"They're Attacking Me Because I'm White!"

[souvlaki]

The consequences are he can't really attack his opponents in this campaign or he will have to deal with being called out as being a hypocrite. He is in a position where he can't really directly attack anyone, which as Souvalki has said, makes it hard to win.

Well, how exactly is he supposed to attack Clinton on the issues? They are virtually the same in that regard. We haven't seen how he will go after McCain for the most part, but I am sure it will be a little more on topic then the stupid stuff we've seen thus far.

 

[Matt]

So has every other politician that has put themselves on that pedestal. Just in the last forty years Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy come to mind. Personally I feel he's managed to get dirty from time to time, but he's been far more presidential about it then his opponents. Like I said, if he says or does nothing, he's seen as weak. If he does something, he's a hypocrite.

No one has ever put themselves on a pedestal as high as Obama. While others offer to change policies, Obama claims that he is going to change the whole damn system.

 

[Marx]

No one has ever put themselves on a pedestal as high as Obama. While others offer to change policies, Obama claims that he is going to change the whole damn system.

And therein lies his problem. Obama created this mess for himself.

 

[Cosmic]

The absolute hypocrisy of some Barack Obama supporters is mind boggling. People have been saying for MONTHS Clinton is where she is because she shares a bed with Bill, yet I have never seen Souvlaki complain that those kinds of comments take away from Clinton's numerous accomplishments (a degree from Yale Law, endless work for children charities, etc). No one has complained about people "marginalizing" Hillary Clinton though.

And frankly, I think that is a good thing. We SHOULD be asking these questions. Does a half-a-term Senator really have what it takes to lead the free world? Does Clinton really have the qualifications outside of banging Bill? Is Obama getting a free pass because he is black? Clinton because she is a woman and an ex-President's wife? These kinds of questions SHOULD be asked. We are giving these candidates absolutely ZERO scrutiny. And scrutiny isn't deciding between Clinton and Obama.

Good lord! These aren't serious questions.

The questions they should be asked should focus on public policy.

-How do you plan to address poverty in America and around the globe?

-How do you plan to address the issues of HIV/AIDS?

-How do you plan to support American working families, and senior citizens?

-What's your vision for the future of American educational systems?

And by the way, I don't ever think to second-guess white men who run for public office. "The media is giving him a free pass because he's white!" Come on, this is ridiculous...

 

[redfirebird2008]

And therein lies his problem. Obama created this mess for himself.

It won't become a mess until he's in the White House and there aren't big sweeping changes. As far as campaigning goes, it's a brilliant move. Bill Clinton used it. JFK used it. GWB used it. All of them got elected using the politics of sweeping change and not one of them delivered on it. One of them was a great President (Clinton). One of them was assassinated and therefore no one remembers the bad policies he came up with. And the other one is one of the worst Presidents we've ever had. I think Obama would be in the mold of Clinton, particularly since he has a lot of Clinton's people working in his campaign. Good President but not a real agent of change as his campaign suggests.

 

[souvlaki]

No one has ever put themselves on a pedestal as high as Obama. While others offer to change policies, Obama claims that he is going to change the whole damn system.

Crossing partisan lines, changing the way the President works with his opponents, talking about America's hopes and possibilities, instead of their fears. He hasn't talked of changing the system in any more of a dramatic way then any other good politician. Infact, I was always under the impression that you thought he was pretty vague in this regard. Nonetheless, any person that expects presidential politics to be completely clean is being naive. Obama is a politician, and a damn good one at that.

 

[lazur]

It won't become a mess until he's in the White House and there aren't big sweeping changes. As far as campaigning goes, it's a brilliant move. Bill Clinton used it. JFK used it. GWB used it. All of them got elected using the politics of sweeping change and not one of them delivered on it. One of them was a great President (Clinton). One of them was assassinated and therefore no one remembers the bad policies he came up with. And the other one is one of the worst Presidents we've ever had. I think Obama would be in the mold of Clinton, particularly since he has a lot of Clinton's people working in his campaign. Good President but not a real agent of change as his campaign suggests.

I'd argue that you're wrong about Clinton and Bush not making sweeping changes. Just because you may not agree with what's changed, doesn't mean they weren't 'sweeping'. Clinton did wonders for the country economically as well as took many bold steps to reduce inhumane treatment around the globe by oppressive regimes. Bush did wonders in response to 9/11 by going into Afghanistan, and also with tax cuts and 'no child left behind'. Some of these 'sweeping' changes were rolled out with their own share of flaws, and some were just bad at times. But that doesn't make them any less bold.

The problem with Obama and Clinton is that they have absolutely no experience whatsoever leading anything, much less an entire nation during a time of war. And while McCain does have more experience, I don't think he has the chops for it.

As far as I'm concerned, the damage to our political system has been done. These ARE our candidates for President. What I find to be more shameful is that we ever got to this point in the first place. We live in a time when people don't really care about 'what's best for the country or the future' anymore. We live in the time of the 'look at me' generation filled with people more interested in skin color and gender, and what it implies as 'future opportunities' to 'me' and people like 'me', than in actual qualifications for the job of President.

 

[Matt]

Good lord! These aren't serious questions.

The questions they should be asked should focus on public policy.

-How do you plan to address poverty in America and around the globe?

-How do you plan to address the issues of HIV/AIDS?

-How do you plan to support American working families, and senior citizens?

-What's your vision for the future of American educational systems?

And by the way, I don't ever think to second-guess white men who run for public office. "The media is giving him a free pass because he's white!" Come on, this is ridiculous...

But that all goes back to the free pass. Obama had not had a clear platform until two weeks before Super Tuesday. Yet in the year leading up to that in which he was actively campaigning for the presidency, no one in the media questioned that. Do you really believe if a white senator with 2 years experience declared he was running for the presidency and spent a year of his campaign without a platform, no one in the media would raise their eyebrows?

 

[redfirebird2008]

lazur, the change that Bush and Clinton promised was to reach across party lines. They didn't. In fact, they both made things more polarized than it was before they took office.

 

[souvlaki]

I'd argue that you're wrong about Clinton and Bush not making sweeping changes. Just because you may not agree with what's changed, doesn't mean they weren't 'sweeping'. Clinton did wonders for the country economically. Bush did wonders in response to 9/11 by going into Afghanistan, and also with tax cuts and 'no child left behind'. Some of these 'sweeping' changes were rolled out with their own share of flaws, and some were just bad at times. But that doesn't make them any less bold.

The problem with Obama is that he has absolutely no experience whatsoever leading anything, much less an entire nation during a time of war.

As far as I'm concerned, the damage to our political system has been done. These ARE our candidates for President. What I find to be more shameful is that we ever got to this point in the first place.

Kennedy was only a two term senator, and spent half of those terms campaigning for Vice President, and President. He also spent far less time in congress than Obama. Robert Kennedy was only halfway into his first term as Senator when he ran. Lincoln had only served in congress when he was elected. Clinton had no foreign policy experience. And do you honestly believe Obama is not going to appoint people with experience in his cabinet? He is going to be just fine.

 

[lazur]

lazur, the change that Bush and Clinton promised was to reach across party lines. They didn't. In fact, they both made things more polarized than it was before they took office.

Because the prospect of 'reaching across party lines' is absolutely impossible. Our two party system was FAR more polarized than people thought LONG before the likes of Clinton or Bush ever came long.

We need to banish 'parties' and get back to what's important - voting on the experience, integrity, character and principles of candidates, IRRESPECTIVE of whether we may agree or disagree with every political view they have.

If I had to choose any of the three candidates based on experience, integrity, character and principles, it's a toss up between McCain and Obama, though Obama is weaker on experience. There's no way in HELL Hillary Clinton will ever get my vote for anything, even though I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for her husband. I think she's vindictive, heartless and selfish, not to mention a liar who has this creepy 'matriarchal' point of view on everything. Her 'it takes a village' non-sense and her hellbent will toward socialized medical care for the masses are just two examples of what I absolutely detest about her. I guess you could say that I completely dislike her as a human being.

 

[Matt]

Kennedy was only a two term senator, and spent half of those terms campaigning for Vice President, and President. He also spent far less time in congress than Obama. Robert Kennedy was only halfway into his first term as Senator when he ran. Lincoln had only served in congress when he was elected. Clinton had no foreign policy experience. And do you honestly believe Obama is not going to appoint people with experience in his cabinet? He is going to be just fine.

Robert Kennedy was attorney general, curious that you left that out.

JFK spent less time in Congress than Obama but JFK was in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES before Senate. Not the Illinois state congress.

Clinton spent 11 years as governor of Arkansas.

Lincoln lived in a different time and you really can't compare his time's politics to ours'

Comeon Souvlaki, you are beter than this. Are you really going to let yourself be blinded by partisan nonsense? Open your eyes. Look around. SCRUTINIZE OBAMA. I'm not saying don't vote for him, but you don't have to treat him like a god to be worshipped.

 

[souvlaki]

Robert Kennedy was attorney general, curious that you left that out.

JFK spent less time in Congress than Obama but JFK was in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES before Senate. Not the Illinois state congress.

Clinton spent 11 years as governor of Arkansas.

Lincoln lived in a different time and you really can't compare his time's politics to ours'

Comeon Souvlaki, you are beter than this. Are you really going to let yourself be blinded by partisan nonsense? Open your eyes. Look around. SCRUTINIZE OBAMA. I'm not saying don't vote for him, but you don't have to treat him like a god to be worshipped.

I just don't put as much emphasis on experience as some people. If you judge both candidates based on experience neither really holds up. Obama has accomplished in my opinion quite a lot for a first term senator. He is also smart enough to appoint people to his cabinet that I feel can fill in the holes in Obama's experience. Let's wait and see who he picks for VP, and eventually his cabinet before we say an Obama White House will be completely inexperienced, and unable to handle the problems that will face our President the next eight years.

 

[Cosmic]

But that all goes back to the free pass. Obama had not had a clear platform until two weeks before Super Tuesday. Yet in the year leading up to that in which he was actively campaigning for the presidency, no one in the media questioned that. Do you really believe if a white senator with 2 years experience declared he was running for the presidency and spent a year of his campaign without a platform, no one in the media would raise their eyebrows?

So, the mainstream media places more emphasis on personality and public image, than on concrete issues and specific questions. It's not a good thing, but it's the same with Obama as it is for everyone else, and it has been that way for as long as I can remember.

 

[souvlaki]

Wait, Matt... didn't you want Edwards to win? *cough* one term senator *cough*

 

[Matt]

Wait, Matt... didn't you want Edwards to win? *cough* one term senator *cough*

Actually I was a Richardson supporter *cough two term governor cough*

 

[Matt]

So, the mainstream media places more emphasis on personality and public image, than on concrete issues and specific questions. It's not a good thing, but it's the same with Obama as it is for everyone else, and it has been that way for as long as I can remember.

The media still criticized Bill Clinton. John Edwards was charasmatic and likable and he got torn a new ******* in 2004 for being a senator with ONLY 1 term under his belt, yet Obama got a free pass with less than a third of his term complete when he announced his candidacy. Are you really going to say there is not a double standard and that it cannot be attributed to Obama's skin color because that makes a good story for the media?

 

[jaguarr]

You're all racist!



jag

 

[souvlaki]

The media still criticized Bill Clinton. John Edwards was charasmatic and likable and he got torn a new ******* in 2004 for being a senator with ONLY 1 term under his belt, yet Obama got a free pass with less than a third of his term complete when he announced his candidacy. Are you really going to say there is not a double standard and that it cannot be attributed to Obama's skin color because that makes a good story for the media?

Personally I dont think Edwards was or is nearly as charismatic as Obama. That is where Obama has had the advantage in this election when you compare it to the 2004 election. He had more charisma than Edwards, and ran a better ground campaign then Dean. The reason why he is doing better than Edwards both in 2004 and 2008 is not just because he's black, either. Yes, both candidates are charismatic, but Obama has also ran a vastly superior grass roots campaign.

 

[souvlaki]

The media still criticized Bill Clinton. John Edwards was charasmatic and likable and he got torn a new ******* in 2004 for being a senator with ONLY 1 term under his belt, yet Obama got a free pass with less than a third of his term complete when he announced his candidacy. Are you really going to say there is not a double standard and that it cannot be attributed to Obama's skin color because that makes a good story for the media?

So does being a woman. Yet you say they are harder on Clinton then on Obama. If the media give him any sort of free pass, I think it's because he's more likable than his opponent. That isn't a good reason, but like others have said, the media have been doing it for years.

 

[lazur]

Personally I dont think Edwards was or is nearly as charismatic as Obama. That is where Obama has had the advantage in this election when you compare it to the 2004 election. He had more charisma than Edwards, and ran a better ground campaign then Dean. The reason why he is doing better than Edwards both in 2004 and 2008 is not just because he's black, either. Yes, both candidates are charismatic, but Obama has also ran a vastly superior grass roots campaign.

I hate to say it, but you are in complete denial here. Not that there's anything necessarily 'wrong' with being in denial (we all experience that every now and then), but I cannot for a moment even fathom what could possibly endear anyone to Obama to the degree you are when the guy hasn't done jack.

He's a good speaker and he's charismatic. So was Hitler. I'm not 'comparing' Obama to Hitler, mind you, but you need to peel a few layers off the onion before you can decide if it's ripe or if it's rotten, or in the case of a Presidential candidate, if the IMPORTANT characteristics (leadership, experience, etc.) are really there. So far, all I'm hearing from you is that he's charismatic and that he ran a better grass roots campaign than Dean. (Not that I can even pretend to know what you mean by that since Dean ran an exceptional grass roots campaign, unless you're referring to Dean imploding with his 'shriek' during that speech?)

 

[Marx]

Because the prospect of 'reaching across party lines' is absolutely impossible. Our two party system was FAR more polarized than people thought LONG before the likes of Clinton or Bush ever came long.

We need to banish 'parties' and get back to what's important - voting on the experience, integrity, character and principles of candidates, IRRESPECTIVE of whether we may agree or disagree with every political view they have.

If I had to choose any of the three candidates based on experience, integrity, character and principles, it's a toss up between McCain and Obama, though Obama is weaker on experience. There's no way in HELL Hillary Clinton will ever get my vote for anything, even though I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for her husband. I think she's vindictive, heartless and selfish, not to mention a liar who has this creepy 'matriarchal' point of view on everything. Her 'it takes a village' non-sense and her hellbent will toward socialized medical care for the masses are just two examples of what I absolutely detest about her. I guess you could say that I completely dislike her as a human being.

Obama has the same exact mentality about Universal Healthcare that Clinton does. The only difference is how they approach it, but both are exactly the same in terms of coverage. Clinton's "it takes a village" is really no different than the "Let's all hold hands around a campfire and sing" message of Obama.

 

[souvlaki]

I hate to say it, but you are in complete denial here. Not that there's anything necessarily 'wrong' with being in denial (we all experience that every now and then), but I cannot for a moment even fathom what could possibly endear anyone to Obama to the degree you are when the guy hasn't done jack.

He's a good speaker and he's charismatic. So was Hitler. I'm not 'comparing' Obama to Hitler, mind you, but you need to peel a few layers off the onion before you can decide if it's ripe or if it's rotten, or in the case of a Presidential candidate, if the IMPORTANT characteristics (leadership, experience, etc.) are really there. So far, all I'm hearing from you is that he's charismatic and that he ran a better grass roots campaign than Dean. (Not that I can even pretend to know what you mean by that since Dean ran an exceptional grass roots campaign, unless you're referring to Dean imploding with his 'shriek' during that speech?)

No, I said that was why he gets more attention. To deny that the media, and the general public for the most part are shallow when it comes to electing their public officials is being in complete denial. I voted for Obama because of his stance on the issues. And I voted for him because despite his experience, he's accomplished quite a bit. If you really need me to I can repeat every single reason again, but I'd prefer you just use the search button because we've gone over this territory more times than I can count. I don't think he is a perfect candidate, I have never said that. But when it comes down to him, Hillary, or McCain I will vote for him in a heartbeat. And like I've said, let's actually wait and see who he appoints to his cabinet before we write off his administration as inexperienced.

 

[sinewave]

NAFTA and her healthcare plan among others. The flyers that were spread around Ohio (that I received in the mail) completely and deliberately distorted her record. So if we're going to accuse people of playing from the "Republican Playbook," I'm just saying - let's be fair. With regard to that photo, Hillary completely denounced it and said that she was unaware of its origin. (And very forcefully I might add.) Now people can say "of course she would say that," but what more do people want her to do? It seems to me that there are some people who want Hillary to gravel for things that (she may or may not have done,) but are completely fine with Barack pulling the same kind of tactics.

can you post the text of those fliers or point me to a website that might give me the gist of them, please? i'm not questioning what you said, i just haven't seen them and i'm curious to see what kind of false info they contain.

man, this is one humdinger of an election. i thought it'd be good to have two pretty good candidates like this duking it out for the nomination, but it's really just pitting their supporters against each other, which doesn't exactly help unify the party or allow them to focus on the republican's, like i'd hoped would be happening by this point. i'd be fine with clinton as prez, but her level of dirty politics just really doesn't do it for me. i'll admit obama's resorted to some questionable tactics that i'd rather not see between inter-party candidates and he's by no means the perfect candidate, but he's got more pros and less cons for me than clinton. i really wish clinton would drop out because there's just going to be more and more negativity and mudslinging, which will only continue to increase the size of the rift between both candidates' supporters and could potentially come back to haunt us in the general election. i don't see her dropping out before pennsylvania, though.

 

[Marx]

Personally I dont think Edwards was or is nearly as charismatic as Obama. That is where Obama has had the advantage in this election when you compare it to the 2004 election. He had more charisma than Edwards, and ran a better ground campaign then Dean. The reason why he is doing better than Edwards both in 2004 and 2008 is not just because he's black, either. Yes, both candidates are charismatic, but Obama has also ran a vastly superior grass roots campaign.

Edwards and Obama are copies of one another. Plain and simple. One is not more of anything than the other. The difference between this time and 2004 is that no one is "willing to go there" with Obama and scrutinze him for fear of being blasted with "they're all just racist" comments. Look at what Ferraro actually said. Nothing about it was racist, but that's the spin that was put on it. No one can seem to criticize him without being labeled a racist or having racial undertones.

When we come to a point in this country when we have to be so careful in what we say, no one wins.