideas...does he legitimize them or deride them? This cover hardly made any effort to satirize the views, he could of used thought bubbles, captions, anything, but nada, just stereotype on top of stereotype. Te cover further legitimizes thoughts that Obama is sympathetic with enemies of America...humor is the best way to throw around ideas to be accepted without being taken seriously.

I recall two incidents something similar happened when I was in college...the first involved a white comic strip writer making a joke involving two characters..the two characters were depicted as like mice.......the first character says "oh my....I hit a n---- riding on his bike"...and the other character says "only one?"
the writer thought it was funny...and this made it past several editorial board members who thought the joke was acceptable...many groups on campus got hold of the comic strip and it became a firestorm. The writer tried to defend the article by using typical Family Guy rationale..."its funny because someone got offended" . the writer made other lame excuses, etc..etc...People had to resign and management replaced over the incident.

Another incident happened in satire publication at my school... where a white writer tried to depict a black "dogcatcher"...and would use slang and saying "I'm looking for some b****"...where that refers to a female dog. the chief editor writer tried to defend his piece by saying "oh...I'm sorry you offended, it wasn't racist....it was meant to demonstrate the racism of the reader because he thought the slang meant women...but actually meant the dog, its to expose the reader's racism"...and other horse crap.

The writers may think they have 'good intentions', but pushing forward stereotypes again and again allows them to be commonly accepted. You have to fight hard against these things or they become common culture.

I watch Boondocks now and then,...enjoy the show, but I can understand why one would be offended and what that show off the air......humor is means of communicating truth without it being taken seriously.

Regardless of your views of Obama, Obama had to hit back hard on that or he'd get massacred in the elections.

Well said Sentinal you made some very valid points.

[Matt]

I agree with Varient and Jaguar, Obama had good reason to hit back hard on that New Yorker cover. The fact of the matter is a significant portion of the population associate Obama with terrorist-sympathy. Just go to www.urbandictionary.com and type in Barack Obama and go to the second page. My God. Type in John McCain, ...the insults there hardly compares..and are quite tame.

The New Yorker may have 'tried' to throw satire or ...whatever, but you have to judge the social impact of the piece, not just the writer's intent. I care less about the intent of a writer...what is the impact of what he does...when he plays around ideas...does he legitimize them or deride them? This cover hardly made any effort to satirize the views, he could of used thought bubbles, captions, anything, but nada, just stereotype on top of stereotype. Te cover further legitimizes thoughts that Obama is sympathetic with enemies of America...humor is the best way to throw around ideas to be accepted without being taken seriously.

I recall two incidents something similar happened when I was in college...the first involved a white comic strip writer making a joke involving two characters..the two characters were depicted as like mice.......the first character says "oh my....I hit a n---- riding on his bike"...and the other character says "only one?"
the writer thought it was funny...and this made it past several editorial board members who thought the joke was acceptable...many groups on campus got hold of the comic strip and it became a firestorm. The writer tried to defend the article by using typical Family Guy rationale..."its funny because someone got offended" . the writer made other lame excuses, etc..etc...People had to resign and management replaced over the incident.

Another incident happened in satire publication at my school... where a white writer tried to depict a black "dogcatcher"...and would use slang and saying "I'm looking for some b****"...where that refers to a female dog. the chief editor writer tried to defend his piece by saying "oh...I'm sorry you offended, it wasn't racist....it was meant to demonstrate the racism of the reader because he thought the slang meant women...but actually meant the dog, its to expose the reader's racism"...and other horse crap.

The writers may think they have 'good intentions', but pushing forward stereotypes again and again allows them to be commonly accepted. You have to fight hard against these things or they become common culture.

I watch Boondocks now and then,...enjoy the show, but I can understand why one would be offended and what that show off the air......humor is means of communicating truth without it being taken seriously.

Regardless of your views of Obama, Obama had to hit back hard on that or he'd get massacred in the elections.

Should Picaso have censored his art because it was ahead of its time?

Your example is incredibly off. There is a difference between an obvious racist cartoon and what the New Yorker did. One must take the New Yorker's demographics into account, the artist and his history, etc. It is a far cry from a high school kid making a cartoon like that.

It doesn't matter if people will see it as fact. It doesn't matter that extremists will use it as a rallying point. To criticize satire such as this basically proves the point of the satire, shows what a ridiculously overly-PC society we have become, and is basically an insult to the intelligence of every American as the PC-Police have to say "You're too stupid to get it so we're gonna criticize it!"

[BlackLantern]

I'll make one point about 'The Boondocks' and then leave it alone.....when it comes to people being poked fun at or being called out on specific behaviors or stereotypes, IMO it shouldn't offend you if it doesn't apply to you

[Varient]

I agree with Varient and Jaguar, Obama had good reason to hit back hard on that New Yorker cover. The fact of the matter is a significant portion of the population associate Obama with terrorist-sympathy. Just go to www.urbandictionary.com and type in Barack Obama and go to the second page. My God. Type in John McCain, ...the insults there hardly compares..and are quite tame.

The New Yorker may have 'tried' to throw satire or ...whatever, but you have to judge the social impact of the piece, not just the writer's intent. I care less about the intent of a writer...what is the impact of what he does...when he plays around ideas...does he legitimize them or deride them? This cover hardly made any effort to satirize the views, he could of used thought bubbles, captions, anything, but nada, just stereotype on top of stereotype. Te cover further legitimizes thoughts that Obama is sympathetic with enemies of America...humor is the best way to throw around ideas to be accepted without being taken seriously.

I recall two incidents something similar happened when I was in college...the first involved a white comic strip writer making a joke involving two characters..the two characters were depicted as like mice.......the first character says "oh my....I hit a n---- riding on his bike"...and the other character says "only one?"
the writer thought it was funny...and this made it past several editorial board members who thought the joke was acceptable...many groups on campus got hold of the comic strip and it became a firestorm. The writer tried to defend the article by using typical Family Guy rationale..."its funny because someone got offended" . the writer made other lame excuses, etc..etc...People had to resign and management replaced over the incident.

Another incident happened in satire publication at my school... where a white writer tried to depict a black "dogcatcher"...and would use slang and saying "I'm looking for some b****"...where that refers to a female dog. the chief editor writer tried to defend his piece by saying "oh...I'm sorry you offended, it wasn't racist....it was meant to demonstrate the racism of the reader because he thought the slang meant women...but actually meant the dog, its to expose the reader's racism"...and other horse crap.

The writers may think they have 'good intentions', but pushing forward stereotypes again and again allows them to be commonly accepted. You have to fight hard against these things or they become common culture.

I watch Boondocks now and then,...enjoy the show, but I can understand why one would be offended and what that show off the air......humor is means of communicating truth without it being taken seriously.

Regardless of your views of Obama, Obama had to hit back hard on that or he'd get massacred in the elections.

I,.... Agree with you.
I'm happy that more than 4 of us "get it".

[Varient]

Should Picaso have censored his art because it was ahead of its time?

Your example is incredibly off. There is a difference between an obvious racist cartoon and what the New Yorker did. One must take the New Yorker's demographics into account, the artist and his history, etc. It is a far cry from a high school kid making a cartoon like that.

It doesn't matter if people will see it as fact. It doesn't matter that extremists will use it as a rallying point. To criticize satire such as this basically proves the point of the satire, shows what a ridiculously overly-PC society we have become, and is basically an insult to the intelligence of every American as the PC-Police have to say "You're too stupid to get it so we're gonna criticize it!"

Scary.
So we surrender good taste for the sake of satire?
That poor Satire which offends because it misses the mark should always be acceptable because of the stated intent of the creator?

Got it - It's all so clear to me and makes clear all that noise I hear when someone who wouldn't be effected by something for what ever reason wants the right to go there w/o heat.

tsk.

[Kelly]

Even though I agree that Obama had every right to hit back hard at the New Yorker Cover, which I found to be distasteful and without humor, IMO it would have been smarter for him to have simply said....."I'm sure there is humor there somewhere, but I don't see it. That's all I have to say on the matter because I have far more important things to be looking at, and looking forward to...." DONE.

But, right now, Obama and his campaign seem to be coming off as a bunch of whiners, and its turning me off. I was actually moving slowly towards his camp, but it seems that you can't talk about anything with this guy. Everything personal seems to be off limits, and being someone that alot of people really don't know alot about, I think he needs to be alittle more open and he needs to get thicker skin.

[Varient]

I'll make one point about 'The Boondocks' and then leave it alone.....when it comes to people being poked fun at or being called out on specific behaviors or stereotypes, IMO it shouldn't offend you if it doesn't apply to you

SMH @ you sum more

So,... if a show started calling every married woman a b i tch on tv,... with all the men on the show saying it in casual convo, most of the women saying it to describe other women,.... somehow I don't think that women would shrug and say that since it doesn't apply to them individually,.. it doesn't offend them - because it already has been proven that perception isn't about whether you should be personally offended.

Scary how folk always justify poor behavior by saying that if they don't point specifically at you - that you shouldn't feel pointed out just because the slur can be attributed to you by people WHO DON'T KNOW YOU.

This is a simple concept that is not understood by folk who want the right to be offensive.

V.

[Kelly]

Scary.
So we surrender good taste for the sake of satire?
That poor Satire which offends because it misses the mark should always be acceptable because of the stated intent of the creator?

Got it - It's all so clear to me and makes clear all that noise I hear when someone who wouldn't be effected by something for what ever reason wants the right to go there w/o heat.

tsk.


As in any piece of art, acting, writing, satire etc, it is subjective. You are more than welcome to have your opinion about this piece of work. I found it distasteful and without humor myself, but I'm not going to say that someone who's sees the satire and humor, or irony is wrong in their opinion. Some saw the irony and satire, some didn't. As a political cartoon, titled appropriately I think more would have seen it for what it was. As a cover, I think was the most distasteful thing for me.

[Varient]

As in any piece of art, acting, writing, satire etc, it is subjective. You are more than welcome to have your opinion about this piece of work. I found it distasteful and without humor myself, but I'm not going to say that someone who's sees the satire and humor, or irony is wrong in their opinion. Some saw the irony and satire, some didn't. As a political cartoon, titled appropriately I think more would have seen it for what it was. As a cover, I think was the most distasteful thing for me.

Key word here wasn't "wrong" it was "acceptable".

The NY'ker swung and missed on this one, offending a lot of folk in the process. They just need to man up and move on.


Peace.

[Kelly]

Key word here wasn't "wrong" it was "acceptable".

The NY'ker swung and missed on this one, offending a lot of folk in the process. They just need to man up and move on.


Peace.


Oh, I agree, I think they totally missed the mark. But, I'm not going to use a tone in my posts that puts people down for having a different look on the subject. It is subjective, and my opinion is that it sucked. Others saw it the way that the artist saw it. Good for them, but I didn't quite get it.

[jaguarr]

Should Picaso have censored his art because it was ahead of its time?

Your example is incredibly off. There is a difference between an obvious racist cartoon and what the New Yorker did. One must take the New Yorker's demographics into account, the artist and his history, etc. It is a far cry from a high school kid making a cartoon like that.

It doesn't matter if people will see it as fact. It doesn't matter that extremists will use it as a rallying point. To criticize satire such as this basically proves the point of the satire, shows what a ridiculously overly-PC society we have become, and is basically an insult to the intelligence of every American as the PC-Police have to say "You're too stupid to get it so we're gonna criticize it!"

Every artist throughout history has been subject to criticism from the public in addition to supposed experts when they hold their work up for the public eye to review. It's not about censorship, but being willing to stand up and take the criticism of your work, particularly if you're going to do something controversial that is meant to push buttons. The demographic of the New Yorker's readership really doesn't matter because the cover is being seen by people far beyond that demographic, and I'm pretty sure the folks running that magazine knew that it would be (and the reaction it would invoke). I'd have far more respect if they'd taken the route of Serrano and just owned it. He was incredibly unapologetic and basically just said "Yes. It's a picture of a crucifix in a jar of my urine. I pissed on your God. Deal with it." when he was called out for his art. But they haven't and they won't, and instead have tried to play the "What!? We didn't think it was bad!" game which really should be beneath such a group of supposed intellectuals. They act surprised and offended that they are being called out for this, which strikes me as a whole lot short-sighted and well...dumb...for people who had the supposed intelligence to take all of these stereotypes about Obama and wrap them all up into what they claim is just an incredibly smart satire on the idiocy of the American public in the spirit of Stephen Colbert's style of humor (a style of humor for which the New Yorker is not known for at all, marking a departure from their usual tone without any sort of written explanation of what they were doing to go with that picture by the way).

So, no, I don't think this is about censorship in any way. I think it's about art, particularly such public art that carries such a socio-political charge, being subject to public opinion and the artist being willing and able to deal with whatever that might be. The fact that it is satire doesn't change this. Satire is not above criticism. Particularly when it's so poorly done as this piece of satire. If you can't handle the heat of your actions, then maybe you ought to stick to less socio-politically charged types of satire and commentary. I like what John Stewart said about the cover and that was if the New Yorker REALLY wanted to make it satire, they would have had the balls to have the original picture of Obama and his wife inside a thought balloon coming out of John McCain's forehead. THAT would have been brilliant satire that actually conveyed the impression they were supposedly trying to make.

jag

[Sandman138]

Even though I agree that Obama had every right to hit back hard at the New Yorker Cover, which I found to be distasteful and without humor, IMO it would have been smarter for him to have simply said....."I'm sure there is humor there somewhere, but I don't see it. That's all I have to say on the matter because I have far more important things to be looking at, and looking forward to...." DONE.

But, right now, Obama and his campaign seem to be coming off as a bunch of whiners, and its turning me off. I was actually moving slowly towards his camp, but it seems that you can't talk about anything with this guy. Everything personal seems to be off limits, and being someone that alot of people really don't know alot about, I think he needs to be alittle more open and he needs to get thicker skin.

Is that not almost EXACTLY what he did say? I thought this was a dead issue.

[Kelly]

I totally agree, it has nothing to do with censorship. I have NO PROBLEM with the fact that the New Yorker should have the right to do what they did. But damn, they need to stop the whining game (which seems to have befallen everyone in this presidential election) and take the slams. More power to them, is my opinion, but they better be ready to handle the bitter taste in many peoples mouths. Hell, it did exactly what it was supposed to do, they hit records with this magazine.

[Kelly]

Is that not almost EXACTLY what he did say? I thought this was a dead issue.


No, I think he said alittle more than that, but that was part of what he said. I guess I should have been more clear in saying, that should have been the attitude of his surrogates as well. Heres the thing, this campaign more so than any other campaign, is not a debate between candidates, which it is supposed to be. It is a dog fight between surrogates, and its getting tired. No, its not a dead issue, by a long shot.

[Matt]

Every artist throughout history has been subject to criticism from the public in addition to supposed experts when they hold their work up for the public eye to review. It's not about censorship, but being willing to stand up and take the criticism of your work, particularly if you're going to do something controversial that is meant to push buttons. The demographic of the New Yorker's readership really doesn't matter because the cover is being seen by people far beyond that demographic, and I'm pretty sure the folks running that magazine knew that it would be (and the reaction it would invoke). I'd have far more respect if they'd taken the route of Serrano and just owned it. He was incredibly unapologetic and basically just said "Yes. It's a picture of a crucifix in a jar of my urine. I pissed on your God. Deal with it." when he was called out for his art. But they haven't and they won't, and instead have tried to play the "What!? We didn't think it was bad!" game which really should be beneath such a group of supposed intellectuals. They act surprised and offended that they are being called out for this, which strikes me as a whole lot short-sighted and well...dumb...for people who had the supposed intelligence to take all of these stereotypes about Obama and wrap them all up into what they claim is just an incredibly smart satire on the idiocy of the American public in the spirit of Stephen Colbert's style of humor (a style of humor for which the New Yorker is not known for at all, marking a departure from their usual tone without any sort of written explanation of what they were doing to go with that picture by the way).

So, no, I don't think this is about censorship in any way. I think it's about art, particularly such public art that carries such a socio-political charge, being subject to public opinion and the artist being willing and able to deal with whatever that might be. The fact that it is satire doesn't change this. Satire is not above criticism. Particularly when it's so poorly done as this piece of satire. If you can't handle the heat of your actions, then maybe you ought to stick to less socio-politically charged types of satire and commentary. I like what John Stewart said about the cover and that was if the New Yorker REALLY wanted to make it satire, they would have had the balls to have the original picture of Obama and his wife inside a thought balloon coming out of John McCain's forehead. THAT would have been brilliant satire that actually conveyed the impression they were supposedly trying to make.

jag

True social satire only really works if it offends. Would Borat be as funny if he were scripted instead of baiting real people into saying real things?

And while I agree it is not above criticism, but the critique that "People are too stupid to get it and will take it seriously and The New Yorker should've been more responsible than that!" is ridiculous and that seems to be the most frequent critique I am seeing.

[Matt]

No, I think he said alittle more than that, but that was part of what he said. I guess I should have been more clear in saying, that should have been the attitude of his surrogates as well. Heres the thing, this campaign more so than any other campaign, is not a debate between candidates, which it is supposed to be. It is a dog fight between surrogates, and its getting tired. No, its not a dead issue, by a long shot.

And that is why I maintain that the turn out from the primaries will not hold. There's still almost 4 long months of this to go. People are already getting sick of it. McCain was meant to be a maverick and independent of party thought. That is why independents gave him his party's nomination. And Obama was supposed to be the herald of a new kind of politics. That is what inspired countless first time voters and demographics who do not normally vote to come out to the polls and give him his party's nomination. And now this election is nothing more than your typical pissing contest that all modern elections have become.

These "non-traditional voters," are already a very fickle bunch. Anything from rain to something good on TV can keep them home. But I tell you this, nothing will do the trick better than the candidates disillusioning them and keeping this up to the point where they are all just sick of this election.

[jaguarr]

True social satire only really works if it offends. Would Borat be as funny if he were scripted instead of baiting real people into saying real things?

And while I agree it is not above criticism, but the critique that "People are too stupid to get it and will take it seriously and The New Yorker should've been more responsible than that!" is ridiculous and that seems to be the most frequent critique I am seeing.

True satire may need to offend to work (the key word being "may"), but it needs to do it without being deeply insulting. It also needs to be funny and widely appreciated on a broad scale when the joke behind it is finally revealed. The New Yorker failed on both those counts in a lot of people's eyes on an epic level.

jag

[jaguarr]

Double post.

jag

[Matt]

Broad scale? Nonsense. The New Yorker has never had a broad demographic and I'm guessing their key demographics got it. If you want something that appeals on a broad scale go watch Larry the Cable Guy. In the mean time, I ask again, why do we need the PC Police telling people what Americans are too stupid to get?

[jaguarr]

Broad scale? Nonsense. The New Yorker has never had a broad demographic and I'm guessing their key demographics got it. If you want something that appeals on a broad scale go watch Larry the Cable Guy. In the mean time, I ask again, why do we need the PC Police telling people what Americans are too stupid to get?

It's a broad scale because FAR more than just the magazine's usual demographic has seen the cover, Matt. Demographics mean nothing when that occurs and it should be of no surprise to ANYONE that this cover got the reaction that it did, regardless of whoever the supposed intended demographic is. Fail on a broad and epic scale.

jag

[Varient]

Meh.
Water is wet and folk want the right to be offensive unopposed.

SSDD.

[BlackLantern]

Meh.
Water is wet and folk want the right to be offensive unopposed.

SSDD.

I don't think it's that, I think that no one wants to be confronted with their shortcomings anymore...look at NCLB and the myth of "learning disorders"....Bill Gates made a speech at a HS graduation and said "Schools may have eliminated winners and losers, but life hasn't..."....sorry to go off on a tangent

The same goes with satire and what is offensive and what isn't....just because someones' feelings are hurt DOES NOT mean something is offensive

[jaguarr]

...just because someones' feelings are hurt DOES NOT mean something is offensive

That...doesn't even make sense. :huh:

jag

[Varient]

I don't think it's that, I think that no one wants to be confronted with their shortcomings anymore...look at NCLB and the myth of "learning disorders"....Bill Gates made a speech at a HS graduation and said "Schools may have eliminated winners and losers, but life hasn't..."....sorry to go off on a tangent

The same goes with satire and what is offensive and what isn't....just because someones' feelings are hurt DOES NOT mean something is offensive

If the NY had said the equiv of "whoops" this wouldn't be an issue.

"Offensive" like "Satire" is subjective.

Being aware of the impact on others to where it doesn't / shouldn't matter whether it bothers you as far as whether it is offensive or not - Is not.

Off Topic: No child Left Behind was a STUPID IDEA as far as I was concerned.
But I'm not in charge.

Props for caring about the children left behind by their peers / EF for thinking it was better to bump a person up who can't do the work.

Instead of fixing the machine (Education system), they tried to reduce quality control on the Materials (Students.).

Sad that so many lives have been ruined by this.

V.

[BlackLantern]

That...doesn't even make sense. :huh:

jag

Sure it does....the word 'offensive' gets thrown around alot lately and I think it's a matter of context....

Let's say that I find something offensive and Matt finds it sharp and witty....what is it? is it offensive? sharp and witty? who makes that decision?

[jaguarr]

Sure it does....the word 'offensive' gets thrown around alot lately and I think it's a matter of context....

If someone gets their feelings hurt or is offended by something, then it was offensive to them. :huh: Just because you don't feel they should be offended doesn't make their being offended any less valid. :huh:

Let's say that I find something offensive and Matt finds it sharp and witty....what is it? is it offensive? sharp and witty? who makes that decision?

It's offensive to you but not to Matt, then. It doesn't mean that it's inherently not offensive just because Matt doesn't find it offensive. Besides, Matt's an insensitive jackass anyway. :oldrazz:

jag

[Varient]

If someone gets their feelings hurt or is offended by something, then it was offensive to them. :huh: Just because you don't feel they should be offended doesn't make their being offended any less valid. :huh:

jag

Yeah,... I said that.

Used more words,... was less polite,... but I did say that.

too many try to determine what bothers others by whether it bugs them personally or not,.... We had this arguement on a closed thread earlier this year - Folk believing that it's okay to discount whether someone found something offensive if it didn't touch them.

Meh - This is one of the few sticking points that allows the hatred to continue.


V.

[Kelly]

Yeah,... I said that.

Used more words,... was less polite,... but I did say that.

too many try to determine what bothers others by whether it bugs them personally or not,.... We had this arguement on a closed thread earlier this year - Folk believing that it's okay to discount whether someone found something offensive if it didn't touch them.

Meh - This is one of the few sticking points that allows the hatred to continue.


V.


And others post as if everyone should be as offended as they are. It goes both ways.

It seems that no matter where you are at on these boards. Fanboy debates seem to break out everywhere. And yes, this type of debate is the same as a Marvel vs. DC.......not in its importance, but in how petty, rude and personally hit people get in the debate.

[BlackLantern]

or maybe it is the inverse?? maybe people need to toughen up a bit....it goes both ways...

[Kelly]

or maybe it is the inverse?? maybe people need to toughen up a bit....it goes both ways...



Boooooooom, I beat'cha to it.



*struts off*

[Varient]

And others post as if everyone should be as offended as they are. It goes both ways.

It seems that no matter where you are at on these boards. Fanboy debates seem to break out everywhere. And yes, this type of debate is the same as a Marvel vs. DC.......not in its importance, but in how petty, rude and personally hit people get in the debate.

I guess my point is this:

In the real world - unless you go out of your way - U know whether or not you will be offending your target. I have issue with those who play dumb as far as the possibility that they have offended,.. like the NY'r did. What is there to debate? Why would you argue with the offended party as to whether they are offended or not?

IMPE those who argue the point plead ignorance and argue that it is not offensive to be allowed to continue to be so.

I offend many here w/o meaning to. I'm adult enough that if I were truly unaware I can apologize. It doesn't bother me to admit error as far as what someone else may find important - but for others it's like you are pulling out their teeth with rusty pliers.


In this case the New Yorkers has heard it from both sides of the parties involved AND lots of noise from the general population across all color boundaries.

- They need to get a clue.

V.

[Varient]

or maybe it is the inverse?? maybe people need to toughen up a bit....it goes both ways...

SSDD:

That is what is said currently INSTEAD of people just stopping the drama and taking ONE MOMENT to consider and be ready to man up on the concequences.

Tired of people telling me for example to get a thicker skin,... when the offending party is making more noise for being pulled up on the carpet for being boorish.

Peace.

[Matt]

I guess my point is this:

In the real world - unless you go out of your way - U know whether or not you will be offending your target. I have issue with those who play dumb as far as the possibility that they have offended,.. like the NY'r did. What is there to debate? Why would you argue with the offended party as to whether they are offended or not?

IMPE those who argue the point plead ignorance and argue that it is not offensive to be allowed to continue to be so.

I offend many here w/o meaning to. I'm adult enough that if I were truly unaware I can apologize. It doesn't bother me to admit error as far as what someone else may find important - but for others it's like you are pulling out their teeth with rusty pliers.


In this case the New Yorkers has heard it from both sides of the parties involved AND lots of noise from the general population across all color boundaries.

- They need to get a clue.

V.

But you've said it right there. "Offending your target." Who was the NY'er's target? Not the idiots who would take this seriously, but mostly people who would get the joke. Context is very important here.

[BlackLantern]

I don't mean to come off as boorish, but if I have an opinion or make a statement that offends someone, I'll apologize if they are offended, but it won't cause me to change my position....

[jaguarr]

But you've said it right there. "Offending your target." Who was the NY'er's target? Not the idiots who would take this seriously, but mostly people who would get the joke. Context is very important here.

Their target was the general public. Saying "Oh, this is only for people who 'get it'" is a copout and an excuse to offend. There are plenty of people who get what they were attempting to do and still find it in bad taste. Failure on their part to achieve what they say they set out to do doesn't mean people didn't get it. :)

jag

[BlackLantern]

What if the New Yorker had a cover of John McCain in a wheelchair, with a jar of baby food next to him, and shaking his cane at kids on his lawn?

[Varient]

But you've said it right there. "Offending your target." Who was the NY'er's target? Not the idiots who would take this seriously, but mostly people who would get the joke. Context is very important here.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5894016.html

text:
July 17, 2008, 8:02PM
Cover's a close call, but New Yorker's doing its job


By CLARENCE PAGE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Recommend
Comments (7) Yahoo! Buzz
I winced. I'm sure that's what the New Yorker's esteemed editor, David Remnick, expected me to do when I saw the Barack and Michelle Obama caricature cover that everybody's talking about.

Every so often the quiet little liberal-leaning literary and cultural magazine presents a cover that is intended like a high-class editorial cartoon to startle us. Back in 1993, for example, during a time of high tensions between blacks and Jews, cartoonist Art Spiegelman raised hackles from some and heartfelt praise from others with a cover that depicted a black woman kissing an Orthodox Jewish man.

The controversial Obama cover by artist Barry Blitt is just as startling as that earlier cover, but not nearly as clear in its meaning. If casual observers didn't know that the New Yorker was a liberal literary and cultural magazine, they might easily believe Blitt's drawing was trying to promote the right-wing smears that it intended to lampoon.

It shows Obama in the Oval Office dressed in Arabic robes. He is exchanging a congratulatory fist bump with his wife, Michelle, who is dressed like a 1960s-style militant with a huge Afro, combat boots, camouflage pants, assault rifle and a bandolier of bullets. Osama bin Laden looks on placidly from a picture frame over the presidential fireplace in which an American flag burns like a yule log.

Editor Remnick told The New York Times that, "The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are."

He compared Blitt's drawing to Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, who lampoons the worldview of conservative talk show hosts like Fox News' Bill O'Reilly so seamlessly that you have a hard time telling what Colbert really believes.

But how many people get the joke? It took me a while to figure out what Colbert was trying to do. Now I think he's a genius. But when it takes you too long to figure out whether a joke is funny, well, forget about it.

I winced at first glance because Blitt's caricature does an irritatingly good job of portraying the anti-Obama lies, smears and half-truths that pollute my e-mail box like chain letters, discount Viagra ads and invitations from potential Nigerian business partners.

I judge Blitt's art the same way I judged Don Imus' failed attempt at humor last year about the Rutgers University women's basketball team: (1.) Is it funny? (2.) Is it true? And (3.) Is the target worth it?

Imus flunked all three tests and lost his radio and television shows. He's back on the air by way of a smaller network. Blitt's art passes the (1.) funniness test only if you are confident that you (2.) know its real target and (3.) think that the target is worth it.

Yet the New Yorker is doing its job. It is provoking the rest of the country to talk about the smear campaign that has had more of a life than it should, thanks in part to the Internet. Those who think the Blitt cartoon is damaging should think again. The falsehoods are out there and widely embraced, either by people who don't know any better or folks who are looking for some excuse to cast doubt on Obama when they can't find anything else. The Web is like any other village square. Sometimes you've got to clear away the trash.

That's the reading I get from a July 13 online poll by the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. Online polls are not scientific, but they tell you something about passions of certain groups. Offered a dozen choices, 60 percent of those who responded in the first 24 hours chose, "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." Only 2 percent chose "tasteless and offensive," which were the reactions of the Obama and McCain campaigns to the cartoon.

Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog Web site, took that as evidence that the New Yorker cover reinforces false perceptions about the Obamas. I get a different message. The misinformed — or willfully misleading — folks who say they think the cartoon depicts the real Obamas offer evidence that false perceptions already are out there, getting spread around, New Yorker or not.

Let's hope that the current controversy leads more voters to seek the real story. The Obama campaign already has launched a special Web site, FightTheSmears.com, just to shoot down the myths. Responsible newspaper Web sites and other rumor fighters such as Snopes.com also offer valuable help. Voters owe it to themselves and their fellow Americans to get the facts, not just the convenient untruths.

Page is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist specializing in urban issues. He is based in Washington, D.C. (cpage@tribune.com)


Point: The New yorkers Target has yet to be seen IN THIS CASE as that small readership that quietly snickers at such and moves on - but the wider audience of the country.

[jaguarr]

What if the New Yorker had a cover of John McCain in a wheelchair, with a jar of baby food next to him, and shaking his cane at kids on his lawn?

Satirizing truths about someone, age being your example which is a truth about McCain, is a bit different than perpetuating untruths about someone as they did with the Obama cover, don't you think?

jag

[BlackLantern]

Satirizing truths about someone, age being your example which is a truth about McCain, is a bit different than perpetuating untruths about someone as they did with the Obama cover, don't you think?

jag

To insinuate that he is incapable of the office due to his age, I think, is the same as people that think Obama, as a person of color, is inferior and incapable of the office

[jaguarr]

To insinuate that he is incapable of the office due to his age, I think, is the same as people that think Obama, as a person of color, is inferior and incapable of the office

But the cover doesn't insinuate that Obama is incapable of the office because of his skin color, does it? It insinuates that he's a Muslim terrorist in league with bin Laden and that he hates America, at least at first glance without any context of which magazine it came from.

jag

[BlackLantern]

I took from it, that he will suddenly declare a jihad agains America if he wins the election...just my perception of first seeing the cover

[Raiden]

To insinuate that he is incapable of the office due to his age, I think, is the same as people that think Obama, as a person of color, is inferior and incapable of the office

The New Yorker cover doesn't imply (whether satire or not) that Obama is inferior and incapable due to his color; it tries to call into question about Obama's character (as an alleged Muslim & a terrorist) and patriotism (with the American flag burning in the fireplace).

[jaguarr]

I took from it, that he will suddenly declare a jihad agains America if he wins the election...just my perception of first seeing the cover

That's because:

But the cover doesn't insinuate that Obama is incapable of the office because of his skin color, does it? It insinuates that he's a Muslim terrorist in league with bin Laden and that he hates America, at least at first glance without any context of which magazine it came from.

jag

jag

[britethorn]

Here's my take on the Obama craze, filtered through the lens of the Dark Knight Craze. I hope you guys all like it:

It's called, "Obama: The Dark Knight."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5S6FyasCbU

[Varient]

I don't mean to come off as boorish, but if I have an opinion or make a statement that offends someone, I'll apologize if they are offended, but it won't cause me to change my position....

Hmph.
I hear an apology here on this board once in a blue moon as the offending parties are too quick to tell folk to "Lump it" if they don't agree with them.

Between the two of us you have made three seriously skewed statements which were both untrue and insulting,... and you've tried in each case to defend those positions w/o anything more than your opinion.

No reports, No stats, No discussion or debate to pull from, just your opinion in areas so broad that they are what I expect from some white guy in Iowa.

(Hence the shock factor - geez - "Blacks don't get satire?")



Peace.

[BlackLantern]

Hmph.
I hear an apology here on this board once in a blue moon as the offending parties are too quick to tell folk to "Lump it" if they don't agree with them.

Between the two of us you have made three seriously skewed statements which were both untrue and insulting,... and you've tried in each case to defend those positions w/o anything more than your opinion.

No reports, No stats, No discussion or debate to pull from, just your opinion in areas so broad that they are what I expect from some white guy in Iowa.

(Hence the shock factor - geez - "Blacks don't get satire?")



Peace.

My intent was not to be insulting, but to point out that satire is not something everybody gets...if I was a bit broad with my statement, sorry...

If I said something like " Those ******* ******* don't get satire because they are stupid"..then yes I am wrong and being insulting...but I made the statement to point out something I saw...

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[BlackestNight]

People the to stop being crybabys. For god sakes the Daily show did a 911 joke. Prety much it was a 9 f*%king an 11 on a starspangled Banner bed. They played it everytime Rudy Gulliani went into his 911 Turetts fits.

[BlackestNight]

Double Post

[BlackLantern]

People the to stop being crybabys. For god sakes the Daily show did a 911 joke. Prety much it was a 9 f*%king an 11 on a starspangled Banner bed. They played it everytime Rudy Gulliani went into his 911 Turetts fits.

I remember the first time they showed that....even Stewart almost lost it

[Kelly]

What if the New Yorker had a cover of John McCain in a wheelchair, with a jar of baby food next to him, and shaking his cane at kids on his lawn?

Satirizing truths about someone, age being your example which is a truth about McCain, is a bit different than perpetuating untruths about someone as they did with the Obama cover, don't you think?

jag


People that have been traveling with McCain say that he runs circles around those half his age. Perception is people's truth, and if they believe that about Obama, THAT IS THEIR TRUTH. THAT is what the magazine was trying to get across. True or not, idiots believe that about Obama, doesn't make it less satire. Yes, the McCain cover would be an exaggeration, but it would be to poke fun at those that think that is what will happen while he is in office, whether it does or not. The reason the Obama cover is such a strong statement, is that it shows how TRULY little know about Obama. Don't think that the Middle East isn't jumping for joy that Obama has such a shot at being President. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one second that it is anything except them being excited at the fact that he will think closer to the way they think. NOW, is them having that perception such a bad thing? HEY, if it helps to bring peace to that region, I could care less what they think.

It's all about perception. Just because one perception is maybe as close to the truth as the other is to being false, doesn't mean that people's perception in either case is going to make a difference, or be less satrical. My problem is that people think being Muslim makes you less of an American, and less of a good President. And I had a problem with it being a COVER, rather than a political cartoon with a proper caption. I would have trouble with the McCain cover for the same reason, even though I know that people would find it less offensive, and more understandable. AND, I think McCain would laugh, I do think his surrogates would belly ache though, just like Obama's did, and that would just piss me off more.

[BlackestNight]

People need to stop being crybabys. For god sakes the Daily show did a 911 joke. Prety much it was a 9 f*%king an 11 on a starspangled Banner bed. They played it everytime Rudy Gulliani went into his 911 Turetts fits.

Edit: I really need to stop rush typing and start proof reading:meanie:

[BlackestNight]

Saying the middle east would be jumping for joy if Obama becomes president would be like saying African americans would be jumping for joy if Allan Keys Became the republican Nom.

It ain't happening.

[Varient]

Saying the middle east would be jumping for joy if Obama becomes president would be like saying African americans would be jumping for joy if Allan Keys Became the republican Nom.

It ain't happening.

((((Shudder)))))

[BlackestNight]

((((Shudder)))))

lol sorry Varient let me clarify that. What I’m saying is that Middle Eastern People aren’t stupid. They have minds and there not going to fall for Barack Obama just be cause he has a Muslim name and brown skin to them he is still just an American and most like continue the same F'ed up Mid east policies that every other us president has.

The same thing goes for Allen Keys. The Majority of African-Americans aren’t going to vote for Allen Keys because he's black. To most democratic voting African-Americans he would just do the same thing as every other rep before him.

FWI Allen Keys is a douche bag. :angry: I really really dislike him

[Marx]

White House sends press corps al-Maliki praise for Obama plan
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/19/white-house-sends-press-corps-al-maliki-praise-for-obama-plan/





(Oops! :hehe:)

[Kelly]

lol......slaps TM upside the head.....

[BlackLantern]

The primary fear seems to be that if Obama wins the election, he will bed Dana Perino prior to booting the previous administration out of the White House

[Crowforge]

What?

[Marx]

What?

Apparently, the White House Press office sent an email to the press corps talking about al-Malliki's support for Barack Obama's Iraq plan. (By mistake.)

[Tag279]

Apparently, the White House Press office sent an email to the press corps talking about al-Malliki's support for Barack Obama's Iraq plan. (By mistake.)

HA-HAAAA!!!:lmao:

[Crowforge]

No I got that, I don't understand the comment directly above mine.

[BlackLantern]

it's called a joke

[rdh007]

The primary fear seems to be that if Obama wins the election, he will bed Dana Perino prior to booting the previous administration out of the White House
What?

Just for clarity's sake, you do mean the Dana Perino pictured below, correct? ;)
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/wdana_1029.jpg

[Marx]

Some people will say anything just be able to post a "Perino" picture. :hehe:

[Crowforge]

She's not my type, and even if she was republican is a turn off. I'm sure it's mutual.

[Matt]

Political party is a turn off?

[Crowforge]

I know it seems shallow but when your world view is so different one of you might as well be growing horns.

[Matt]

Well, I disagree. My wife is a Republican and we get along just fine. We are capable of debating and discussing such things without getting mad or petty. So long as you are mature why should it matter?

[Kelly]

Well, I disagree. My wife is a Republican and we get along just fine. We are capable of debating and discussing such things without getting mad or petty. So long as you are mature why should it matter?

Exactly, I just want the guy I'm dating to be able to have an educated discussion with me on politics, I could care less if he's more conservative or more liberal than I am....

[Crowforge]

I'm talking about a larger extreme here.

[Darthphere]

Well, I disagree. My wife is a Republican and we get along just fine. We are capable of debating and discussing such things without getting mad or petty. So long as you are mature why should it matter?

Yeah Matt will **** anything.

[jaguarr]

Yeah Matt will **** anything.

:funny:

jag

[Zen]

A "clarification" of Al'maliki's remarks about supporting a 16 month withdrawl plan similar to obamas, has come out of U.S. Central Command.

they claim that Maliki's remarks were "mistranslated" but have yet to offer the proper translation itself.

Der'spiegel (the original german reporter) is standing by the original translation.


if this is the administration putting pressure on Maliki, then im officialy loosing whatever objectivity i had left about this administration and the war.... :(

[kainedamo]

Looks like they just want a 'yes-man' that will just say what they want him to say.

[Kelly]

According to his remarks, they were simply not to be used as an endorsement of Obama for President. I think that is where he is saying the translation is wrong. I think he agrees with the plan, but simply did not want his statements to be taken as an endorsement of Obama.

[Matt]

Pretty good article...

Why the Race is Tied
By Dick Morris

After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five- to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat's lead?

Part of the slippage is Obama's fault and part is McCain's gain.

Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate -- who we don't really yet know very well -- reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama's breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain's. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.

Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue -- oil drilling -- exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we "cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices" begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don't see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.

Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.

Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.

If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go? Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn't need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama's obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

[Matt]

So anyway, since Tag asked "how is Obama arrogant?" here is an article that sums it up.


The Audacity of Vanity
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: "I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, 'merci beaucoup.'" Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

[Tag279]

Pretty good article...

Only because you agree with it :cwink: I guess the positive stuff about Obama is a load of bull in your eyes. Or is it just early polling so it should not be taken seriously.

Of course the writer of the article you posted would find fault with Obama and add a negative spin. The guy worked for Trent Lott.

Sunday, July 20, 2008
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/design/plain/images/icon_email.gif Email to a Friend (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/tipafriend/4547)
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 45% (see recent daily results (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history)). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Each Saturday morning, we also take a look at the week’s key polls to see What They Told Us (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls) .

Both candidates are viewed favorably by 55% of voters. Obama is clearly the defining candidate of the race and energizes both sides of the political divide more than McCain. The presumptive Democratic nominee is viewed Very Favorably by 54% of Democrats and Very Unfavorably by 51% of Republicans. McCain generates less passion and less intense opposition. He is viewed Very Favorably by 35% of Republicans and Very Unfavorably by 29% of Democrats.
Among unaffiliated voters, 10% have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 24% have a Very Unfavorable opinion. For McCain, the numbers among unaffiliated voters are 12% Very Favorable and 15% Very Unfavorable (see other recent demographic highlights (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/demographic_notes_2008_presidential_race)). Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D)(it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
State polling was released this past week for Virginia, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election)Nevad a (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election), North Carolina (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election ), Arkansas (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election), Oregon, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/election_2008_oregon_presidential_election) Kansas (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kansas/election_2008_kansas_presidential_election), Maine, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election)South Dakota, (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_dakota/election_2008_south_dakota_presidential_election2) Iowa, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election) Minnesota, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election)Loui siana, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/louisiana/election_2008_louisiana_president) and Michigan (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election). The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update) shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 168 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 293, McCain 227.
Other key stats on the race for the White House are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers (http://rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers).
Rasmussen Markets (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets) data gives Obama a 65.3 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68256) % chance of winning the White House.

[Crowforge]

I disagree with both those articles

[Matt]

Only because you agree with it :cwink: I guess the positive stuff about Obama is a load of bull in your eyes. Or is it just early polling so it should not be taken seriously.

Of course the writer of the article you posted would find fault with Obama and add a negative spin. The guy worked for Trent Lott.

Sunday, July 20, 2008
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/design/plain/images/icon_email.gif Email to a Friend (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/tipafriend/4547)
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 45% (see recent daily results (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history)). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Each Saturday morning, we also take a look at the week’s key polls to see What They Told Us (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls) .

Both candidates are viewed favorably by 55% of voters. Obama is clearly the defining candidate of the race and energizes both sides of the political divide more than McCain. The presumptive Democratic nominee is viewed Very Favorably by 54% of Democrats and Very Unfavorably by 51% of Republicans. McCain generates less passion and less intense opposition. He is viewed Very Favorably by 35% of Republicans and Very Unfavorably by 29% of Democrats.
Among unaffiliated voters, 10% have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 24% have a Very Unfavorable opinion. For McCain, the numbers among unaffiliated voters are 12% Very Favorable and 15% Very Unfavorable (see other recent demographic highlights (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/demographic_notes_2008_presidential_race)). Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D)(it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
State polling was released this past week for Virginia, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election)Nevad a (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election), North Carolina (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election ), Arkansas (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election), Oregon, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/election_2008_oregon_presidential_election) Kansas (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kansas/election_2008_kansas_presidential_election), Maine, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election)South Dakota, (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_dakota/election_2008_south_dakota_presidential_election2) Iowa, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election) Minnesota, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election)Loui siana, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/louisiana/election_2008_louisiana_president) and Michigan (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election). The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update) shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 168 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 293, McCain 227.
Other key stats on the race for the White House are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers (http://rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers).
Rasmussen Markets (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets) data gives Obama a 65.3 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68256) % chance of winning the White House.

And he also worked as a policy advisor for Bill Clinton, so its not as if he is a Republican zealot. He makes a good point. Obama has lost ground recently. Polls show that. Do you really think the flip-flops have nothing to do with it?

Furthermore, if Obama does not come up with a coherrant plan for gas prices, he will lose this election. By November, prices should be anywhere between $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon. McCain is saying "Drill our own oil," and "Suspend the gas tax." Meanwhile Obama is saying things like "With my plan, by 2025," or "By 2050." People don't want to hear that at the moment. And I'm sure you'll say "Well McCain's plan won't work." It doesn't matter. It sounds more appealing to the people who are getting raped at the pumps than "By 2025 things will be fine." If Obama does not come up with a better gas plan, his lead will continue to shrink (especially in heavy blue collar states like Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio, who are really being hurt by gas prices and will ultimately decide this election).

Yeah, the article made a good point and you can try to write it off as partisan and post out of context poll numbers until the cows come home. If the Obama camp just shrugs it off like you do, I'm sure he will enjoy a nice defeat in November.

[Tag279]

And he also worked as a policy advisor for Bill Clinton, so its not as if he is a Republican zealot. He makes a good point. Obama has lost ground recently. Polls show that. Do you really think the flip-flops have nothing to do with it?

Furthermore, if Obama does not come up with a coherrant plan for gas prices, he will lose this election. By November, prices should be anywhere between $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon. McCain is saying "Drill our own oil," and "Suspend the gas tax." Meanwhile Obama is saying things like "With my plan, by 2025," or "By 2050." People don't want to hear that at the moment. And I'm sure you'll say "Well McCain's plan won't work." It doesn't matter. It sounds more appealing to the people who are getting raped at the pumps than "By 2025 things will be fine." If Obama does not come up with a better gas plan, his lead will continue to shrink (especially in heavy blue collar states like Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio, who are really being hurt by gas prices and will ultimately decide this election).

Yeah, the article made a good point and you can try to write it off as partisan and post out of context poll numbers until the cows come home. If the Obama camp just shrugs it off like you do, I'm sure he will enjoy a nice defeat in November.

Why is McCain in your view so-much better as a candidate than Obama. Why are you so sure that he would do a better job?

Voting for another candidate or not voting makes no sense. Either McCain or Obama will be president.

It is apparent you have an intense dislike for Obama there is no need to go there. Convince me with policy points where McCain will be a better President.

[Zen]

what if the reality is that drilling will not lower prices...

then your saying the only way he can win is to actively try to decieve americans on the energy issue,

because the answer isn't education... ?

americans refuse to beleive that the Dollar is the reason gas is so high. and at this point... gas tax is cents... not dollars, and drilling now will have no effect on price, but lets say it will... we wont see it for years.

Psychological claims are bogus. oil companies and producing nations will not fix their price simply because it appears we are going to produce a marginal amount of oil compared to world supply. Drilling wont fix the weak dollar.

Americans might need to face reality. and thats alternative energy and conservation.

only time will tell though

[Matt]

Where did I say McCain would be better? News flash for you Tag. Obama has flaws. Second news flash for you Tag, pointing them out is not an automatic praise of McCain. I am talking matters of electability, not policy and McCain's oil policy at the moment is far more appealing than Obama's to Joe Q. Public and Obama's flip-flops (as pointed out in the article) do make people question him. His decrease in polls show this. This is a matter of electability that I am discussing, not preference.

Furthermore, Voting third party does make sense. I refuse to give my vote to a lesser of two evils when there are third party candidates who represent my beliefs. Thats not what Democracy is about.

[Matt]

what if the reality is that drilling will not lower prices...

then your saying the only way he can win is to actively try to decieve americans on the energy issue,

because the answer isn't education... ?

americans refuse to beleive that the Dollar is the reason gas is so high. and at this point... gas tax is cents... not dollars, and drilling now will have no effect on price, but lets say it will... we wont see it for years.

Psychological claims are bogus. oil companies and producing nations will not fix their price simply because it appears we are going to produce a marginal amount of oil compared to world supply. Drilling wont fix the weak dollar.

Americans might need to face reality. and thats alternative energy and conservation.

only time will tell though

But your point is moot Zen. We are discussing electability, not policy. The two are not and probably never will be intertwined. Hell, if policy were tied to electability, Obama would've finished last in every primary leading up to Super Tuesday as he had no platform prior to it.

[Zen]

Furthermore, Voting third party does make sense. I refuse to give my vote to a lesser of two evils when there are third party candidates who represent my beliefs. Thats not what Democracy is about.

you should be able to vote for whoever is closest to your views...

or for whatever reason.

no vote is a waste.

[Marx]

Where did I say McCain would be better? News flash for you Tag. Obama has flaws. Second news flash for you Tag, pointing them out is not an automatic praise of McCain. I am talking matters of electability, not policy and McCain's oil policy at the moment is far more appealing than Obama's to Joe Q. Public and Obama's flip-flops (as pointed out in the article) do make people question him. His decrease in polls show this. This is a matter of electability that I am discussing, not preference.

We've all been down this road before Matt. There are some, for whatever reason, who refuse to accept anything negative toward their candidate as fact.

The point remains that Obama is arrogant. He has changed positions in a mad dash attempt at getting to the center of the political spectrum.


Furthermore, Voting third party does make sense. I refuse to give my vote to a lesser of two evils when there are third party candidates who represent my beliefs. Thats not what Democracy is about.

There is no acceptable reason that people should be confined to only voting for Democrats or Republicans. (For anyone to suggest otherwise is crazy.) You should allways vote for whoever you feel represents your personal beliefs...regardless of if they are a "major" candidate or not.

[Zen]

But your point is moot Zen. We are discussing electability, not policy. The two are not and probably never will be intertwined. Hell, if policy were tied to electability, Obama would've finished last in every primary leading up to Super Tuesday as he had no platform prior to it.


???

im confused how electability and policy are not intertwined? :huh:

Obama's major magnetism was his policy on the iraq war... specifically his stance against it.


i think my point is that Americans who are looking for a rational gas policy should be looking at the factors that are making gas expensive and how, if at all... drilling will affect the price of oil that we buy on the world markets.

the problem is not that Obama has a bad policy, its that americans think there will be an easy fix, something that will drop gas a dollar or two.

there is nothing that will make that happen, unless we can suddenly... miraculously strengthen the dollar in a months time.

[Zen]

are we not talking energy policy and how it effects each candidates electability?


???

[Matt]

???

im confused how electability and policy are not intertwined? :huh:

Obama's major magnetism was his policy on the iraq war... specifically his stance against it.

His only policy was his opposition to it. He offered no viable solutions. As for them not being intertwined, they really aren't. Electability and what sounds good are intertwined. Unfortunately, maybe twice a century there is something that sounds good that actually translate to good policy.


i think my point is that Americans who are looking for a rational gas policy should be looking at the factors that are making gas expensive and how, if at all... drilling will affect the price of oil that we buy on the world markets.

the problem is not that Obama has a bad policy, its that americans think there will be an easy fix, something that will drop gas a dollar or two.

there is nothing that will make that happen, unless we can suddenly... miraculously strengthen the dollar in a months time.

I see your point and I agree with it, but millions of people will not change their views. Obama needs to adapt to them, not the other way around. Both campaigns' oil policies are bad policies. Obama's is too far sighted and really doesn't offer much to the people who can't afford to drive to work where as McCain's is just not practical. A coherrant oil policy needs both long term and short term relief and right now neither candidate offers that.

[Zen]

what would be a coherent current short term energy policy?

[Zen]

ive watched obama shift revise whatever... and for the most part, i can completely deal with what has happened untill now, but if he begins to advocate a bullfeces energy policy just to get votes...

then i guess,

i will not vote for him.

[Matt]

what would be a coherent current short term energy policy?

Well, the most obvious one is turning oil into a government run utility thus taking profit out of the equation. However, since big oil owns our politicans, that is unlikely. Other solutions may be serious investigations into price gouging, removing the taxes placed upon oil companies under the condition that they accept a price cap, or opening our federal oil reserves to the public.

[Zen]

fed oil reserves.


hmmm.


how much might that help? im going to have to look into that... isn't this the current plan the dem congress is proposing? i havnt had a chance to sink my teeth into the oil reserve angle

[Tag279]

Where did I say McCain would be better? News flash for you Tag. Obama has flaws. Second news flash for you Tag, pointing them out is not an automatic praise of McCain. I am talking matters of electability, not policy and McCain's oil policy at the moment is far more appealing than Obama's to Joe Q. Public and Obama's flip-flops (as pointed out in the article) do make people question him. His decrease in polls show this. This is a matter of electability that I am discussing, not preference.

Furthermore, Voting third party does make sense. I refuse to give my vote to a lesser of two evils when there are third party candidates who represent my beliefs. Thats not what Democracy is about.

You want to vote for a third party that is fine but it seems to me that you viscerally attack anything Obama does as wrong, a lie, or ill-concieved.

In one post you said that Obama flip flops and yet in another you say he needs to adapt to John Q Public.It's a catch 22.

What about your third Party candidate makes them a better choice? It seems that you are more of an Obama detractor than a supporter of your third party or alternate candidate.

What specific policy points of your candidate makes him or her better than Obama?

[Marx]

Well, the most obvious one is turning oil into a government run utility thus taking profit out of the equation. However, since big oil owns our politicans, that is unlikely. Other solutions may be serious investigations into price gouging, removing the taxes placed upon oil companies under the condition that they accept a price cap, or opening our federal oil reserves to the public.

Government run oil would not eliminate profits. We do need a serious independent investigation into potential price gouging though.

[Matt]

ive watched obama shift revise whatever... and for the most part, i can completely deal with what has happened untill now, but if he begins to advocate a bullfeces energy policy just to get votes...

then i guess,

i will not vote for him.

My question to you is, doesn't the character issues of the flip flops raise an eyebrow? This isn't the same as attacking John Kerry for flip flopping where the flip flops are issues he voted on 10 years ago in the Senate or supported a war with faulty, out of context intelligence.

This is a man completely revising his entire platform in a one week period of time and changing his stances on some pretty major issues that played heavily into his winning the nomination (war in Iraq, abortion, economy, gun control, etc). These are heavy flip flops and it says one of two things to me.

1) Either the man is willing to change his entire core beliefs to win an election

or

2) He is lying to get elected.

Either way, these are some pretty heavy character issues.

[Matt]

You want to vote for a third party that is fine but it seems to me that you viscerally attack anything Obama does as wrong, a lie, or ill-concieved.

In one post you said that Obama flip flops and yet in another you say he needs to adapt to John Q Public.It's a catch 22.

Modifying a policy so it is more than "20 years from now," is not flip flopping. No one is asking him to abandon his long term ideas in regards to energy but simply offer short term solutions.


What about your third Party candidate makes them a better choice? It seems that you are more of an Obama detractor than a supporter of your third party or alternate candidate.


I''ve yet to decide on a candidate as I've not finished my research plus I am waiting to see the two main candidates running mates.


What specific policy points of your candidate makes him or her better than Obama?

Its not a matter of them being better than Obama, even if they aren't I still won't vote Obama. I will write-in a candidate who represents me and my values. Obama does not. His policies do not corrolate with my own. Plain and simple. No other candidate's shortcomings are going to make me support someone I do not agree with.

[Sandman138]

what if the reality is that drilling will not lower prices...

then your saying the only way he can win is to actively try to decieve americans on the energy issue,

because the answer isn't education... ?

americans refuse to beleive that the Dollar is the reason gas is so high. and at this point... gas tax is cents... not dollars, and drilling now will have no effect on price, but lets say it will... we wont see it for years.

Psychological claims are bogus. oil companies and producing nations will not fix their price simply because it appears we are going to produce a marginal amount of oil compared to world supply. Drilling wont fix the weak dollar.

Americans might need to face reality. and thats alternative energy and conservation.

only time will tell though

And this is the stuff that Obama has to be screaming from every hilltop in America, because if he doesn't McCain will win.

[Sandman138]

Well, the most obvious one is turning oil into a government run utility thus taking profit out of the equation. However, since big oil owns our politicans, that is unlikely. Other solutions may be serious investigations into price gouging, removing the taxes placed upon oil companies under the condition that they accept a price cap, or opening our federal oil reserves to the public.

That will either bankrupt the people who harvest what little oil we have the same way it bankrupted our farmers, or it will transfer the costs to taxes. Neither one of those options helps us at all and we're back on OPEC's balls before we know who raped us.

[Matt]

And this is the stuff that Obama has to be screaming from every hilltop in America, because if he doesn't McCain will win.

Yeah, because talking down to Americans and essentially saying "You're too stupid to understand the problem," will really help him.

That will either bankrupt the people who harvest what little oil we have the same way it bankrupted our farmers, or it will transfer the costs to taxes. Neither one of those options helps us at all and we're back on OPEC's balls before we know who raped us.

Only oil harvesters aren't exactly hurting for money like small farmers. Utilitizing it may transfer the costs to tax dollars, but we are paying them anyway. Divert the funds from other programs. However I support opening the reserves which would buy us time to start coastal drilling. After all, why have reserves if you do not intend to use them when things get hard?

[Tag279]

Modifying a policy so it is more than "20 years from now," is not flip flopping. No one is asking him to abandon his long term ideas in regards to energy but simply offer short term solutions.

I''ve yet to decide on a candidate as I've not finished my research plus I am waiting to see the two main candidates running mates.

Its not a matter of them being better than Obama, even if they aren't I still won't vote Obama. I will write-in a candidate who represents me and my values. Obama does not. His policies do not corrolate with my own. Plain and simple. No other candidate's shortcomings are going to make me support someone I do not agree with.

So let me get this strait, you don't actually support a candidate and you have not made up your mind yet. But the only thing you are sure about is that you strongly dislike Obama and don't want him to be President.

Okay then What specific policies do you agree with or want to be part of the candidate that will choose to support's platform?

What values are you looking for?

[Matt]

I've already answered that question numerous times. Feel free to look it up.

[Mr Sparkle]

hahaha, this is getting ridiculous.
it has, so far, been shown that when it comes to "flip flops" which apparently some people want to equate to strength of character, McCain kind of takes the cake.
no one, no one wants to discuss elections on the basis of "my candidates is better" it's always "your candidate is worse" how exactly does anyone expect politics to change when seriously. I have seen more depth of analysis of the britney scandals than this.

Obama obviously, has not changed his policies over the course of a week, nor "reversed" them, in fact, he has been pretty careful to walk the line, he has been a savvy politician, the politician democrats were clamoring for the last election.

yet somehow, for some reason, this isn't enough for many people, I wonder why? why is it so damned personal, when really there isn't much to hold over Obama's head as opossed to McCain.
the most baffling thing is that, some people are willing to endure 4 more years of policies that WILL if similar to the Bush plan ( which McCain says he would follow) damage the US economy further, and maintain a status quo that supposedly they dislike.
however, they don't like Obama, of course they don't KNOW him but they dislike him (again, wonder why?) I have seen a gaggle of reasons tossed at me that neither make sense nor are applicable to the man.

he "talks down to people" :huh: some say, but how exactly has he done that?
let me tell you that, unless you live in a different US he kind of has it dialed when it comes to poor people clinging to guns and religion ( black, white and latino) I've seen it, you've seen it, how come all of a sudden saying it is wrong, or elitist?
he associated with crazy preachers? well, so did McCain, guess his "character" is a sullied as Obama, and uh, I don't know if you noticed but last time I checked no one got too upset about that.
oh, but Obama "flip flops" the sad thing is that when compared to the McCain flip flops and the 180 degree turns he has made on several issues, these Obama shifts are minor, and though some are notable or even dissapointing, so what?
are you honestly saying that he is supposed to be perfect? and please, speare me the " he sold himself that way" crap, because that's only valid if you can produce an ad where McCain calls himself, that "status quo" candidate, hell, bring me statements where McCain says "I'm Mediocre, things will stay as they have been the last 8 years" and you won;t be able to because they are both selling the " I'm here to help you image" but for some deep, personal, and I hope not racial issue, you reallllllly dislike Obama.
you don't even disagree with him, you just don't like him....you know? like in high school?

[Zen]

My question to you is, doesn't the character issues of the flip flops raise an eyebrow? This isn't the same as attacking John Kerry for flip flopping where the flip flops are issues he voted on 10 years ago in the Senate or supported a war with faulty, out of context intelligence.

This is a man completely revising his entire platform in a one week period of time and changing his stances on some pretty major issues that played heavily into his winning the nomination (war in Iraq, abortion, economy, gun control, etc). These are heavy flip flops and it says one of two things to me.

1) Either the man is willing to change his entire core beliefs to win an election

or

2) He is lying to get elected.

Either way, these are some pretty heavy character issues.

I do not see Obama having flip-flopped on the war. his is the position that we have made a mistake going in, and we should get out as soon as possible. his plan is to give commanders on his first day in office the mission to end the war. his 16 month time table seems directly in line with what is beginning to come out of Iraq. his statements on how he may refine his position... after meeting military leaders on the ground isn't a flip flop to me. its being rational. honestly i dont think hes going to refine the 16 month plan. whats the point of going over there if you are completely closed minded to what the military officers are going to say? the republicans would have slammed him on this. comes back and says it will take longer than 16 months to begin removing forces from Iraq then i will not vote for him, because then he will in my opinion, have buckled to much to a cause that is ****ing ludicrous. untill then, his position still stands. merely saying your open to what commanders will say on the ground is not a policy change. but you'll see me glued to his statements after this trip.

Lets look at Obama's position on Abortion. Hes a pro-choice candidate, nothing has changed. Late term abortions are illegal and his stance on them within my ethos makes sense. Late term abortions should not be alowed unless it endangers the health of the mother. he is still for that. "mental stress" is subjective in my opinion, but if i see an example where a womans health is proven to be affected then i think a doctor would be able to say this is beyond just mental stress, this is a physical danger... but mental stress? that to me isnt a reason to end the life of a fetus at a stage where is may be able to survive in a neo-natal unit, or even on its own. i should clarify though that i am against abortion personally, and also pro-choice. i beleive women should have the right to choose should they get off their asses and make the decision in a timely manner... like before the fetus becomes viable. though im personally against Abortion, i beleive the right to choose trumps that, i made my choice, women should be allowed to make theirs.

...that said, perhaps i cant see the objective side to this because i like his addendum on late term abortions. so maybe you can throw this out? but hes still pro-choice, he isnt going to put in judges that will overturn roe. :grin: this isn't a flip-flop to me


I cant find a direct quote of Obama supporting the D.C. gun ban...only an Obama Aid speaking on it, which the campaign has said was an "inartful" statement. what i have found is this... over and over...

...maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

this is inline with what i beleive. perhaps a pattern is forming here, maybe im a bit more moderate than i would like to admit, and Obama's "shift" is directly aimed at folks like me... or at least doesn't ruffle our feathers. I havn't seen him make statements that denote this as a sevear shift that alludes to his moral character and integrity. i have not seen a statement by Obama where he agrees with the sentiment of those justices 30 years ago that beleive that the "right to bear arms" is a collective one, as in militias... and not an individual one. i havn't seen Obama trying to overturn Gun bans either... so its a grey area in that respect. but not a flip flop. if you support individual gun bearing rights you have to support the supreme courts ruling, which i do... even though scalia is squelched diarehea. If I've missed a quote and a major statement about Obamas interpretation of the second ammendment as a reference to militias rather than individual rights then i will agree that this is a flip flop... untill that time, its not. but again... i happen to support this decision, i may be biased.

Economy... im not familiar with his purported flip flops on the economy. im looking around for lists of flip flops and stuff but i am ready to listen, cause the economy is becoming the most important issue for me as things appear to be going downhill. we don't need any obsfucation about the economy right now

I dont see how his CORE Beleifs are changing. :huh: its become cliche to refer to the things hes saying and doing as refinements and revisements, but thats what they are... he hasnt changed his core beleifs on any of those issues. CORE CORE CORE thats all i hear out of hannity these days, i wonder if he knows what Core means. he may still be in the death march mode that got us into many of the problems that got us in this mess... and thats bullheaded stubborness on EVERY ISSUE EVER by the bush administration. shifting in policy, even slightly.... is WEAK SAUCE! MORALLY UNTENNABLE!! AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER FOR INTEGRITY!

im just not drinking that Cup of tea.



He has flip flopped on the decriminalization of marijuana.

and on public financing, though the internet work hes doing is essentially "public financing" and he never fully commited to the issue... it still was a bit stinky how it was worded.

and Fisa... i dont like what he did there. you fogot to mention Fisa :woot: honestly i was a bit pissed. its not a dealbreaker for me, but its pulled the line closer that he may cross where i wont vote for him.



which one of these policies shifts do you not agree with...? putting aside character and integrity injuries from flip flopping, my spelling, and weather or not you can trust him because hes a flip flopper, i already understand that angle ....just a solid look at what the positions currently are that hes shifted. which ones do you not agree with and why?

[Marx]

Iraq leader, Obama discuss future troop pullout
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html

[Spider-Bite]

a lot of the flip flop accusations are not actual flip flops and it's a lie to call them that. i'm not talking about every accusation, but most of them are downright lies. He hasn't flip flopped on the economy, abortion, Iraq war, and I'm not even sure if he's flip flopped on gun control. Just because he supports gun control that doesn't mean he has to support a handgun ban.

the only things he has flip flopped on is the death penalty and immunity to the telephone companies for complying with President Bush on his warrantless wire tapping. He still supports regulation of wire tapping, he's just not punishing the phone companies for doing what the president told them to do.

[Marx]

a lot of the flip flop accusations are not actual flip flops and it's a lie to call them that. i'm not talking about every accusation, but most of them are downright lies. He hasn't flip flopped on the economy, abortion, Iraq war, and I'm not even sure if he's flip flopped on gun control. Just because he supports gun control that doesn't mean he has to support a handgun ban.

the only things he has flip flopped on is the death penalty and immunity to the telephone companies for complying with President Bush on his warrantless wire tapping. He still supports regulation of wire tapping, he's just not punishing the phone companies for doing what the president told them to do.

Read up on him and you'll see that they're not lies Spider-Bite.

[Marx]

Former President Bush 'a little jealous' of Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/former-pres-bush-a-little-jealous-of-obama/

[StorminNorman]

Theres not a politician this side of JFK who shouldn't feel jealous of Obama. He is being treated like a rock star and having to face very little real vetting from the media.

[Marx]

Theres not a politician this side of JFK who shouldn't feel jealous of Obama. He is being treated like a rock star and having to face very little real vetting from the media.

Very true Norm.

[kainedamo]

Theres not a politician this side of JFK who shouldn't feel jealous of Obama. He is being treated like a rock star and having to face very little real vetting from the media.

Fox News has a negative spin on Obama everyday.

[kainedamo]

Are other politicians really jealous of the guy that gets this kind of nonsense?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=QXJwq_wRa8M

QXJwq_wRa8M

Besides that kind of sillyness, in regards to the media I'd say Obama is under a damn microscope. In the media, Obama has been accused of having terrorist friends, of attending an Islamic school, his wife was falsely reported to have been on tape referring to white people as "whitey", his brother was falsely quoted as saying Obama is Muslim, etc etc etc. No other candidate has ever had this kind of nonsense.

[Marx]

Fox News has a negative spin on Obama everyday.

That's true, but FOX News pretty much lives in its own little world. It is hardly representative of the overall feeling in media outlets.

[BlackestNight]

Is it just me or does it feel like this part of the political fourm is slowing down.

[Kelly]

Fox News has a negative spin on Obama everyday.


Meh, that's just as a balance to all the ass kissing he's getting from the big 3 at NBC, ABC, and CBS. LMAO.

[Marx]

Is it just me or does it feel like this part of the political fourm is slowing down.

It's called 'The Dark Knight'. That's all the reason you need. :cwink:

[Kelly]

That's true, but FOX News pretty much lives in its own little world. It is hardly representative of the overall feeling in media outlets.

Can't speak for everyone else, but the tone of the campaign seems to have made its way here in the form of some posters. Kind of makes the fun of posting fly out the window. :csad:


But yeah, its probably The Dark Knight...lol

[Tag279]

I've already answered that question numerous times. Feel free to look it up.

Matt, Over and over and over you have repeatedly expressed the disdain and dislike you have for Obama.

Why not clearly and concisely point by point lay out the specific platform planks and policy points that you think are essential to the candidate that you will cast your vote for.

Post them again you are always willing to post what you think is wrong with Obama but you have offered no platform that can be applied to a candidate.

What platform and policy points must be present for you to vote for a candidate?

[Marx]

Can't speak for everyone else, but the tone of the campaign seems to have made its way here in the form of some posters. Kind of makes the fun of posting fly out the window. :csad:


But yeah, its probably The Dark Knight...lol

I'm going with 'The Dark Knight' as the reason. :cwink:




(That and there is a lull in political news. Aside from the same old bickering back and forth, there really isn't anything new.)

[souvlaki]

I'm going with 'The Dark Knight' as the reason. :cwink:




(That and there is a lull in political news. Aside from the same old bickering back and forth, there really isn't anything new.)

Honestly, I'll have to agree with you. I can't speak for everyone, but despite the fact that I'm still on this board every day, the TDK board has been consuming most of my time. This is the first time I've visited the politics board in over a week.

[Marx]

Honestly, I'll have to agree with you. I can't speak for everyone, but despite the fact that I'm still on this board every day, the TDK board has been consuming most of my time. This is the first time I've visited the politics board in over a week.

Good to see you again Souv! :yay:





(The TDK forums have been seeing alot of my time as of late too!)

[Matt]

Are other politicians really jealous of the guy that gets this kind of nonsense?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=QXJwq_wRa8M

QXJwq_wRa8M

Besides that kind of sillyness, in regards to the media I'd say Obama is under a damn microscope. In the media, Obama has been accused of having terrorist friends, of attending an Islamic school, his wife was falsely reported to have been on tape referring to white people as "whitey", his brother was falsely quoted as saying Obama is Muslim, etc etc etc. No other candidate has ever had this kind of nonsense.

The only accusation that you cited that the major media has pinned on Obama is having a terrorist friend, and David Ayers IS a terrorist. Its not false. David Ayers will admit to having been a terrorist. Obama is a friend of David Ayers. Thus he is a friend of a terrorist. The rest come from right wing blogs and aren't really indicative of the mainstream media who has given Obama a free pass, the likes of which has never been seen in modern politics.

[Matt]

Matt, Over and over and over you have repeatedly expressed the disdain and dislike you have for Obama.

Why not clearly and concisely point by point lay out the specific platform planks and policy points that you think are essential to the candidate that you will cast your vote for.

Post them again you are always willing to post what you think is wrong with Obama but you have offered no platform that can be applied to a candidate.

What platform and policy points must be present for you to vote for a candidate?

Once again, use the search function. I am not going to waste my time answering questions I have already answered.

[Tag279]

Once again, use the search function. I am not going to waste my time answering questions I have already answered.

But you are willing to waste your time casting the same dispersions and insults. Matt you have over 45,000 posts thats finding a needle in a haystack.

[Matt]

But you are willing to waste your time casting dispersions and insults.

I've never once insulted Barack Obama. Have I criticized his campaign, his platform, and his attitude? Yes. I've never personally insulted him. Grow up, Tag. People can have valid reasons for disliking Barack Obama.

[Marx]

SO how about Obama canvassing through the Middle East guys??? :cwink:

[Matt]

Apparently this is no longer the Barack Obama thread but the "Tag throws a hissy fit and assumes anyone who criticizes Obama has a personal vendetta against him or is racist (Because after all, there is no valid reason to criticize the second coming) thread."

...Obama Thread is catchier.

[Matt]

SO how about Obama canvassing through the Middle East guys??? :cwink:

But in all seriousness, its great that Obama is winning all this support abroad and filling massive stadiums in Europe...but...its kinda irrelevant. Very few voters will go into the polling booth and say "Well, the Europeans sure like him, he has my vote." McCain is closing the gap quite a bit this past week. Obama's honeymoon may very well be over. He should try campaigning state-side instead of abroad.

[Marx]

But in all seriousness, its great that Obama is winning all this support abroad and filling massive stadiums in Europe...but...its kinda irrelevant. Very few voters will go into the polling booth and say "Well, the Europeans sure like him, he has my vote." McCain is closing the gap quite a bit this past week. Obama's honeymoon may very well be over. He should try campaigning state-side instead of abroad.

I think it's great that europeans are supporting him too! That being said, I think it's quite obvious that he's trying to bolster his world and foreign policy credentials.


I just read that Obama and McCain are statistically tied in New Hampshire...

[Tag279]

I've never once insulted Barack Obama. Have I criticized his campaign, his platform, and his attitude? Yes. I've never personally insulted him. Grow up, Tag. People can have valid reasons for disliking Barack Obama.

Okay then I know there a pluthera of reasons that you don't like Obama.

But I am asking you about the policy points that you want in a candidate's platform.

I am not asking you to explain what you dislike about Obama you do that quite well. I am asking you about specific platform planks you support.

I never said that you insulted Obama directly but you have consistenly dealt with IMO me in a condescending tone. For instance "grow up Tag" and I am 10-years older than you.

Yes I may disagree with you but I do not take personal shots at you.

[Marx]

Okay then I know there a pluthera of reasons that you don't like Obama.

But I am asking you about the policy points that you want in a candidate's platform.

I am not asking you to explain what you dislike about Obama you do that quite well. I am asking you about specific platform planks you support.

I never said that you insulted Obama directly but you have consistenly dealt with IMO me in a condescending tone. For instance "grow up Tag" and I am 10-years older than you.

Yes I may disagree with you but I do not take personal shots at you.

With all due respect to you Tag, Matt has explained all of this several times. (Not particularly with you, but in general.)

[Matt]

Which I have said numerous times, but our ol'friend just doesn't want to use the search button.

[Marx]

Obama, McCain statistically tied in New Hampshire
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/obama-mccain-statistically-tied-in-new-hampshire/

[Tag279]

Apparently this is no longer the Barack Obama thread but the "Tag throws a hissy fit and assumes anyone who criticizes Obama has a personal vendetta against him or is racist (Because after all, there is no valid reason to criticize the second coming) thread."

...Obama Thread is catchier.

Note th quote above is another personal attack on me. He is not attacking my position he is attacking me.

With all due respect to you Tag, Matt has explained all of this several times. (Not particularly with you, but in general.)

Matt has well over 45,000 posts how can I easily filter through everything that he has posted?

If he and I have not had the exchange how can I know his position? The only thing I have a clear picture of is the fact that he detests Obama.

[Matt]

Note th quote above is another personal attack on me. He is not attacking my position he is attacking me.


No, I'm attacking your attitude which you have displayed on numerous occassions. A personal attack would be "Tag is ugly," or "Tag is stupid." I am simply satirizing your attitude that any critique of Obama is either racist or based on blind hatred.



Matt has well over 45,000 posts how can I easily filter through everything that he has posted?


With the search button.


If he and I have not had the exchange how can I know his position? The only thing I have a clear picture of is the fact that he detests Obama.

But why does one persons dislike for the Obama campaign bother you so much to begin with?

[Tag279]

Which I have said numerous times, but our ol'friend just doesn't want to use the search button.

What search button? :huh:

[Tag279]

No, I'm attacking your attitude which you have displayed on numerous occassions. A personal attack would be "Tag is ugly," or "Tag is stupid." I am simply satirizing your attitude that any critique of Obama is either racist or based on blind hatred.

But why does one persons dislike for the Obama campaign bother you so much to begin with?

Because your contempt is so intense it is unsettling.

Matt you seem like a smart guy. You have posted that no matter what Obama does you will not vote for him period regardless if he is a proponent of policies that you support.

What that says IMV is that there are other more personal reasons.

I personally know people that are smart and fairly well educated that hate the idea that a black person has a real chance to be President.

Your arguments often-times mirror the arguments they use to detract against Obama's canadacy.

When I ask them to offer specific policy points that they support for a candidate they have no answers.

Well educated people that have issue with a candidate due to their race are the same type of people that would push a Jim Crowe agenda.

As a student of history and constitutional law and a black person in this country I realize that my right to live as I choose, where I want, and work my way to success can be taken away with the stroke of a pen even if I have done no wrong if the political climate is right. The same is also true for all black citizens of this country.

I ask you over and over to post the platform points that you support to better understand you and your reasoning. I don't expect all people to be Obama supporters..I am not that naive or stupid.

When a person tells why he will vote for a candidate it says more about that person than telling why he is against a candidate IMO.

I am not by any means saying that you are one of those people that I was referring to earlier. I am just trying to better understand your perspective. Not from what you are against but what you are for.

[Zen]

matt you always get all the attention...

lil jealous here.

http://www.lesoftparade.com/boards/images/smilies/thinlove.gif

[Zen]

i searched through your posts to find some of the debates we had, and other posts about what you were looking for in a candidate. it took a while... but i DID find what i was looking for.

maybe after i get back from work ill post some of matts posts for you taq.

love him or hate him...
understand him or be confused by him...

he has posted about what hes looking for and point by point policy platforms a bunch of times.

[jaguarr]

matt you always get all the attention...

lil jealous here.

http://www.lesoftparade.com/boards/images/smilies/thinlove.gif

Be quiet, whore! :cmad:

Does that make you feel better? :huh:

(Just trying to help)

jag

[Kelly]

LMAO, is anyone watching Obama's press conference in Amman, he just slammed a journalist, it was beautiful.

He was calling on journalists, and one of them towards the back, yelled that he needed to call on some in the back. It pissed him off, but he held his composure.

A few questions later he calls on that journalist, and he couldn't hear the question. His reply to the journalist was....

"Can you speak up, you were loud enough before when you were telling me to call on you....." that is my paraphrase, but that is the basics of it. It was beautiful.

[Matt]

:hehe:

How is he doing Kel? Obama isn't usually very good when he has to break script. Is anyone actually pushing him or are the press giving him another free ride?

[Matt]

Because your contempt is so intense it is unsettling.

Matt you seem like a smart guy. You have posted that no matter what Obama does you will not vote for him period regardless if he is a proponent of policies that you support.

What that says IMV is that there are other more personal reasons.

I personally know people that are smart and fairly well educated that hate the idea that a black person has a real chance to be President.

Your arguments often-times mirror the arguments they use to detract against Obama's canadacy.

When I ask them to offer specific policy points that they support for a candidate they have no answers.

Well educated people that have issue with a candidate due to their race are the same type of people that would push a Jim Crowe agenda.

As a student of history and constitutional law and a black person in this country I realize that my right to live as I choose, where I want, and work my way to success can be taken away with the stroke of a pen even if I have done no wrong if the political climate is right. The same is also true for all black citizens of this country.

I ask you over and over to post the platform points that you support to better understand you and your reasoning. I don't expect all people to be Obama supporters..I am not that naive or stupid.

When a person tells why he will vote for a candidate it says more about that person than telling why he is against a candidate IMO.

I am not by any means saying that you are one of those people that I was referring to earlier. I am just trying to better understand your perspective. Not from what you are against but what you are for.

i searched through your posts to find some of the debates we had, and other posts about what you were looking for in a candidate. it took a while... but i DID find what i was looking for.

maybe after i get back from work ill post some of matts posts for you taq.

love him or hate him...
understand him or be confused by him...

he has posted about what hes looking for and point by point policy platforms a bunch of times.


Thank you Zen :up:

[Varient]

(rolling eyes)
Reading on to see how far this will go,....

[Crowforge]

Is that really a slam?

[Kelly]

Is that really a slam?


A presidential candidate to a journalist? yes.....

Obama is good at this kind of thing. It's alot of fun to watch.

[Varient]

Is that really a slam?

(chuckle)
No,... it's called "giving back as well as you get".

The newsie in the back was being rude - showing a lil too much contempt for the person running for public office,.. and the public official called him on his uncalled for complaint.

I marvel on how folk seemed so surprised at getting short-shifted when they start it by being abrasive,...

V.

[Matt]

(chuckle)
No,... it's called "giving back as well as you get".

The newsie in the back was being rude - showing a lil too much contempt for the person running for public office,.. and the public official called him on his uncalled for complaint.

I marvel on how folk seemed so surprised at getting short-shifted when they start it by being abrasive,...

V.

Its not really being rude. The reporter was doing their job, which is to get their story. If Obama was neglecting the back of the room, why not speak up? Its not as if the reporter could walk up to him and say "Excuse me sir, but I have a question."

[Kelly]

Obama was moving from the front to the back. He took questions from the front, middle and back. The reporter was simply impatient, he was getting there.


MY PROBLEM with this news conference was the fact that this "isn't a campaign trip, for campaign purposes", and this part of the trip was paid for by taxpayer dollars, yet the other 2 Senators did not take one question, even though one has been to the region 12 times, and the other 6 times, and yet Obama took all of the questions. Not cool, IMO, but it was an interesting press conference.

[Matt]

Again I ask Kel, how did Obama do? Did any reporters force him to break his scripted responses? If so, how did he handle it?

[Varient]

Its not really being rude. The reporter was doing their job, which is to get their story. If Obama was neglecting the back of the room, why not speak up? Its not as if the reporter could walk up to him and say "Excuse me sir, but I have a question."

In the "Dog eat Dog" of News reporting,... Real reporters DO NOT whine for fair representation,... they jostle their fellow reporters and demand attention.

They don't whine that the news worthy person isn't fielding enough questions in the back,... they get louder so the guy in front can hear them.

Rudeness is making the statement that the Canidate is at fault for not going out of his way to notice the quiet folk in the back,...

*note* make the poor example of reporter look even worse when he got his requested attention and HAD to be told to speak up.

V.

[jaguarr]

Obama was moving from the front to the back. He took questions from the front, middle and back. The reporter was simply impatient, he was getting there.


MY PROBLEM with this news conference was the fact that this "isn't a campaign trip, for campaign purposes", and this part of the trip was paid for by taxpayer dollars, yet the other 2 Senators did not take one question, even though one has been to the region 12 times, and the other 6 times, and yet Obama took all of the questions. Not cool, IMO, but it was an interesting press conference.

And if Obama hadn't answered those questions he'd get attacked for that. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for him, really.

jag

[Kelly]

Again I ask Kel, how did Obama do? Did any reporters force him to break his scripted responses? If so, how did he handle it?

It was not a well organized press conference, you could not hear the questions of the reporters, BUT......it was evident that most reporters wanted a specific answer from him on how things were going in Iraq. It was obvious that they were trying to get him to say "The surge is working....." blah....blah....blah. It was actually kind of comical, because it was obvious they were simply rewording the question.

He stuck to his structured answer, and stayed general as usual. Which wasn't surprising to me. Staying general so far has worked for him, but I have a feeling that he is going to have to get more speciic, and I think that that will move him closer to the center, and he will continue to irritate the left wingers of his party. But, he would be smart to move center, because it is the center that will win the election for him, not the left wingers that will vote a straight ticket anyway.

But, it was pretty much more of the same as far as his answers.


Watch the video of his interview from Nightline lastnight, it was very interesting....

http://abcnews.go.com/nightline

Click on: WATCH: "We need to have a timeframe..."

[Kelly]

And if Obama hadn't answered those questions he'd get attacked for that. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for him, really.

jag


I have no problem with him answering the questions, but it would have been nice to have heard from 2 other senators. Hell, at least a few questions for them.

[jaguarr]

I have no problem with him answering the questions, but it would have been nice to have heard from 2 other senators. Hell, at least a few questions for them.

Oh, I agree. From the sounds of it, the Press didn't even bother asking the other two Senators anything, though. I didn't watch the coverage, so I can't say that for sure. Did you hear any of them ask the other two anything?

jag

[Kelly]

Oh, I agree. From the sounds of it, the Press didn't even bother asking the other two Senators anything, though. I didn't watch the coverage, so I can't say that for sure. Did you hear any of them ask the other two anything?

jag


LMAO, there were 2 other senators there?

[jaguarr]

LMAO, there were 2 other senators there?

Someone should have told the press. :D

jag

[Kelly]

Someone should have told the press. :D

jag


Yeah, apparently that was left off the agenda for the day.....lol

Honestly, though it would have been nice to have heard from them, considering one has been to the region 12 times, and the other 6 times. They know the region well, and it would have been interesting to get their thoughts on what they see after the surge.

[lazur]

I'm still wondering why Obama refuses to debate McCain. Don't we as voters have the right to see them debate before coming to a decision??

Why is Obama denying the American people to see the issues debated in an open or even moderated forum?

[Kelly]

I don't know that he has refused, as in "I refuse to debate McCain". I don't think they have ironed out all of the timing, venues etc. We will see them debate I'm sure before the election.

[Varient]

Meh.

Now he's supposed to be a terrible speaker because he says "Uh" when speaking w/o a teleprompter.

I suppose next week it will be the deal breaker,... when they find out he has a pair or red argle socks,...

[lazur]

I don't know that he has refused, as in "I refuse to debate McCain". I don't think they have ironed out all of the timing, venues etc. We will see them debate I'm sure before the election.

The election is only THREE months away and we haven't even seen them talk yet. Don't you think that's unfair?

And yes, he has backed out of debates, in addition to ignoring the McCain camp's requests.

[Kelly]

What debate has he backed out of?

Has CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox???? which of those put together a debate that he backed out of?

[BlackestNight]

I'm still wondering why Obama refuses to debate McCain. Don't we as voters have the right to see them debate before coming to a decision??

Why is Obama denying the American people to see the issues debated in an open or even moderated forum?

You must be talking about the series of Town Hall Meeting that McCain invited Obama to.

Obama needs to just sticking to the Media Sponsored debates.

"Beware of Greeks baring gifts"

[kainedamo]

The election is only THREE months away and we haven't even seen them talk yet. Don't you think that's unfair?

And yes, he has backed out of debates, in addition to ignoring the McCain camp's requests.

McCain offered Obama a week after week townhall debate thing that Obama turned down - this doesn't mean Obama won't debate with McCain fullstop. Why should Obama debate with McCain on McCain's terms?

They'll debate soon enough, televised, with moderators and such.

[Superman]

What debate has he backed out of?

Has CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox???? which of those put together a debate that he backed out of?Good question.

[Marx]

I'm still wondering why Obama refuses to debate McCain. Don't we as voters have the right to see them debate before coming to a decision??

Why is Obama denying the American people to see the issues debated in an open or even moderated forum?

The election is only THREE months away and we haven't even seen them talk yet. Don't you think that's unfair?

And yes, he has backed out of debates, in addition to ignoring the McCain camp's requests.

I think you're just trying to stir a pot with a controversy that isn't there. The only debate that Obama has "refused" is the one that McCain offered to him days after he gained the nomination. The point is, the parties have not even had their conventions yet to officially name the nominee's. Those conventions aren't even until next month! They will have their debates. There will be so many debates before the election in November you will find yourself asking "Why the heck are they debating so often?"

Don't worry, the debates are coming.

[Addendum]

We need breathing room for the bajillion primary debates before we get into presidential debates, vice president debates, and white house chef debates

[Zen]

Despite lazur's confusion...

i am anxious for a debate to.

[Tag279]

Despite lazur's confusion...

i am anxious for a debate to.

I would have to agree with you I am looking forward to the debates also.

On another note what about what Matt is looking for in a candidate?

[Marx]

Despite lazur's confusion...

i am anxious for a debate to.

I'm looking forward to them as well.

I would have to agree with you I am looking forward to the debates also.

On another note what about what Matt is looking for in a candidate?

You never stop, do you? :cwink:

[Tag279]

I'm looking forward to them as well.

You never stop, do you? :cwink:

No I guess not; I'm a Fire Inspector/ Arson Investigator what else would you expect. :woot:

[Marx]

No I guess not; I'm a Fire Inspector/ Arson Investigator what else would you expect. :woot:

You have a good point. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

Anti-war activists split over Obama's troops plans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080722/wl_mcclatchy/2998032

[Crowforge]

McCain offered Obama a week after week townhall debate thing that Obama turned down - this doesn't mean Obama won't debate with McCain fullstop. Why should Obama debate with McCain on McCain's terms?

They'll debate soon enough, televised, with moderators and such.
Because mccain wants everything on his terms.
Obama hasn't been to Iraq!
Obama's flip-flopping on Iraq!!
Obama's Made up his mind before he's even been to Iraq!!!

[Lightning Strykez!]

Anyway.

Back to the town hall meeting debate issue: Obama really can't officially debate with the Republicans considering that he hasn't been officially nominated right? That's why he's visiting overseas only as a senator for now--because he doesn't have the title.

[StorminNorman]

Anyway.

Back to the town hall meeting debate issue: Obama really can't officially debate with the Republicans considering that he hasn't been officially nominated right? That's why he's visiting overseas only as a senator for now--because he doesn't have the title.

Yes, he is visiting Iraq only as a Senator. That is why his campaign brought along three major network anchors. :whatever:

Also - why does Obama refuse to credit the Surge as a major reason for the success in Iraq? Why does he believe he is better fit to call the shots in Iraq than General Petraeus?

[StorminNorman]

Because mccain wants everything on his terms.
Obama hasn't been to Iraq!
Obama's flip-flopping on Iraq!!
Obama's Made up his mind before he's even been to Iraq!!!


Actually those are all very very very valid and correct observations.

[Excel]

How friggin long does it take to find a VP?

[Marx]

Yes, he is visiting Iraq only as a Senator. That is why his campaign brought along three major network anchors. :whatever:

Also - why does Obama refuse to credit the Surge as a major reason for the success in Iraq? Why does he believe he is better fit to call the shots in Iraq than General Petraeus?

To be fair, a large reason for the surge being put in place was to diminish the violence so that political healing could take place and improve the problems within the government. Has the surge dialed down violence? Yes. Has the surge improved the political outlook? Absolutely not.

I guess it all comes down to what you personally believe the surge was put in place for and what the definition of success is.

[StorminNorman]

To be fair, a large reason for the surge being put in place was to diminish the violence so that political healing could take place and improve the problems within the government. Has the surge dialed down violence? Yes. Has the surge improved the political outlook? Absolutely not.

I guess it all comes down to what you personally believe the surge was put in place for and what the definition of success is.

Yes it has improved the political outlook.

The Iraqi government now has 97% of the country under its control. The Iraqi Government has met 15 of 18 benchmarks.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Yes, he is visiting Iraq only as a Senator. That is why his campaign brought along three major network anchors. :whatever:


Those two facts have nothing to do with eachother, so stop.

It's not his fault that the entire planet is more interested in his Senatorial international tour than McCain's. :lmao:

[StorminNorman]

Those two facts have nothing to do with eachother, so stop.

It's not his fault that the entire planet is more interested in his Senatorial international tour than McCain's. :lmao:

Yes it is when its the OBAMA campaign that brought them along.

Your point would be valid if this was the media following Obama independently; but this was the Obama Campaign working with these media outlets to bring them with the Senator. Its completely different.

This is not a Senator visiting abroad - this is a Democratic Nominee going for a photo-op.

[jaguarr]

Yes it is when its the OBAMA campaign that brought them along.

Your point would be valid if this was the media following Obama independently; but this was the Obama Campaign working with these media outlets to bring them with the Senator. Its completely different.

This is not a Senator visiting abroad - this is a Democratic Nominee going for a photo-op.

Errr....I saw a clip of Chris Wallace from Fox News on the Daily Show saying he specifically called the Obama Campaign, asking if he could join the press party going to Iraq with Senator Obama. The media outlets were apparently jockying to go with him.

jag

[Kelly]

I would hope that Obama does not think that I'm ignorant enough to actually think that this is not a calculated campaign move, going to the Middle East.

I would hope that McCain does not think that I'm ignorant enough to actually think that it was not a calculated campaign move, going to the Middle East, and then to South America.

I'M NOT THAT IGNORANT.


With that said, Who TF cares.......good moves on both campaigns.

Obama is simply more lucky than McCain that the big 3 kiss his ass more this time around than they do McCain's. Politics is tough!

[Lightning Strykez!]

Errr....I saw a clip of Chris Wallace from Fox News on the Daily Show saying he specifically called the Obama Campaign, asking if he could join the press party going to Iraq with Senator Obama. The media outlets were apparently jockying to go with him.

jag

Thank you.

And if the Obama campaign accepts their invitations to join the excursion, so fricking what? Does that mean that Katie Couric and every other major reporter are sell-outs too? What about the international press who are apparently going "ga-ga" over the man's arrival in their countries? Is all of this the results of grassroot networking by the campaign?

I don't think so. The enthusiasm for Obama abroad has been there since the primaries began, dude. It's just reached a culmination now. And don't think that McCain's people weren't trying to get this kind of media attention too. The difference with him is...


...people don't care as much. :cool:

[kainedamo]

Hahaha, does StorminNorman want to criticize the Obama campaign for, um, running a good campaign with the media?

[terry78]

http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nuts.jpg

[Marx]

Hahaha, does StorminNorman want to criticize the Obama campaign for, um, running a good campaign with the media?

It's actually more the media's love affair with Obama than his ability to "run a good campaign with them."

[jaguarr]

It's actually more the media's love affair with Obama than his ability to "run a good campaign with them."

Isn't establishing and maintaining a good relationship with the media a part of running a good campaign, though? He's certainly done a good job of that, at the very least.

jag

[Marx]

Yes it has improved the political outlook.

The Iraqi government now has 97% of the country under its control. The Iraqi Government has met 15 of 18 benchmarks.

Unfortunately the only numbers that I can find are from January, if you have more current ones, I would love to see them!

According to the Center for American Progress, only three out of 18 Bush Administration benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi Government (As of January 24, 2008.)

According to NPR, only eight provinces have actually been secured by Iraqis. (As of January 2008.)

[DorkyFresh]

http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nuts.jpg

QFTW!!!

[Marx]

Isn't establishing and maintaining a good relationship with the media a part of running a good campaign, though? He's certainly done a good job of that, at the very least.

jag

I would agree that he is maintaining a good relationship with them, but to suggest that Obama is responsible for establishing that relationship isn't really accurate.

[Addendum]

http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nuts.jpg

:woot::hehe:

[jaguarr]

I would agree that he is maintaining a good relationship with them, but to suggest that Obama is responsible for establishing that relationship isn't really accurate.

Sure he is. The media has been attracted to him because of his eloquence and charisma, as well as being the first viable African-American Presidential candidate in history. He easily could have shunned them or alienated them somehow, but instead he responded to the interest they showed in him and did his half of establishing a healthy relationship with the media. It's not something either the media or he could have done on their own without reciprocation from the other; it's a symbiotic relationship.

jag

[Marx]

Sure he is. The media has been attracted to him because of his eloquence and charisma, as well as being the first viable African-American Presidential candidate in history. He easily could have shunned them or alienated them somehow, but instead he responded to the interest they showed in him and did his half of establishing a healthy relationship with the media. It's not something either the media or he could have done on their own without reciprocation from the other; it's a symbiotic relationship.

jag

And what do you think his chances of winning any election would be if he shunned or alienated the media? He's not stupid Jag.

[kainedamo]

It's actually more the media's love affair with Obama than his ability to "run a good campaign with them."

Either way, you can't blame Obama. People are always trying to pin things on Obama they shouldn't.

[jaguarr]

And what do you think his chances of winning any election would be if he shunned or alienated the media? He's not stupid Jag.

So, he's running a good campaign where the media is concerned, then, wouldn't you say? :)

jag

[Marx]

Either way, you can't blame Obama. People are always trying to pin things on Obama they shouldn't.

So, he's running a good campaign where the media is concerned, then, wouldn't you say? :)

jag

I think anyone who would suggest otherwise isn't paying attention. He is running a great media campaign. I'm just saying that he largely has the media to thank for where he is right now.

[jaguarr]

I think anyone who would suggest otherwise isn't paying attention. He is running a great media campaign. I'm just saying that he largely has the media to thank for where he is right now.

All I'm saying is that he's played his part where it comes to his relationship with the media quite well and yes, that has contributed to a large part of his success.

jag

[StorminNorman]

Unfortunately the only numbers that I can find are from January, if you have more current ones, I would love to see them!

According to the Center for American Progress, only three out of 18 Bush Administration benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi Government (As of January 24, 2008.)

According to NPR, only eight provinces have actually been secured by Iraqis. (As of January 2008.)

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/report-shows-iraq-meeting-benchmarks/

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288765,00.html


Hahaha, does StorminNorman want to criticize the Obama campaign for, um, running a good campaign with the media?

No - I am criticizing the notion the Obama is visiting the Middle East as anything other than the Democratic Nominee's photo op. This is not a Senator (or even a Presidential Nominee) visiting these nations in order to get a better sense of whats happening on the ground, as proven by the fact he wrote his plan for the future of Iraq and Foreign Policy BEFORE he left! BEFORE he met with Petreus!

The Media is covering this man with the highest absence of professionalism displayed in a long time.



And if the Obama campaign accepts their invitations to join the excursion, so fricking what? Does that mean that Katie Couric and every other major reporter are sell-outs too? What about the international press who are apparently going "ga-ga" over the man's arrival in their countries? Is all of this the results of grassroot networking by the campaign?


Yes. The Media is in the boat for a candidate, which is terrifying when you consider how little we know about him. The Media should be vetting candidates, not massaging their ego's.

[kainedamo]

Yes. The Media is in the boat for a candidate, which is terrifying when you consider how little we know about him. The Media should be vetting candidates, not massaging their ego's.

What do you mean, how little we know about him?

[Addendum]

No - I am criticizing the notion the Obama is visiting the Middle East as anything other than the Democratic Nominee's photo op. This is not a Senator (or even a Presidential Nominee) visiting these nations in order to get a better sense of whats happening on the ground, as proven by the fact he wrote his plan for the future of Iraq and Foreign Policy BEFORE he left! BEFORE he met with Petreus!

Likewise with Bush. Your point?

[Sandman138]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/report-shows-iraq-meeting-benchmarks/

You wouldn't happen to know how to get your hands on the actual report would you? I tend not to trust second hand information.

[Lightning Strykez!]

No - I am criticizing the notion the Obama is visiting the Middle East as anything other than the Democratic Nominee's photo op. This is not a Senator (or even a Presidential Nominee) visiting these nations in order to get a better sense of whats happening on the ground, as proven by the fact he wrote his plan for the future of Iraq and Foreign Policy BEFORE he left! BEFORE he met with Petreus!

The Media is covering this man with the highest absence of professionalism displayed in a long time.

Sooooooooooooo....when McCain did the EXACT same thing, it was political posturing too, RIGHT? :whatever: Please say "Yes", because if you come back with anything like "That was different" it's gonna get ugly in this thread. :mad: May I remind you that Obama has stated CLEARLY that he is only over there right now to OBSERVE and LISTEN? Yeah.

I am tired of people attacking this guy for the apparent positive impact/influence he's having on voters, the media and the global community. Since when is that, like, a BAD thing? Especially during a time when this country's international profile is at its worse?

George Dubbya ain't exactly LOVED worldwide Stormin'.



The Media should be vetting candidates, not massaging their ego's.

Are you saying that they are giving Obama a free ride as compared to McCain? Because truth be told, the media hasn't been treating McCain harshly last I checked.

[kainedamo]

The only accusation that you cited that the major media has pinned on Obama is having a terrorist friend, and David Ayers IS a terrorist. Its not false. David Ayers will admit to having been a terrorist. Obama is a friend of David Ayers. Thus he is a friend of a terrorist. The rest come from right wing blogs and aren't really indicative of the mainstream media who has given Obama a free pass, the likes of which has never been seen in modern politics.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

[StorminNorman]

You wouldn't happen to know how to get your hands on the actual report would you? I tend not to trust second hand information.

I am trying to find the actual report- however here are some more news articles that collaborate the others.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L6L407

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html

[Sandman138]

I'm pretty sure any news article outside of a CSPAN transcript will be too vague for me to bother with.

[StorminNorman]

Sooooooooooooo....when McCain did the EXACT same thing, it was political posturing too, RIGHT? :whatever: Please say "Yes", because if you come back with anything like "That was different" it's gonna get ugly in this thread. :mad: May I remind you that Obama has stated CLEARLY that he is only over there right now to OBSERVE and LISTEN? Yeah.

He is NOT going there to observe and listen - he can't when he already laid out his plans for the region BEFORE he left! Thats backwards logic! You go, you visit, you talk to the Generals and leaders and THEN you make your assessment of the situation and your plans to go forward. You don't do it the other way!

Obama also shows his pure stupidity when he tries to take away the success of the surge and diminishes the wonderful work our troops have done.

I am tired of people attacking this guy for the apparent positive impact/influence he's having on voters, the media and the global community. Since when is that, like, a BAD thing? Especially during a time when this country's international profile is at its worse?

The problem is that his positive impact is based purely on style and not substance. He is parading around like a rock star - changing his tune when it fits. He's for strict gun control, he's against strict gun control. He's against wire tapping, he votes for wire tapping. He's for campaign finance, he's against campaign finance. The guy is everything that is wrong with politics, but he is parading around pretending to be the polar opposite. And he gets away with it because the media has been in his silk pocket for months.

George Dubbya ain't exactly LOVED worldwide Stormin'.

I am baffled by the irrelevance.

Are you saying that they are giving Obama a free ride as compared to McCain? Because truth be told, the media hasn't been treating McCain harshly last I checked.

The media hasn't hardly spent time on McCain at all which is just as damning as being harsh.

[StorminNorman]

I'm pretty sure any news article outside of a CSPAN transcript will be too vague for me to bother with.

Success!

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS21968.pdf

[StorminNorman]

Likewise with Bush. Your point?

I am hoping the next President can be rated "above Bush" levels.

[BlackestNight]

Obama is under a Gigantic Magnifying glass known as the media. It’s focused directly on him. Every Positive and Negative of Obama will be magnified greatly and most of the time blown out of proportion by the media. On the other hand McCain is barely getting media attention. All most every gaff that McCain has made has completely gone unnoticed or completely ignored. Same goes for his positives they also get ignored.

Obama isn't getting a free pass he's just getting more coverage and McCain is getting less coverage.

So if you still fell that obama is getting a free pass with his Positives then McCain is getting a free pass with his Negatives.

I am hoping the next President can be rated "above Bush" levels.

McCain will do a much better at Managing the war. I will give you that.

[Marx]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/03/report-shows-iraq-meeting-benchmarks/

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288765,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288765,00.html)


Thank you for posting the links. I'm still curious though where anything says that Iraq is in control of 97 percent of the provinces? Did I overlook that?

[Sandman138]

Success!

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS21968.pdf

Reading through what benchmarks have been met, and what have either been mixed or failed does not fill me with hope. All the benchmarks that remain unfulfilled point to a sectarian abuse of power whether it is in oil ownership or who has political power over the ISF. It's not as rosy as your news stories were painting it. Thanks for being so earnest in finding the real document though.:up:

[Tag279]

For the folks that have not clicked the link. Here is the article about Obama's link to Ayers:
Obama's 'Weatherman' Connection

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/19/PH2008021900931.jpg
Chicago Police photos of William Ayers in 1968

"William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."
--Former counterterrorism official Larry C. Johnson, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html), Feb. 16, 2008.
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.

The former Weatherman, William Ayers (http://www.billayers.org/index.php), now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63) in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago (http://www.woodsfund.org/Folder_1042751691717/Folder_1063313904706/File_1063313710297), between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here (http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/ContribListSearches.aspx?NavLink=1). They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts

The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811) on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine (http://fe15.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080215/pl_bloomberg/aui514sg_cta)."

Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html)on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."

The London Sunday Times joined the chorus (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece) this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".

The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out (http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/vetting_obama_hill_has_weather.html), Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm) of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington (http://www.woodsfund.org/about/staff), said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."

[Arc-Light]

For the folks that have not clicked the link. Here is the article about Obama's link to Ayers:
Obama's 'Weatherman' Connection

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/19/PH2008021900931.jpg
Chicago Police photos of William Ayers in 1968


"William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."

--Former counterterrorism official Larry C. Johnson, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html), Feb. 16, 2008.There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.

The former Weatherman, William Ayers (http://www.billayers.org/index.php), now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63) in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago (http://www.woodsfund.org/Folder_1042751691717/Folder_1063313904706/File_1063313710297), between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here (http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/ContribListSearches.aspx?NavLink=1). They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts

The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811) on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine (http://fe15.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080215/pl_bloomberg/aui514sg_cta)."

Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html)on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."

The London Sunday Times joined the chorus (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece) this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".


The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out (http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/vetting_obama_hill_has_weather.html), Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm) of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington (http://www.woodsfund.org/about/staff), said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."

Funny hows this any differ than ohh our dealings with Saddam Hussein in the 70's-80's or of course Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family hmmm. This is nothing in comparison.

[Tag279]

Funny hows this any differ than ohh our dealings with Saddam Hussein in the 70's-80's or of course Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family hmmm. This is nothing in comparison.

Don't forget the Iran Contra Scandal Bush-1 and Reagan were involved in.:cwink:

And you know something else McCain voted against the MLK holiday :csad:

[Arc-Light]

Don't forget the Iran Contra Scandal Bush-1 and Reagan were involved in.:cwink:

And you know something else McCain voted against the MLK holiday :csad:

Yeah i forgot Iran Contra......

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama is under a Gigantic Magnifying glass known as the media. It’s focused directly on him. Every Positive and Negative of Obama will be magnified greatly and most of the time blown out of proportion by the media. On the other hand McCain is barely getting media attention. All most every gaff that McCain has made has completely gone unnoticed or completely ignored. Same goes for his positives they also get ignored.

Obama isn't getting a free pass he's just getting more coverage and McCain is getting less coverage.

So if you still fell that obama is getting a free pass with his Positives then McCain is getting a free pass with his Negatives.





Thank you for posting this. Saves me the trouble of having to respond to Stormin. ;)

No love lost Stormin...but I disagree with your assessments on several areas, and I think you may be being just as biased in them as you accuse the media of.

[Marx]

NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama keeps lead
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25816799/

[Varient]

scary.
obama @ 8 years old has been tagged with knowing an admitted terrorist who was never convicted.

Do the anti- obama realize how they sound dragging this silliness up???

[Excel]

Can someone explain to me how this "the surge is working" argument is supposed to gain McCain points with voters??? The war was still unnessecary. 1000's of soldiers have died. Billions of dollars have been lost. And what has the U.S. and it's citizens gained?

If you look at where we were before the war, and where we are now because of the war, there is NO success, only loss. So sorry John, the surge can work all it wants now, doesnt change the fact that you were so dead wrong the 1st time around that any "success" the surge brings is still totally negated by all the **** we've lost in the past few years because of you and a few others decisions; decisions your opponent was against at the time.

So I dont really care if Obamas was "wrong" about the surge, he was RIGHT about the war as a whole and you were wrong. So what is your point?

[Crowforge]

There doesn't seem to be a coherent strategy to win for Mccain other than spreading misinformation about Obama and playing gotcha politics. I use to think Mccain had standards but he's done everything he could to try and win.

[Superman]

For the folks that have not clicked the link. Here is the article about Obama's link to Ayers:
Obama's 'Weatherman' Connection

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/19/PH2008021900931.jpg
Chicago Police photos of William Ayers in 1968

"William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."
--Former counterterrorism official Larry C. Johnson, The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html), Feb. 16, 2008.
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.

The former Weatherman, William Ayers (http://www.billayers.org/index.php), now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63) in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago (http://www.woodsfund.org/Folder_1042751691717/Folder_1063313904706/File_1063313710297), between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here (http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/ContribListSearches.aspx?NavLink=1). They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts

The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811) on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine (http://fe15.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080215/pl_bloomberg/aui514sg_cta)."

Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html)on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."

The London Sunday Times joined the chorus (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382313.ece) this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".

The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out (http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/vetting_obama_hill_has_weather.html), Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm) of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington (http://www.woodsfund.org/about/staff), said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."Lets looks at the facts of this.

1) William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.

2) Apart from blowing three of their own members up in an accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse, No one was ever harmed in their bombing campaign because they would always issue warnings in advance.

3) Obama was 8 years old when this Weatherman group did what they did.

4) William Ayers was never convicted of any crimes.

5) William Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

6) William Ayers and Obama were members of the board of an anti-poverty group.

7) Ayers contributed $200 whole dollars to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001.

8) They lived within a few blocks of each other and knew some of the same people.

Did I miss anything?

Well that's it, I'm not voting for Obama. With all of that evidence he must be a terrorist.:whatever:

[Superman]

Can someone explain to me how this "the surge is working" argument is supposed to gain McCain points with voters??? The war was still unnessecary. 1000's of soldiers have died. Billions of dollars have been lost. And what has the U.S. and it's citizens gained?

If you look at where we were before the war, and where we are now because of the war, there is NO success, only loss. So sorry John, the surge can work all it wants now, doesnt change the fact that you were so dead wrong the 1st time around that any "success" the surge brings is still totally negated by all the **** we've lost in the past few years because of you and a few others decisions; decisions your opponent was against at the time.

So I dont really care if Obamas was "wrong" about the surge, he was RIGHT about the war as a whole and you were wrong. So what is your point?Well said. :up:

[Kelly]

I would hope that Obama does not think that I'm ignorant enough to actually think that this is not a calculated campaign move, going to the Middle East.

I would hope that McCain does not think that I'm ignorant enough to actually think that it was not a calculated campaign move, going to the Middle East, and then to South America.

I'M NOT THAT IGNORANT.


With that said, Who TF cares.......good moves on both campaigns.

Obama is simply more lucky than McCain that the big 3 kiss his ass more this time around than they do McCain's. Politics is tough!




No - I am criticizing the notion the Obama is visiting the Middle East as anything other than the Democratic Nominee's photo op. This is not a Senator (or even a Presidential Nominee) visiting these nations in order to get a better sense of whats happening on the ground, as proven by the fact he wrote his plan for the future of Iraq and Foreign Policy BEFORE he left! BEFORE he met with Petreus!

The Media is covering this man with the highest absence of professionalism displayed in a long time.



Yes. The Media is in the boat for a candidate, which is terrifying when you consider how little we know about him. The Media should be vetting candidates, not massaging their ego's.

I did find him talking policy on the Middle East BEFORE he went to the Middle East, but come on SN, McCain's trip to the Middle East and South America recently was done for the same exact reasons, CAMPAIGNING.

He just didn't get the big 3 going with him.

They have been tough on him, he has had trouble with all 3 of their major interviews with him. He got alittle perturbed at Katie Couric because she wouldn't leave the surge question alone.

But lets not be ignorant, both campaigns are using these trips for their gain. THAT IS the reason they are going.

[Crowforge]

Also I find the notion that you can't get accurate info on Iraq in this country even as a member of the federal government ridiculous. Like the news and military have been lying to us.

[Superman]

What debate has he backed out of?

Has CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox???? which of those put together a debate that he backed out of?

Good question.Did anybody ever answer this one?

[Kelly]

No, I think some are equating the town hall meetings with debates.

[Varient]

scary AND sad.

I'd be embarrassed if I posted some of this silliness as folk have as reasons to not vote Obama.

I mean,.. just reading along HERE knowing what I do know listening to the news - McCain did the same thing last earlier that Obama is doing now,... from the same position, and got nothing but good press,... Obama does it,.. and all I hear is whining where Obama shouldn't be going,.. that the reasons he said he was should not be believed,... That instead of doing what McCain did earlier,.. he should be debating McCain @ town meetings where McCain is picking location and topics???

LOL
And his terrorist ties @ age 8???

Scary AND Sad.

[Matt]

He was age 8 when Ayers was in the Weather Underground. He was a fully grown man when he decided to have his first state senate campaign meeting at Ayers' home. You can try to brush it off all you want, its not a good thing.

[Kelly]

I would be more embarrassed by the lack of research before posting that goes on around here. It runs both directions.

[jaguarr]

He was age 8 when Ayers was in the Rainbow Coalition. He was a fully grown man when he decided to have his first state senate campaign meeting at Ayers' home. You can try to brush it off all you want, its not a good thing.

Don't you mean the Weather Underground? :huh:

jag

[Superman]

He was age 8 when Ayers was in the Rainbow Coalition. He was a fully grown man when he decided to have his first state senate campaign meeting at Ayers' home. You can try to brush it off all you want, its not a good thing.To you and anyone trying to find a reason to hate Obama it's not a good thing. To everyone else it's just a rediculous argument.

[Matt]

Don't you mean the Weather Underground? :huh:

jag

Yea, but Claire never stops crying and I've been awake for basically two days so leave me alone :csad:

[Matt]

To you and anyone trying to find a reason to hate Obama it's not a good thing. To everyone else it's just a rediculous argument.

Find a reason to hate Obama? You sound absurd. No, there's no problem with him hanging around with people who said 9/11 was a good thing or that he wishes he killed more people during his days as a domestic terrorist. No problem at all.

[jaguarr]

Yea, but Claire never stops crying and I've been awake for basically two days so leave me alone :csad:

My son has had Teh Colic as well. I feel your pain on that, believe me.

jag

[Darthphere]

It's never too late for abortion.

[Matt]

Colic is the worst condition in the history of medicine :csad:

[Darthphere]

Colic is such a stupid name.

[jaguarr]

It's never too late for abortion.

I'll phone your parents and let them know.

jag

[Varient]

He was age 8 when Ayers was in the Rainbow Coalition. He was a fully grown man when he decided to have his first state senate campaign meeting at Ayers' home. You can try to brush it off all you want, its not a good thing.

"Rainbow Coalition"???
I think you must mean:
"Weather Underground Organization."

Okay Matt,.. you believe that it's not a good thing that Obama could have been in the home of a man who admitted being a terrorist back when Obama was 8 years old,.. who is currently considered a respected member of society NOW,... who has only contributed 200 bucks to Obama's political career???

I'm not trying to brush off anything,.... this is scary that THIS could be taken seriously by anyone.

I can't even bring up an equiv,... the closest would be the hostility that veterans of Vietnam have for Jane Fonda...


No heat,.. just going to agree to disagree since your point of holding obama to something so,... so nebulous, goes right past me.

V.