BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:28 AM

Wins Over Chicago Fed's Canning, a Top Bush Fundraiser

By Jay Newton-Small

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- John Canning has impeccable Republican credentials: He was a Pioneer, one of President George W. Bush's top fundraisers. He's the head of a leveraged- buyout firm. He's the deputy board chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Now he has given the maximum campaign contribution, $4,600, to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Canning says he's fed up with the Republican Party. ``It's become a party that's taken Neanderthal positions on things like stem-cell research and global warming,'' Canning, who was appointed to the Fed post in 2004, said in an interview. ``I no longer find myself on the same page.''

To Canning, 62, the party once represented individual rights. Then in 2005, the Republican-led Congress intervened in an effort to keep Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, alive against her husband's wishes. The move was symbolic of Republican positions on social issues that Canning says he found increasingly frustrating.

Canning is one of a number of prominent Republicans who have turned against the party. At least two other Bush Pioneers are contributing to Obama this time, and Bush's chief 2004 campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, assailed the president's second-term performance in an April 1 New York Times interview.

Canning said he likes Obama's approach to reducing greenhouse gases, his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that he's spent so little time in Washington.

`Strongest Candidate'

``You know when they say someone's experienced, if that means they've spent a long time in Washington, I don't know if that's a pretty good deal,'' he said. ``He's the strongest candidate in the entire field from both parties.''

....


One Bush Pioneer who contributed to Obama, Framingham, Massachusetts-based Staples Inc. founder Thomas Stemberg, also gave to Romney, a former governor of the state. He didn't return phone calls seeking comment. Another, Chicago publicist Jayne Carr Thompson, declined to discuss her contribution to Obama except to say, ``He is a great representative of Illinois.''

To qualify as a Bush Pioneer, fundraisers had to bring in at least $100,000 in donations for the 2004 election. ...Obama also is attracting support from Republicans who aren't prominent in business. It's hard to go to one of his events and not meet at least one Republican, either curious about the senator or already converted.

Volunteer

Until two weeks ago, Kristen Martin was a lifelong registered Republican. On April 15, she wore a blue ``Obama Volunteer'' T-shirt while working a $25-a-person fund-raising crowd in Tampa, Florida.

``One of the reasons I support him is his stance on the war in Iraq,'' said Martin, 31, a registered nurse. ``It's just kills me the way we're viewed overseas.''

David Warden, 50, spent 30 years in the Navy, retiring with the rank of master chief. At an Obama low-dollar fundraiser in Milwaukee on April 15, he blushed and said he was a lifelong Republican.

``I like his perspective, his fresh ideas,'' said Warden, who gave $25 and said he's not considering any other candidates. ``This is the first Democrat I've ever supported, let alone gave money to.''

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:08 AM

Obama, Gospel and Verse
               
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 26, 2007


Yesterday evening I was interviewing Barack Obama and we were talking about effective foreign aid programs in Africa. His voice was measured and fatigued, and he was taking those little pauses candidates take when they're afraid of saying something that might hurt them later on.

Out of the blue I asked, "Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?"

Obama's tone changed. "I love him. He's one of my favorite philosophers."

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

"I take away," Obama answered in a rush of words, "the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."

My first impression was that for a guy who's spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that's a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History." My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it's really interesting to watch.

On the one hand, Obama hates, as Niebuhr certainly would have, the grand Bushian rhetoric about ridding the world of evil and tyranny and transforming the Middle East. But he also dislikes liberal muddle-headedness on power politics. In "The Audacity of Hope," he says liberal objectives like withdrawing from Iraq, stopping AIDS and working more closely with our allies may be laudable, "but they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy."

In Chicago this week, Obama argued against the current tides of Democratic opinion. There's been a sharp rise in isolationism among Democrats, according to a recent Pew survey, so Obama argued for global engagement. Fewer Democrats believe in peace through military strength, so Obama argued for increasing the size of the military.

In other words, when Obama is confronted by what he sees as arrogant unilateral action, he argues for humility. When he is confronted by what he sees as dovish passivity, he argues for the hardheaded promotion of democracy in the spirit of John F. Kennedy.

---

I dare anyone to ask this question of Bush, Cheny or Rumsfield and compare the quality of the answers. Double-dog dare.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:16 AM

No contest and no thanks. It would take too long to explain the concept of philosophy to people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, let alone teach them how to read something other than a balance ledger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:07 PM

I think he is the best candidate in quite some time. Intelligent, practical. ...I think he will be a great president domestically but might get us in deep doo doo internationally, not that we aren't already...I think that his Muslim heritage is quite an advantage internationally...or should be..fanatics will not like the fact he has changed his father's religion. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:15 PM

In short Amos the man has said sweet FA - Go back and read over what you have so assiduously cut 'n' pasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:33 PM

Teribus:

I suggest you misunderstand the purpoe of this thread in your rush to judgement.

As for sweet-fuck-all, I see nothing wrng with speaking from principles, if they are authentic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:03 PM

Gee, I wonder why Teribus doesn't like Obama. Probably has something to do with Obama's skepticism on the War on Terror, which of course in Teribus' fantasy is just about won. All we have to do is stay the course--for a year--or maybe 30.

Of course I'm sure he'll also caution us that the existence of Islam is a danger we're going to have to eliminate--because Islamic radicals exist.

By the way, read yesterday in the WSJ that "the long war" is now out as acceptable language for describing the whatever that's going on in Iraq.

Writer was speculating on a "name that war" contest. Except it's also not to be called a war.



Obama on our current regime: "This president may occupy the White House, but for the past 6 years the position of leader of the free world has been vacant."

Perfect. Couldn't have put it better myself.

This man has command of the language and can think on his feet--a pleasant change from the current situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:10 PM

I would love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:20 PM

So would I--and I think--and hope-- it might well play in the South--which is important. I used to think the ticket would be better reversed--but the more I hear Obama the more impressed I am. Obama/ Edwards is the way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:26 PM

You do be got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:54 PM

Amos, you do some writing of your own don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM

Yes, i do. But I don't clutter up these "Popular Views..." threads with my own writing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 08:39 AM

Obama's religious affiliations bother me, a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:34 AM

Rig, what do you know about them?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:52 AM

Presidential candidates don't get off the ground without religious affiliations in this country. Do you find Obama any different than most of the others?

He seemed to get very good reviews after the debate in S. Carolina...even from some picky talking heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:00 PM

"I see nothing wrong with speaking from principles, if they are authentic."

It's most refreshing to contemplate the possibility of a presidential candidate who actually has principles to speak from. Especially if those principles encompass concepts that include future generations and peaceful solutions to foreign relations difficulties.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:08 PM

"Obama's religious affiliations bother me, a lot."

Really? Sounds like you don't know shit about his religious affiliations. What is there about the Trinity United Church of Christ that bothers you? Or is FOX your source for news?



From the NYT:

'All of the claims about Senator Obama's faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama's stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school. As Obama described it, "Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks." [The Audacity of Hope, p. 274]

To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.

These malicious, irresponsible charges are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of, and that Senator Obama is trying to change by focusing on bringing people together to solve our common problems.'

And YOU, Riginslinger, perpetuate the crap with posts like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:17 PM

Good heavens...how can calling someone a Muslim be malicious? At least it shouldn't be in civilized society. I think his ties are an advantage in this day and age. I realize people will use this against him, but it really should be used for him and for multiculturalism. I believe by their traditions, if the father is Muslim, the children are considered to be as well. I do not say he is one, he is whatever he proclaims himself to be. But if he were one, it would be great. It is great that he has this as a major part of his heritage...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:23 PM

Out of the blue I asked, "Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?"

Bush's tone changed. "Dhhh..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:42 PM

"Good heavens...how can calling someone a Muslim be malicious?"

You might want to think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

How could calling someone a liberal be malicious?

impune communism and add the words "card carrying" liberal
add the word godless
use liberal and traitor in the same sentence.
Repeat for a year...

and its done.

in the Obama's goose is cooked thread the mud slinging tactics were ennumerated.

Although a lie, the whispering campaign about Obama's muslim brainwashing ecucation will be on the lips of the the Bush faithful types forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:13 PM

Normally, it could not be, by basic definition. However, Ann Coulter has provided a new record of mastery in twisting, distorting and filling with hate language that was once a common grounds for communication. So when she says somoene is a liberal, she doesn't mean any definition in the dictionary. She means something like a treacherous double-crossing quisling communist homosexual blackguard wussy wimpy good-for-nothing-slimeball. Of course it has taken her years to gradually establish this definition in even a small pool of her fellow psychos, but there are a number who are willing to have their brains twisted in this fashion who like chasing after her cross-eyed sense of "Wonderland whatever semantics".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:15 PM

If there were no safety issues for him and his family involved, and there are, I would say he should grab on to this and run with it...it is important to have as many people represented in government, and he embodies so many cultures, both in US and internationally....and Muslims need a voice..not that he has to be that voice, but a presence...not that he is one unless he says so but some of his family is. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:22 PM

Back to him and Edwards...I like them both..I think Obama seems more presidential but I must say Edwards has some very good ideas and would be a good vp, especially considering his wife's situation. He had an idea to help men get back with their families, as a presence, as a financial resource, not necessarily remarried or married...hire them, some goes to child support automatically as it should..and Obama had ideas on getting people exiting jail employed before they left, which we need. They also need housing, perhaps, probably, very secure housing, almost like jail but free to leave during the day. Lack of housing keeps many man (I presume women too) in jail and private parties, including myself, do not want to rent to them. Should be almost highest priority for public housing, again, nothing fancy, cement, cleanable, indestructable..spartan enough so you work towards getting something nicer...although I personally could be quite happy in a safe and quiet spartan cell....

Perhaps Richardson for secretary of state..I don't think we will be needing a secretary of defense. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

No secretary of defense?--tell us more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:25 PM

Secretary of Peace?

Or would that make us all too wussy, as some folks insist?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:31 PM

Heaven forfend!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:54 PM

I think that the Department of Defense should go back to its original name: War Department. It would be far more honest, and the State Department could actually go back to diplomacy and working as a Peace Department.

But of course, we all know that the State Department is full of Commie sissies like Colin Powell -- Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon proved that.

I also have the strange notion that if the US is going to commit troops to combat, to a "war", it should be declared by Congress, as per the Constitution, and not given to the President as some sort of "authority to use force." If the President thinks a war is necessary, let him ask Congress for it -- and for the powers that would be necessary, including a draft and rationing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:45 PM

Absolutely, Rap. If the country believes a war is worth fighting, it's worth sacrificing for--and that's not, as in Mr. Bush's interpretation, going shopping.

It means a draft.

Otherwise, it's too easy for the "decider" to have somebody else pay the price.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 08:48 AM

"What is there about the Trinity United Church of Christ that bothers you?"

            A whole lot--you name it. It's about time we had leadership in this country that was capable of thinking for itself.

            But what I was talking about was the speech Obama gave in the Senate, when he encouraged Democrats to court the same wigged-out-religious-wakkos who are supporting George Bush now.

            It's time to start ignoring these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

Sorry, no, Riginslinger. It's time for you to show some of the tolerance for religion that you demand for skepticism.

Also time for you to come down from the ivory tower and recognize reality. The South is heavily Christian. The only Democrats who have been elected President recently have been Southern men with a claim to religious belief. It does not follow that a candidate will attempt to ram that belief down your throat--did Kerry?----it appears that Obama, for instance, is fully aware of the separation of church and state.   And it is reasonable to hold him to it.

But it is not reasonable to reject a good man because of his own personal religion.

And I do not claim to be in the least religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:47 PM

The same stuff was said about John Kennedy. Folks thought that the Vatican would be running Washington. Didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 09:23 AM

"Sorry, no, Riginslinger. It's time for you to show some of the tolerance for religion that you demand for skepticism."


                I guess when one sees a force in the universe that seems to be dedicated to destroying the planet and leading mankind to complete annihialtion, it's hard to be tolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM

Rig--



As you may have heard before, it's not religion which is dedicated to destroying the planet--except in your overheated imagination.

Abuse of religion exists.   This is a revelation? So does abuse of other ideologies.

If you reject Obama because of his religious beliefs, please let us know who meets your stringent standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:26 PM

Yes, I've heard it before, though I'm not at all sure I believe it. Of course, if that is the case, if we could just stamp out the scourge of religion there would be no religion to abuse.

               I'm not saying I reject Obama because of his religious views, I merely said they bothered me. This could have a lot to do with the fact that everytime the popular media presents someone to the public to represent the black community, it's always Reverend this or Reverend that. These people's views do not seem consistent with other black Americans I have known and worked with.

                In addition to that, I'm afraid if he was successful in getting the nomination, the same thing would happen to him in the general election that happened to Harold Ford in Tennessee.

                Finally, looking at the prospect of having another Republican in the White House, I would rather see Hillary Clinton, John Edwards of Dennis Kucinich take the primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 08:27 PM

Rig--

Iraq will determine who wins in 2008. If the situation hasn't drastically improved, none of the Republicans now declared candidates has a chance--regardless of who the Democrat is.

I'm not quite as cynical as you are--though I was til recently. Ford had the problem that his opponents could couch their opposition as a stand against corruption--problems in his extended family.

They can't get Obama for that--and anybody with more than one brain cell will realize Obama is not a radical Moslem.

I think the country is ready to put racism behind it---finally.

Obviously, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 08:28 PM

I'm assuming the Democratic ticket will be Edwards/Obama and my rationale includes Edwards broad appeal in the south and his willingness to take firm positions on issues. Obama can add to the tickets appeal as an articulate liberal and a person of color.

Clinton has solid support of 30% of the electorate but very little potential for expanding beyond that among Democrats, and much less among moderate Republicans who are sick of the Bush Administration.

I wish Obama had the experience of a Richardson but he doesn't. Unfortunately, Richardson has the experience but not the popular appeal. I'd vote for him as Secretary of State, if Bill Cohen were not available.

Oh, and as a delegate to Maine's State Convention, assuming I'm elected again, I'll be voting for Kucinich so that his bargaining power will be increased. Last time around Kucinich got over 25% of the Maine delegates.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 08:57 AM

It's too bad the whole thing has turned into a money-raising, spending thing. I think Kicinich has a lot to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 May 07 - 02:46 PM

"...anybody with more than one brain cell will realize Obama is not a radical Moslem."


                A radical Moslem, probably not, but a radical Christian?   Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,RealisticPatriot
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:54 AM

Is Obama muslim in part or other? radical or not, it doesnt matter.read the koran.islam is a message of hate; its followers to be rewarded richly by a god for the number of "unbelievers" they can erradicate from the earth. We classify muslims "radical" by the ones who actually follow the directives given them in their koran. If any of these religious principles play any part in my presidents descision process, i don't want them!

---

Please remember to use one consistent name when you post. If you post under a variety of names, you risk having all your posts deleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:58 AM

I really don't think Obama is a follower of Islam. He's a member of a Christian church--if that makes you feel any better. I think his father was born into some kind of Islamic tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:36 PM

I think he is very clean and articulate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:53 PM

Where did this idea come from that he was Islamic? Sounds pretty reactionary, or possibly an intentional smear campaign from thiose with other axres to grind. And when did the religion test get added into the qualifications for public office? How very unchristian.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:58 PM

". .  .  read the Koran."

Yes, GUEST,"Realistic" Patriot! Read it! It doesn't say any such thing, any more than the Bible does—which, I might add, is a bit problematic. It's only the radical Muslims—just like the Christian fundamentalists—who want to cram their beliefs down other people's throats, or slaughter "heretics" who won't accept their bill-of-goods. They comb through the scriptures (either Koran or Bible) to cherry-pick the verses (more often than not, taking them out of context) to try to "justify" their own heretical beliefs and actions.

These people are neither Muslim nor Christian, no matter how pious their rhetoric.

So Obama's father was a Muslim. But Obama is not. Religious belief is not a matter of heredity, it's a matter of choice.

Besides, what, pray tell, would be so bad about having a president who is Muslim? Apart from certain factions having a hissy-fit over the fact, the same way they had a hissy-fit over John F. Kennedy's being a Catholic?

It sounds like rampant bigotry to me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:24 PM

"Religious belief is not a matter of heredity, it's a matter of choice."

             Your absolutely right about that. And I've always wondered why, then, it should be protected as a protected right for the forces of anti-discrimination, like race or gender.

             If I choose to be a drunk or an opiate addict, the governmen thinks it's perfectly fine to discriminate against me, but if I choose to be a Presbyterian, it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:34 PM

Nor should it be, Rig. Your choice to be a Presbyterian reflects on your views of spiritual matters. Traditionally, the underlying assumptyion is that sensitivity to some kind of spiritual sensitivity makes an individual a better human, more open to such things as ethics, justice, and beauty. However, the absolute respect for self-determination in such matters is the only workable way to implement that principle in a free society. At least, I can't think of a more workable one.

The problem gets multiplied inordinately and unnecessarily when spiritual interest or curiosity is automatically associated with one or another sets of silly icons, bizarre predictions, and far-out (and unfounded) assertions about how the world must be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 07 - 05:07 PM

The point is, it would be my choice to be a Presbyterian, if I chose to be one. I don't choose to be male, female, African or European.

                I don't see any reason to antagonize somebody unnecessarily, but governmental sanctions should only apply, it seems to me, when people are unvoluntarily herded into classified groups.

                Though I'm not at all sure any of this has anything to do with Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:06 PM

I suspect that not everyone would choose to be the religion they were raised in. Well, me for example. I would be a unitarian or druid or something..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 07 - 10:24 AM

The point is, however, as some time in their life they do choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 02:17 PM

Democrats Overtake Republicans in 2008 Ballot
May 9, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Barack Obama leads three prospective Republican presidential nominees in the United States, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates released by Newsweek. 50 per cent of respondents would vote for the Illinois senator, while 43 per cent would back former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In addition, Obama holds a 13-point advantage over Arizona senator John McCain, and a 19-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

In other contests, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Giuliani by three points, McCain by six points, and Romney by 22 points. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is also ahead against the three Republicans.

On May 7, Giuliani called for an expansion of the country's armed forces, saying, "I believe America needs at least 10 new combat brigades in addition to those already proposed (that) are already in the budget."


In American elections, candidates require 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the White House. In November 2004, Republican George W. Bush earned a second term after securing 286 electoral votes from 31 states. Democratic nominee John Kerry received 252 electoral votes from 19 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15674

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 May 07 - 03:31 PM

Obama, Clinton and Edwards have stated that "Iran is not off the table". Code word for possible invasion. As aggravating as Gravel appeared to be, I think he told the truth. Not sure that on policy regarding "national security" (a buzzword for police states and invading foreign countries) makes Obama, Clinton and possibly Edwards much different from the GOP position. None of them are talking about reducing nukes.

Kucinich makes the most sense to me.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 May 07 - 05:04 PM

Frank, Tell me how to make Kucinich more competitive. I feel the same way you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 05:52 PM

Make him Obama's VP?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 May 07 - 06:03 PM

Obama would have to get the nomination first, and I'm having a hard time seeing that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 06:47 PM

US DJ criticised over Obama song (BBC News)

Limbaugh has referred to Barack Obama as "Halfrican American"
US talk show host Rush Limbaugh has come under fire for airing a racially charged song about the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Limbaugh has been playing a song called Barack the Magic Negro, to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon.

The right-wing talk show host defended himself by saying he is an entertainer and the song is a parody.

Mr Obama, who hopes to become the first black American president, has played down the row.

Rush Limbaugh, whose radio show is one of the most popular in the US, justified running the song by saying that an article by a black commentator in the liberal Los Angeles Times was the first to link the term "magic negro" to Mr Obama.

Limbaugh said liberals upset about the term should be aware that "magic negro" is a historical cultural term, a reference to benevolent African-Americans portrayed in old films.

'Inflaming audience'

The song, he said, was intended to make fun of the problems Mr Obama's candidacy poses to "race-obsessed Democrats", as well as questions from media pundits as to whether Mr Obama was "black enough".

Mr Obama said he had not heard the song but that he did not take himself so seriously as to be offended by every comment made about him.

His campaign team described the song as dumb.

Karl Frisch, a spokesman for Media Matters, a US monitoring group, said the song was consistent with previous comments by Limbaugh, such as referring to Mr Obama as "Halfrican American".

Mr Frisch accused Limbaugh of inflaming his audience.

The song was first aired in March and there has been a lot of internet traffic associated with it.

The CBS News website has temporarily blocked all readers' comments on its stories about Mr Obama.

Mike Sims, the director of the website, said CBS could not collectively delete the derogatory remarks because of their "volume and persistence".

Mr Obama was last week given secret service protection after threats appeared on white supremacist websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 May 07 - 06:53 PM

And, of course, Don Imus is off the air for making comments that were not intended to harm anyone, though I'll admit they were insulting, while we have this kind of insanity being broadcast unchecked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:26 PM

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed," Obama told a crowd of 500 in Richmond on Tuesday. The actual number of deaths was 12.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:11 AM

Dickey:

Why did you leave out his later statement correcting and apologizing for the misstatement? Trying to slant things?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:14 AM

Dickey slant things? Nooooooooooooooooooooo . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:23 AM

That's the trouble with being a politician. Every single word that comes out of your mouth can come back to haunt you.

Has anyone among us never once made an error when they were talking about something?

Besides me and Dickey and Chongo, I mean..... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:19 PM

Apollogies are only accepted from democrats and left wingers:

Howard Dean: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? " Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here." PASS

Trent Lott: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either" Forced to resign.

Klansman Byrd: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." PASS

John Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." PASS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 01:28 PM

"Why did you leave out his later statement correcting and apologizing for the misstatement? Trying to slant things?"

Amos,

Are YOU sure you want us to apply the same standards you are putting on him to be applied to you and YOUR posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 07 - 02:37 PM

What's wrong with Dean said there? Well I suppose it might offend some Republicans, but I can't see how anyone could see it as in any way racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 07 - 03:12 PM

Aww...horsefeathers. You are all guilty of what you accuse others of. Just admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 11:16 PM

The other side of the story is too much for Amos to deal with so he tries to dogpile it.

I don't see any original thinking by Amos. He just echos whatever negative crap he can dig up and adds some spin of his own.

Play it safe Amos, follow the crowd. When things go wrong just call someone a liar to throw the attention on them while you wiggle off of the hook.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:43 AM

Dickey:

I notice you did not answer my question in your haste to throw slurs.

Obama made a perfectly clear apology and explanation for his error. As a responsible person who misspoke would do.

I just wondered why you left that out.

I fail to understand why this question means I am accusing you of lying, which I did not.

What is it you think I am wiggling off of, exactly? Do you have any specifics for your peculiar accusation?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:27 AM

Dickey:

You really do need to do a bit of research before regurgitating your chosen drivel:

When was Byrd's quote from? When was Lott's quote from? I know--do you? The answers make a big difference.

Kerry's quote was from a joke he botched--by leaving out one word.

Not that we'd ever want to imply that you are an amazingly credulous right wing fool. As Cheney might say, I'm not here to state that.

Have you ever figured out what a non-denial denial is?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:03 PM

Obama will vote for the Feingold amendment:

"Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin's proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding."

"I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

"Meanwhile, I'll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:03 AM

Obama unplugged (in DER SPIEGEL)
(Note: the magazine is left of the middle, but this particular journalist is right of the middle, especially when it comes to discussing economy)

The senator from Illinois does not live up to the myth his campaigners are trying to create.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:24 PM

Wow. He learned all about Obama in one speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 07:20 AM

Thanks for the link Wolfgang, I particularly liked this observation:

"Comparing Apples and Oranges

And Obama does exactly what populists like to do most: He compares apples and oranges. A kids project in Harlem that he would like to see extended across America costs $46 million a year -- the kind of money that is spent in just one morning in the Iraq war, he says. Let's invest this money better, he calls out to the audience. The applause speaks for the effectiveness of these kinds of comparisons. But it also speaks against the candidate.

Buying toys instead of weapons is the surest way for America to lose its status as a superpower. The conflict with an aggressive Islam could not be won in this way. Naturally Obama knows this -- that's why in an article for Foreign Affairs he writes that in his opinion the US military urgently needs to be "revitalized." That means more money, more soldiers and more ground forces -- he suggests an increase of around 100,000 men and women. "A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace," he writes."

As I stated on another thread, the crop of U.S. Politicians around at the moment could not lead a well trained dog on a leash.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 04:32 PM

Obama says Clinton has foreign policy like Bush's

By Steve Holland
Reuters
Thursday, July 26, 2007; 12:26 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama accused Hillary Clinton on Thursday of backing a foreign policy toward hostile nations no different than U.S. President George W. Bush's in an escalation of their war of words this week.

Obama, an Illinois senator, fired back at New York Sen. Clinton for calling him "irresponsible and naive" for saying during a CNN/YouTube debate on Monday that he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela during his first year in office.

The dust-up between the two top contenders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in the November 2008 election has been the most dramatic spat thus far in the campaign.

Clinton has tried to portray herself as the most experienced option among Democrats, far more prepared to be commander-in-chief than Obama, who has been in the U.S. Senate less than three years compared to her eight years as first lady to President Bill Clinton and senator since 2001.

Clinton took a more cautious approach to a debate question about meeting troublesome world leaders, arguing the president should only meet with such leaders after lower-level diplomatic spadework is completed.

Obama, in a conference call with reporters, said that is Bush's position as well.

"The Bush administration's policy is to say that we will not talk to these countries unless they meet various preconditions. That's their explicit policy," Obama said.

At the same time, Obama seemed to walk back a little bit from his debate position, saying diplomatic preparation would be necessary before presidential meetings.

"Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork. But the question was, would you meet them without preconditions, and part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no," he said.

"You'll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from theirs," Obama added.
(From WAPO)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:57 AM

Analysis: Obama Talks Tough on Terror
By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 11:29 PM


WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama warned Pakistan Wednesday that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists, the second time in two weeks that he's staked out a dramatically different road for U.S. foreign policy.

The Illinois senator's tough talk against Pakistan comes after he pledged to meet with leaders of rogue nations who have been rebuffed by President Bush.



Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a town hall meeting, Monday, July 30, 2007, at Roosevelt Middle School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) (Charlie Neibergall - AP)


Maria Ramirez officiates as Marcia and Elvis Jimenez are married in the courthouse. (Carol Guzy - The Washington Post)
SEE FULL COLLECTION
Feedback

In Today's A Section
• House Passes Bill to Support Renewable Energy
• Inspections Note Significant Flaws, But Officials Call Area Bridges Safe
• The Rise Of Jeri Thompson
• Tougher Stance on Pakistan Took Months
• No Money Down Disappearing as Mortgage Option
» More in Today's Print Edition
Save & Share Article        What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

And while Bush has embraced Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf as a valued ally in the war on terror, Obama said he would take a harder line. He said Musharraf must do more to shut down terrorist operations along the Afghan border or risk a U.S. military attack against the foreign fighters and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Obama's stance against Pakistan comes after last week's dispute with top rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in which the New York senator accused him of being "irresponsible and naive" for saying he would meet with heads of states such as Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran without conditions.

This new policy is designed to show that Obama would be a tough commander in chief when times demand it, even though he opposed the Iraq war and wants to open a dialogue with foreign foes.

Obama's foreign policy ideas all have one thing in common _ they stake ground on the flip side of current U.S. policy when many voters are dissatisfied with the country's direction in the world. The first-term Illinois senator is determined to show he can give diplomacy a fresh start.

"It's time to turn the page," Obama said four times in a 45-minute speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The speech was written by Ben Rhodes, a longtime aide to Center president, Sept. 11 Commission Vice Chairman and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton.

While he is rejecting Bush's approach, Obama is also trying to lump Clinton in with the administration. His speech also criticized Congress' approval of the Iraq war resolution four times.

"With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war," Obama said. In 2002, Clinton vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding to mount another attack on the United States. ... (WAPO)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:01 PM

Again I will say he is the best seeming domestic candidate to come down the pike in a long time. He is exactly what America needs, especially the young men of America need something in the way of a role model, but someone who can talk sternly to them when needed. But why oh why is he talking about invading one of our allies? There are things best left unsaid or said behind closed doors or whatever....Drop Iraq, invade Pakistan....I can not grasp the logic, even it is were just to get votes, which I don't think it was...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:48 PM

Obama's little outburst regarding his intentions toward Pakistan, will almost guarantee the stopping of any on the ground intelligence coming out of Pakistan. Hillary is perfectly correct when she states that he is incredibly naive when it comes to foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:21 PM

Surely he knows about saving face etc....their's...when they have done a lot to rout out terrorists there..probably others in the same area supporting them...but surely this is so the opposite of diplomacy, statesmanship etc...I am always thinking well, someone must know more about it than me, and perhaps he does, but I can not understand going after our few allies. Allies good, enemies bad...hard to tell difference sometimes but try. If he was just trying to look tough, how about speaking harshly to Bin Laden or insurgents etc.    mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:22 PM

I was really excited about his candidacy until I heard his remark about invading Pakistan. It left me cold and uninterested in him. The will of the people is to get out of Iraq, which means ultimately out of WAR, so why did he have to almost promise another one? I am not interested in ANY candidate who talks war, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM

The new characterization of Obama by the ruling class now calls him Jane Fonda and Dr. Strangelove in the same breath regarding seperate answers Barak gave concerning the use of American nuclear weapons.

Add these to the long list of defamatory propoganda phrases aimed at Barak Obama in the 'Obama's goose is cooked' thread.

In the last election, the black Congressman Ford was defeated by a commercial that implied he consorted with white women (at a Playboy Magazine party in which Bill OReilly was also in attendence).

Eventually an ad will infer that the safety of white women in America will be threatened if Obama is given any exedutive powers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

Legitimate concerns about national security, which I have, are way different than defamatory propaganda. Like I said, I wished I had more confidence in him to lead us through possible attacks on the USA, and I don't. I do wish there was only this country to worry about, and then I would wholeheartedly support him, as I think he has an extreme lot to offer. Maybe if he had General Powell advising him, maybe some other solutions..I don't know...but I was stunned when I heard that Pakistan remark. I would like to see him president but I can't reconcile it with that comment..which is not only ignorant, as far as I can tell, but inflammatory and self-destructive and dangerous for the country. Maybe someone can help him but he might have totally self-destructed with that..hopefully there is a role that he can fill...president if he can persuade us he is not a loose cannon..but maybe secretary of education or health and welfare or something. Vice President, when he should have been president..but not to Hillary, God forbid she gets the nomination, which she probably will at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:55 PM

There are way worse politicos out there already in office and contending for office, than Obama could ever be.

I don't think his comments on Pakistan constitute his policy, I think he's trying to position himself outside of his own party as having certain hawk-like components. Hillary's riposte was alert on her part but not impossible to foresee on his part. He's thinking beyond the nomination.

Mitt Romney's comments were cute but no death blow.

I like the way Obama presents himself. He has a sense of humor.

What he does not have is experience in power. I would prefer there was more of a history there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:46 PM

If you want to show that you have hawk-like components to your personality, will stand tough etc...there are enemy terrorist groups etc. you can speak harshly about..not your allies who are fighting the terrorists alongside you and providing you with logistical bases, intelligence etc....granted the terrorists are intermingled with host country, but nevertheless....you can say we will assist the Pakistani government in routing out our mutual destructive enemy etc...It is sort of like when Ford didn't seem to realize Poland was a communist-controlled country. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 02:36 AM

mg you're sort of helping me with my point. When Pres. Ford made that statement about Poland he was clearly suffering a mid-debate brain fart, for which he paid heavily. I don't think for a moment given time and consideration he would have said what he said. It's a genuine case of mis-speak.

Obama is trying to make some political hay and establish himself as a would-be 'player'. He is betting that his gains will exceed his losses, politically.

As for our 'ally' Pakistan, in a part of the world where the US is trying to establish democracy, it is a military controlled state which has enabled the greatest dissemination of nuclear weapons technology in two generations...it has made a peace treaty with Al Qaeda. Afghanistan does not look upon Pakistan with great affection as a sanctuary for elements of the Taliban. And the present US government had no qualms about calling up the leader of Pakistan and out-and-out threatening him and his country to secure his cooperation.

So, while I have reservations about Obama as stated above, his little aside about Pakistan should not be blown out of proportion, although I'm sure it will be, like Howard Dean's little war whoop.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:06 AM

On August 21, 2007, democrat and U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Obama called for an end to the inhumane economic sanctions that were imposed by the Bush administration in 2004 and 2006, which mercilessly divide Cuban families (1). The draconian measures, designed to strangle the islands economy and ultimately bring down the Cuban government, limit visits to the island by Cubans living in the U.S. to 14 days every three years. Cubans wishing to travel to Cuba must obtain State Department authorization and must intend to visit a direct relative. As defined by Bush, this includes grandparents, parents, siblings, children or a spouse. Therefore a U.S. citizen of Cuban origin does not have the right to visit cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces or nephews who have remained in Cuba (2).



Obama also denounced the restrictions on remittances that Cuban-Americans can send to their families (maximum $100/mo). "This is both a humanitarian and a strategic issue. That decision […has] had a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of the Cuban people," he declared. As president, "I will grant Cuban-Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island," he promised (3).



The Illinois senator also stated his willingness to begin bilateral talks with the government in Havana. "To normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades." Obama is the first presidential candidate to suggest the possibility of lifting the economic blockade against Cuba. This is an extremely positive development even though the distinct stench of colonialism that emanated from his some of his words illustrating his intention to impose conditions on a sovereign nation was lamentable (4).



Felipe Pérez Roque, Cuba's minister of foreign affairs, welcomed Obama's initiative, "These declarations express the opinion of the U.S. majority." The minister denounced the barbaric and anachronistic cruelty of the Bush administration toward Cuba (5) and pointed out that the restrictive measures violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to free movement (6).



Conversely, democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, eyeing campaign contributions from the extreme rightwing heirs of the Fulgencio Batista regime, called Obama's rational point of view "irresponsible and frankly naive" (7). She called for continuing the economic sanctions, remaining faithful to her husband legacy. Bill Clinton signed the senseless, retroactive and extraterritorial Helms-Burton law of 1996 in hopes of delivering the coup de grâce to the Cuban Revolution. "She supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba," stated her spokesman, Mo Elleithee (8).



The vast majority of the general public in the U.S. as well as the Cuban-American community strongly support lifting the economic sanctions that seriously suppresses the standard of living on the island. The blockade imposed on Cuba since 1960 demonstrates Washington's inability to recognize the independence of the Caribbean nation. Not to mention that it has been totally ineffective. The government of Fidel Castro has proposed dialogue based on mutual respect several times to the White House. But so far, the northern neighbor has not come to terms with and still refuses to acknowledge Cuba's liberation from U.S. tutelage in 1959.


Jen Psaki, spokeswoman for Barack Obama, summed it up this way: "Ultimately, this election is a choice between staying with the failed policies of the past […] or turning the page and taking a new approach to global diplomacy." It is yet to be seen whether reason and common sense will prevail and the cruel and unjust punishment exacted on the Cuban people will disappear forever.


From this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 02:13 PM

"...In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Winfrey said she will not use her "platform" on Obama's behalf -- meaning her show and her eponymous magazine -- but instead will speak for him with her "personal voice."

Why? "Because I felt it was the right thing to do. And you know, I weighed that: What is the cost to me for doing it? Am I going to lose viewers? I made the decision that I have the right to do it as an American citizen. . . . I know him well enough to believe in his moral authority. And that is the number one reason why I am supporting him."

Timing is everything, in entertainment as well as politics. Winfrey's upcoming campaign appearances with Obama will come less than a month before the nominating caucuses in Iowa, where a recent Post-ABC News poll showed Obama with a slim lead. Winfrey's support might not make any difference. But if I were running for president, I'd rather have her with me than against me.

Asked by the Hollywood Reporter whether she had any doubts -- not specifically about politics but about herself, about life, about anything -- Winfrey gave this answer:

"No, I don't have any doubts. I really don't. Because I live in a very spiritual space -- not a religious space, but I live in a spiritual space where I understand the connection that we all have with each other. It's not just rhetoric for me. I really do understand the common denominator in the human experience."

If anyone else were to say such a thing, it would sound like nothing but a bunch of New Age newspeak. When Oprah Winfrey says it, you can't escape the nagging feeling that she knows something the rest of us don't. "

(From a Washington Post column).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 12:57 PM

Obama hopes for sane solutions

Globe Columnist / December 4, 2007


BARACK OBAMA talked softly that he would beat off the big stick the Republicans are sure to wield on immigration. "Yes we have to have comprehensive immigration reform, we have to be serious about border security, we have to crack down on employers who are taking advantage of illegal immigrants, and we have to have a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million who are here," the Illinois senator told the Globe's editorial board yesterday in its series of endorsement interviews before the New Hampshire primary.

"But the politics of immigration I don't think will change until American workers feel as if somebody is listening to them, looking out for them, fighting for them and their economic concerns . . . If people see that we're taking those steps, then it puts them in a more generous mood when it comes to immigrants."

To borrow from the title of one of Obama's books, he has the audacity to hope for sanity if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president.

A month ago, front-runner Hillary Clinton came under fire from Obama and the rest of her rivals as well as from conservative talk shows for appearing to vacillate in a debate on a proposal in her New York state to give driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. She went from saying the now-dumped proposal by Governor Eliot Spitzer "makes a lot of sense" to saying "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No."

Obama was one of the candidates who immediately challenged Clinton's position.

"I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer," Obama said. "I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges we face. Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular." ...

Rest of article can be found here (Boston Globe).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:19 PM

CNN Washington Bureau

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Saying she felt compelled to support "the man I believe has a new vision for America," Oprah Winfrey spoke passionately about Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at a rally in Iowa Saturday.

"These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace," Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd.

"I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House," she said. "He's a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be."

Winfrey said she has voted for as many Republicans as she has Democrats over the years, so her endorsement wasn't about partisanship.

"This is very, very personal. I'm here because of my personal conviction about Barack Obama and what I know he can do for America," she said to applause.

Obama thanked Winfrey for drawing a big crowd and coming out to the event.

"There are some people here who are here to see Oprah. I'm sort of a by-product of that and I appreciate that, but what I know is that for her to take the risk of stepping out of her comfort zone is extraordinary," the senator from Illinois said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM

You've got to wonder who would go to see Oprah.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 08:30 PM

Well, fact is, she is loyally followed and trusted by a large following. For better or for worse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:57 AM

Problem is: Hillary does not seem to learned an important lesson from Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time...." Maybe she doesn't think she should pay attention to any Republican--which Lincoln of course was.

But she's trying desperately to be all things to all people--hence her pathetic floundering on the immigration issue, and the issue of attacking Iraq, and the issue of attacking Iran, and........

Obama can--and does--take stands.


And as far as Oprah--she deserves a lot of credit---she's a self-made woman, who among other things, is standing up for vital issues--like the important nature of reading--hence her book club. Even if you may not agree that all her book selections are the best literature, just the idea of encouraging people who watch her show to read is wonderfully laudable.

Admittedly she doesn't show the encylopedic knowledge of luminaries such as St. Thomas (Tancredo)--who does?--and therefore may not be acceptable to Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:00 AM

Have to agree with you on this one, Ron.

I may not like what his stands are, but at least with Obama I know what he stands for, and have some idea of what his future actions might be.

And he does seem to be running on something other than "I am not Bush": That alone could get him a lot of votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:03 AM

And on the driver's license question, Hillary demonstrated that St. Thomas Tancredo was indeed the Republican to whom she should be talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:22 AM

Absolutely, Rig.   Hillary should say forthrightly that she agrees with St. Thomas on the immigration issue. That should settle her hash nicely--and she knows it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:31 AM

The real problem is, she, as well as all the other serious candidates have to deal with the problem of getting the nomination without saying something that would seal their defeat in the general election.

               Obama plays nicely to the home town crowd, but how would he do in the general election. Practical Democrats should probaly oughta be thinkin' about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 09:03 AM

Obama is more moderate than you think, Rig. But still willing to take a stand. And somebody who can break with the 60's (and 90's) legacy weighing Hillary down.

It's time for a change. And Hillary is not change.   She already has an "enemies list".

And, as I've said before, I'm a Republican--though not one who ever supported our Chickenhawk-in-Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 09:37 AM

From what I read, the problem Obama has--tactically--in Iowa, is that many of his supporters are quite young voters. And the Iowa caucus will take place over the Christmas break-- when the vast majority of college students will not be in Iowa. They therefore will not be able to vote there--if that were possible--and will not even be able to help ferry voters to the polls or do other work for Obama.

Whereas Hillary's strongest supporters are appear to be older women--who will be there--and tend to vote in large numbers.

However, if Hillary does not win in Iowa by a large margin, Edwards and Obama can team up afterwards--and stop her.

The visceral anti-Hillary sentiment in the country is huge. Not so high for Edwards and Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 10:51 AM

Balancing his odds and his virtues, and the fact that really only Hillary is in the other pan, I would urge myself (and others) to vote for him. Unless something dramatic changes the picture between now and then, I think he will be a national asset of significance, rather than a national catastrophe (Bush) or a figure-head for more of the same (Hillary).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 11:07 AM

Ron - I think the college age vote not being there is what is working for Gomer Pyle in Iowa on the Republican side as well.

                One problem the Democrats have with Obama, however, is in the South. Most of the black voters there are registered Democrat, so he can expect to do very well in the primary. But in the general election he'd really have trouble. And I wouldn't be surprised if white Democrats will back away from him even more than white Republicans will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

Could be. Someone would need to be a pretty deep-dyed racist to vote against Obama because of his skin colour, but I'm sure there are plenty like that. But I'd also imagine there'd also be quite a lot of people who mightn't be totally sold on him, who might be swayed to vote for him in a general election, as a way of asserting that the USA isn't any longer a racist country. (And the same could apply to Clinton, for analogous reasons, if she turns out to be the Democratic candidate.)

Opinion polls are pretty suspect things, but this round-up of them seems to indicate that either Obama or Clinton would stand a pretty good chance of beating the likely opponents, and there's not a lot between them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:59 PM

This round up of polls - I forgot the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM

Go Dennis!!!

100...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:42 PM

BTW, folks... I haven't been too keen on the various campaigns and therefore haven't said much of anything about any of them other than a few comments about Dennis Kucinich...

Dennis and Barak are the only two candidates, IMHO, who can bring about the "cultural" changes that the American people need to go thru in order for the country to move toward stable ground... Thwe others, except perhaps Bill Richardson, John Edwards included, don't give US much real opportunity to make a serious mid-course correction so...

... if Obama wins the nomination I will take off some time and either head up or work in his campaign in Page County, Va... Of course if Dennis wins, it's a simple as...

...ABC which of course means...

...Anyone But Clinton...

I like Obama/Richradson myself...

Richarson can deliver 2 or three SW states and that is enough to beat out the Repubs... If Virgina goes Dem, and maybe Florida, then it'll look like a landslide next November...

But forget that stuff...

Obama is just okay with me...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:22 AM

Obama's American Idea
               E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


By ROGER COHEN
Published: December 10, 2007
I asked Senator Barack Obama if he's tough enough for a dangerous world. Sometimes the Democratic candidate treads so carefully, and looks so vulnerable to a gust of wind, that the question of whether his legal mind can get lethal arises.

Skip to next paragraph

Roger Cohen

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: Passages "Yes, I'm tough enough," he responded during a half-hour conversation. "What I've always found is people who talk about how tough they are aren't the tough ones. I'm less interested in beating my chest and rattling my saber and more in making decisions that build a safer and more secure world."

Obama, speaking less than a month before the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, continued: "We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgment. Part of our capacity to lead is linked to our capacity to show restraint."

That was striking: an enduring belief in U.S. leadership coupled with a commitment to, as he also put it, acting "with a sense of humility." Skepticism about the American idea and American global stewardship has grown fast during the Bush years.

..(T)his has led some to conclude that the world would be better off if America slunk home. As Joyce Carol Oates wrote in The Atlantic: "How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American idea!" It has become a "cruel joke."

If a global survey were taken, that might prove to be a minority opinion, but I doubt it.

Still, Obama stands by the universality of the American proposition: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a constitutional government of limited powers. "I believe in American exceptionalism," he told me, but not one based on "our military prowess or our economic dominance."

Rather, he insisted, "our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe."

.."Nowhere in American history has the gulf between ideals and sordid practice been greater than on questions of race. It is precisely the gulf between high principle — not least habeas corpus — and unprincipled actions that has done the most damage to America's image in recent years. Once again, Obama appears to bridge and reconcile.

"We can't entirely remake the world," he told me. "What we can do is lead by example."

---

Put him in and let him roll.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 02:35 AM

Rig -

Is your concern mainly over Obama's particular church, or concern over how his beliefs inform his views on separation of church and state?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:07 AM

"It's clear that voters are not only exhausted by the war, they are exhausted by the war over the war. On the Democratic side, Obama captured the mood exactly with his Jefferson-Jackson Day speech of a few weeks ago. In that speech, he asked voters to reject fear, partisanship and textbook politics. He asked them to vote instead on the basis of their aspirations for a new era of national unity. As a result, Obama has pulled ahead in Iowa and approached parity in New Hampshire. "

(TImes editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:04 PM

I think he does best when he just is natural and doesn't try for grand oratory..especially the loud passionate kind. The only problem I have with him is international..I just don't know..I think for the country domestically he would be outstanding. Let his policy wonk side shine through along with natural eloquance..understated preferably.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM

"Is your concern mainly over Obama's particular church, or concern over how his beliefs inform his views on separation of church and state?"


             The concept of a separation of church and state seems to be disappearing. Obama isn't the worst candidate on this issue, but he isn't the best either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM

Frankly, I would rather have Obama's surprises when he has to deal with foreign policy issues, than I would Hillary's surprises; because I believe hers will be much more discreditable than his.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:02 PM

I'm joining the group that's trying to draft Lou Dobbs for president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:09 PM

Just about anybody is going to be an amazing improvement on what you've got now, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:18 PM

That's true, McGrath. That's very true!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:29 PM

Yes...'almost' anyone would be an improvement. I could certainly be comfortable with trusting Obama to lead and make thoughtful decisions. But, that being said, I could be reasonably comfortable with any of the top 4 Democratic candidates...including Biden, though I admit that he has no chance.
   I am more & more impressed with Edwards in the one-on-one interviews I have seen, even though his 'speeches' lack a little.
....and, unlike many, I am NOT against Hillary Clinton. I judge all candidates more by what I see of them in informal interviews, and she is no dummy and is quick-witted and knowledgeable, and despite not being absolutely clear about immigration...(and who IS?..or can be?), she is within my tolerances on most issues.

...If I had to vote, right now, I'd probably give it to Obama by a few points...but no more. He IS just coming up to speed on many issues and needs, despite his 'outsider' claims, a base in Washington and a pool of competent folks for appointments. I would REALLY like to see a list of individuals he might appoint to cabinet and other positions, as I consider that to be as important an issues as the presidency.

We shall see....I just wish ALL of them would stop sniping at EACH OTHER!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:46 PM

I agree Bill. And sometimes I kinda get all dreamy and imagine what the world would be like if pigs could fly, too! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:23 PM

All the sniping in the world between politicians never gets in the wayu of the losers accepting jobs from the winner, and the winner offering jobs to the losers, when that proves convenient. It's not quite shadow-boxing, but it tends to be closer to sparring than to a real fight.

Onlookers and bystanders and hangers on and outsiders take this kind of battling much more seriously than the actual participants. In all political systems (except those where they do actually kill each other, such as the Mafia - and even there they make deals.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:19 PM

A Dud From Team Clinton

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, December 13, 2007; Page A35

David Axelrod, the seasoned Chicago Democratic operative who is chief strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, was taken by surprise in the last minute of CBS's "Face the Nation" on Dec. 2. Howard Wolfson, Sen. Hillary Clinton's spokesman, accused Obama of running a "slush fund." In fact, the Clinton campaign was spreading that story privately months ago.

Last summer, a senior Clinton aide told a famous Democrat believed to favor Obama that the Illinois senator was using his "leadership" political action committee to spread money around the country to grease his presidential prospects. That message was private when Clinton seemed far ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination. It became public when Obama threatened to overtake her.

Before Wolfson spoke out, one of Clinton's close supporters was spreading word of unspecified defects in Obama that should deter Democrats from supporting him. This is the Clinton style that has proved effective for two decades, but Obama has continued to close the gap. This attack mode works best when the accusations are hidden from public view.

Last summer, a few Clinton insiders -- headed by her Senate chief of staff, Tamera Luzzatto -- paid a presumably social visit to the Cape Cod, Mass., vacation home of a prestigious Democrat reported to be in Obama's corner. Luzzatto warned that Obama was ethically challenged because of his leadership PAC. My sources indicated that this was not an isolated incident and that the slush-fund story was spread widely.

A month ago, a Democrat close to Clinton, though not on her Senate or campaign staff, approached a party activist who has not made a commitment to a candidate with this message: Skeletons in Obama's closet would make him vulnerable if nominated. He did not elaborate and said that the Clinton campaign would keep its anti-Obama information to itself, remembering mutually destructive assaults between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in 2004 that facilitated John Kerry's nomination.

The Clinton campaign denied all this, claiming it was a Republican plot. In truth, there was no Republican source for this story. In the wake of these denials, Wolfson made his slush-fund accusation on "Face the Nation" shortly after polls showed Obama passing Clinton for the lead in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses:


"There's a lot that voters don't know about Barack Obama," said Wolfson, "and one thing that they don't know we found out this week, which is that he has been using and operating a so-called leadership PAC in apparent contravention of campaign finance laws." Wolfson demanded that Axelrod say whether he would "shut down Sen. Obama's slush fund." With only 20 seconds left, Axelrod's answer sounded lame: "I think it is shut down, Howard. . . . I don't know that there's any money left in it."

With more time, Axelrod might have noted that Obama's PAC contributed to Clinton's 2006 Senate reelection and, in the current cycle, to Jeanne Shaheen's Senate campaign in New Hampshire, even though her husband, Bill Shaheen, heads that state's Clinton campaign. The "slush fund" just did not measure up to claims of dark improprieties on the part of Obama, and the Clinton campaign did not pursue the issue after volleys were exchanged between the candidates.

The attack strategy has not affected Obama, and Clinton's aura of inevitability is fading. Not only has she fallen behind in Iowa, but polls show that primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina are too close to call. Howard Dean was in a much stronger position in post-Iowa primaries in 2004 than Clinton is today when his third-place finish in Iowa was followed by his national collapse.

The phrase "slush fund" is a hoary part of American politics, dating to a $5 million appropriation in 1874 administered by the federal Treasury, according to "Safire's New Political Dictionary." In 1952, contributions to a slush fund for the use of vice presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon nearly forced him off the Republican ticket. When Hillary Clinton started slipping two weeks ago, her campaign responded by unlimbering the Obama slush fund. The fact that this bomb proved pretty much a dud raises doubt about the whispers of impropriety by this untried candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:54 PM

Anyone who knows Novac will instantly realise he thinks Obama would make an easer target for a Republican in the general election than Clinton would.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 03:17 PM

so...what are we supposed to make of all those innuendos and vague accusations, BB? Pieces of 'information' like that C&P are barely more than piling on dirt. I HATE reading 'suggestive' articles that have little substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:39 PM

Clinton adviser out after Obama comment

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago



CONCORD, N.H. - A top campaign adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton resigned Thursday, a day after suggesting Democrats should be wary of nominating Barack Obama because his teenage drug use could make it hard for him to win the presidency.

Clinton herself apologized to Obama as they waited to fly to Iowa for a debate.

Obama's campaign sent out a fundraising letter contending that "this kind of attack is becoming a pattern as Clinton's support declines."

Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman for Clinton and a prominent New Hampshire political figure, had raised the issue of Obama's youthful drug use during a Wednesday interview, published on washingtonpost.com.

"I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the co-chair of the Hillary for President campaign," Shaheen said in a statement released by the campaign Thursday. "This election is too important, and we must all get back to electing the best qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, had said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is a former New Hampshire governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said.

Clinton personally apologized to Obama when they were on the tarmac at Washington's Reagan National Airport Thursday morning, preparing to fly to Des Moines for a debate, according to aides to both candidates.

"Having been on the receiving end of unfair attacks for years, she doesn't think this is what the campaign should be about," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. "She told him she wanted to win the presidency, but not through tactics like that."

Clinton's campaign said it had nothing to do with Shaheen's earlier comments.

However, Ned Helms, an Obama co-chairman in New Hampshire, said he saw a pattern after the recent resignations of two Clinton volunteer coordinators in Iowa who had forwarded e-mails raising questions about Obama's religion.

"When you see a pattern of people making statements and the follow-up statement, 'Oh, that wasn't authorized,' it doesn't take a genius to see that there's a thread going on here," Helms said.

And the Obama campaign sent a fundraising e-mail to supporters asking for donations to help fight such tactics.

"The only way to stop these kinds of tired, desperate attacks is to demonstrate very clearly that they have a real cost to Senator Clinton's campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe wrote. "Make no mistake — this kind of attack is becoming a pattern as Clinton's support declines."

Obama wrote about his teenage drug use in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father." His rivals have largely remained silent on the subject.

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final fatal role of the young would-be black man," Obama wrote. Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, he wrote, but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it.

New polling shows Clinton and Obama basically tied in New Hampshire. A CNN-WMUR-TV poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire shows Clinton at 31 percent support, Obama at 30. The same poll had Obama trailing by 20 points in September.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:45 PM

"...two Clinton volunteer coordinators in Iowa who had forwarded e-mails raising questions about Obama's religion."


                   That's where I'd go if I wanted to attack Obama. The Swift Boaters will start using his middle name every time they mention him in an ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:41 AM

If you are calling people Swift Boaters and using it in a bad way you are no better than other attackers. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:37 AM

Well, mg, the Swift Boaters created a pretty scuzzy reputation for themselves as slandrers-for-hire who had low regard for the truth. Their tactics were so egregious that the term has become adopted in the national jargon of slang for such underhanded PR manuvers.

Maybe, therefore, they are inheriting the wind as they sowed, so to speak.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:26 PM

Maybe we could call them the Swift-Boat-Swindlers or something, so we don't get them mixed up with folks who were just trying to perform their duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:46 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:06 PM

If there isn't another side to this argument, then I will cite the earlier reference to political actuaries trying to nominate someone they knew even George W. Bush could beat. They had their game plan laid out before the Democratic primary in Iowa.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:13 PM

Rig--

"took Howard Dean out of contention". Again you prove your amazing grasp of political realities.

Howard Dean would have been a total disaster. The Bush "team" was salivating at the prospect of the good old tried- and- true smear campaign against Dean--"soft on natioanal security".

It took quite some doing to paint a Vietnam hero as soft on national security. Harder to do it with Howard Dean?--what are you smoking?

Please enlighten us as to why Dean would have been seen as stronger on national security than Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:14 PM

"national"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM

Ron - Howard Dean was an alternative to George W. Bush. Kerry was Bush light. The voters had no choice and that's exactly what the power brokers wanted. They would win with Ketchup, or they would win with oil.

                They would lose with compassion and having an honest man in the White House, so they did what they had to do to win.

                Ron - Now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over the Wall Street Journal, do yourself a favor and quit reading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 03:23 AM

I share your alarm over the general blurring of separation of church and state at high levels. I don't know if Obama has issued a statement on that, but from what I know from his speeches and writings on a myriad of issues, my gut feeling is that his religion informs him on a very personal level, but the constitution and bill of rights inform him on a governmental level and come first. I'd like to hear all the candidates speak on this issue, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:42 AM

For a number of Republicans, Huckabee for instance, lack of separation is a very good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM

Rig--

As usual, you've not answered the question. It's obvious to any politically aware person that in 2004, the #1 topic was national security--esp the "war on terror".

So please tell us exactly why Dean would be seen as stronger on national security than a
Vietnam war hero.

Be specific please. A transparently false and facile remark about "Bush lite" doesn't cut it.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:36 PM

Ron - With Kerry on board we had a race between oil and ketchup. It was obviously a fix, or the Bush campaign would have hit upon the idea of talking about the 57 varieties of John Kerry. They didn't, so we know there was something up with that.

                Dean, on the other hand, offered a change from buffoonery.

                Kerry thought he could promote himself as a war hero, but he walked into the onslaught of the swift-boaters. It was like they saw it coming--they knew where Kerry was going before Kerry did. The race was only about national security because Kerry's people made it about national security, and then didn't even write any ads about George Bush being AWOL from the air national guard.

                Frankly, I don't see any way Dean could have done worse, and I think he would have done better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:52 PM

Kerry was not in any way Bush Light.   Look at their track records during the Vietnam war.


Anyway, Obama has something that none of the Bush and Clinton eras had enough of, which is personal intelligence combined with character. Bill was smart as all get out, but he was (I think) opportunistic. And I think his wife is more so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:25 PM

Well, I believe that Howard Dean not onlyscared the crap outta the Repubs but also the media, which was primed to jump on him.... And jump they did for what??? Oh yeah... ***The Scream*** Anyone heard George Bush when he gets fired up... He makes Howard Dean sound a mute...

Yeah, Howard Dean was, xcontray to the Repubs sayin' they wanted him, an outsider... It seems that outsiders do well in presidental elections...

Jimmy Carter was an outsider..

Ronald Reagan was an ousider...

Bush I was an insider...

Clinton was an outsider...

Bush II was an outsider...

So that makes 4 out of the last 5 presidents outsiders!?!?!?...

The two folks running well in Iowa, Obama and Hucklebee are outsiders...

Yeah, make no bones about it, the Repubs didn't want any part of Dean... They knew what to expect from Kerry which, with the help of the Sift Boaters, is about what they got...

Outsiders are like left handed fighters... Ya never know quite what to do with them because if you jump on them too hard you get branded a Washington Insider bully and if you don't jump on them hard enough they get the attention of the voters...

Just MO, of course...

Obama/Richardson in '08 and I'll not work for the Green Party and will work for the Dems... Yuck!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM

...ahhhhhh, or Obama/Webb...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 06:24 PM

Bobert - I see it pretty much the way you do. The establishment didn't want Dean on the ticket. They knew they could handle either Bush or Kerry. The didn't want Dean because he might actually spend money to do something good for the people.


                   I think I'll stick with the Greens, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:13 PM

Yeah, Rigs... I understand what you are sayin'... I supported, voted for and campaigned for the Green Party forever and it's real tough for me to work with the Dems...

But if Obama gets the nod, I'm gonna work for him... No, he ain't quite Green Party material but he'd be the best president since Jimmy Carter whi, IMO, was the last man of morals to hold the office...

Yeah, the establishment "Deaned" Jimmy Carter because he was so anti-establishment and I fully expect the establishmne tot try to "Dean" Obama but Obama is a young man with more than a few tricks of his own... He'll be fine...

If ya' change yer mind, Rigs, then come on in...The water is just right... If not, of all the folks here, I'll fully understand...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:59 AM

"But it just may be possible that the single biggest boost to the Obama campaign is not white liberal self-congratulation or the Clinton campÕs self-immolation, but the collective nastiness of the Republican field. Just when you think the tone canÕt get any uglier, it does. Last week Mike Huckabee, who only recently stood out for his kind words about illegal immigrants, accepted an endorsement from a founder of the Minutemen, whose approach to stopping the Òillegal alien invasionÓ has been embraced by white supremacists and who have been condemned as ÒvigilantesÓ by President Bush.

For those Americans looking for the most unambiguous way to repudiate politicians who are trying to divide the country by faith, ethnicity, sexuality and race, Mr. Obama is nothing if not the most direct shot. After hearing someone like Mitt Romney preach his narrow, exclusionist idea of ÒFaith in America,Ó some Americans may simply see a vote for Mr. Obama as a vote for faith in America itself."


NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:51 AM

How do you make them funny "O' things, Amos???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM

I don't know what funny O things you mean, Bobez. The last post I made looks perfectly normal on my screen. If you need to make accented characters, see the on-line HTML guide or the table on this page for how to compose accented characters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 12:29 PM

What's HTML???

And I could go with Obama/Amos, also...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 05:46 PM

So now Bob Kerrey is out doing the dirty work for Hillary. In a very nice way, he mentioned that Obama's father is Muslim, that his middle name is Hussein, and that his paternal grandmother is Muslim as well.

                Then they let that information swirl around in the press for a day or so, and then they mention the entire thing all over again while generating an apology. So all the information is in the news again for another 48 hours or so.

                All of this was done in the form of a compliment.

                But if Obama ends up with the nomination, people like Ruch Limbaugh and Sean Hannity won't cloak it as a compliment. It will be "Swift Boat II" all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM

Oh, yeah, Rigs... The Clinton's are pros when it comes to dirty politics... They didn't call him Slick Willie fir nuthin'...

But I will go on record here, if I haven't said it strongly enough... I wouldn't vote for a Clinton for dog catcher tho seems Bill is purdy good at catchin' 'um...

Okay, maybe Chelsea Clinton for dog catcher...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:56 PM

Hey!

Don't knock Chelsea- She has not (yet) been caught lying to us...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 02:30 PM

1 in 10 peple polled believe he is muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 03:28 PM

It's absolutely amazing how stupid people can be!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 03:54 PM

Well, they're tuned to hate, and there are poeple whose specialty is broadcasting just that frequency, so it gets spread around. Listen to Scarecrows Coulter or Shane and Blame Hannity or Rush "Limp"baugh.   Look how many Americans believed Saddam had something to do woth the WTC attacks.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 05:23 PM

Heck, Amos, there are still a sad percentage of Americans who still believ that Saddam was in on 9/11... Hard to unlearn propanda when is it pounded into you...

Yeah, it's sad...

That's why I believ that every should be able to vote but not all votes should be counted... Yeah, there should be a short quiz on one's knowledge of the government and current events that everyone should have to pass in order for their votes to be counted...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 05:48 PM

Didn't they used to do something luike that in some parts of the States as a way of stopping black people voting? Pick the right questions...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:39 PM

"Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this. An African-American man wins a closely fought campaign in a pivotal state. He beats two strong opponents, including the mighty Clinton machine. He does it in a system that favors rural voters. He does it by getting young voters to come out to the caucuses.

This is a huge moment. It's one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

Iowa won't settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.

He's made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.

Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too. "

By DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist
Published: January 4, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:04 PM

I agree with Brooks. I believe that we are at a historic moment in the history of the USA. We are finally seeing the fruits of the epic struggles of the 20th century that dealt with equality on all fronts. This country, for all the great things it managed to accomplish (in spite of its flaws and misteps), still struggled with bigotry that effectively robbed it of over half of its talent and braintrust. But it appears that we have two generations that have had enough. Color and gender, for these generations, mean very little. We have a man of color who is being spoken of in glowing terms, and who is exciting the country. We have a woman who is still the odds on favorite nationally and is a very serious candidate. We have a Trial Attorney who is an unabashed foe of the monied interests that have attempted to corral the money in ever smaller circles, and he is viable. This election, so long as we do not allow it to be hijacked by shysters, could be the touchstone that saved the American middle class. We shall see.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:09 PM

Big Mick, you have touched on something that has begun to concern me. The three Dems with a real chance at the nomination are a woman, a black man and a trial lawyer. Seems like fodder for the Republican hit machine. They would have to go after the woman and the black man obliquely but they could hit the lawyer head on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:13 PM

Actually, on paper Chris Dodd was probably the most qualified Democrat out there, and he didn't get any support at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

He had 10 out of 250 at my precinct but you needed 38 to qualify for a delegate to the county convention so those 10 switched to other candidates. As a result he showed as a zero. Caucuses are a little different.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, KB, that is absolutely a worry. But I think this young generation really wants to believe and take action. Tie that up with the baby boomers that are aching for change, and it may very well be that we are on the verge of something. When I look at the way it is trending, damn.... we just might make it. But we have scary moments ahead. I said it before... this is going to be a mighty interesting political year.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:44 PM

The positive is that negative campaining doesn't seem to have worked here this time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM

I see something rather Kennedy-like about Obama too, and you're right, Mick, that the resemblance is more like Bobby Kennedy. There's something very refreshing about the man. I really like the fact that he's not pandering all the time to various cliched racial stereotypes to manipulate the process...as is so commonly done in the USA. He does not play the race card. He could be an intelligent, articulate person of absolutely ANY racial background, going by his manner and delivery, thus he transcends the usual stereotypes people have come to expect. What a relief!

In terms of actual policies, I favor Dennis Kucinich over the other Democratic candidates. However, I know what chance a man with Kucinich's clearly stated positions on foreign and domestic policy has of ever becoming president...

Obama, on the other hand, well, he does have an entirely good chance of winning, and I do like his policies pretty well too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM

I think he has a good chance of winning the nomination, but in a general election, imagine what the 527 groups, and windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly will do to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: PoppaGator
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:18 PM

David Brooks:

He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.

Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Brooks.

I really like Obama, but I like Edwards too.

For those hidebound conservatives, neo- and otherwise, who love to throw accusations of "class warfare" at folks like John Edwards who stand up against the richest who keep getting richer while the other 90+% of us get poorer, all I can say is this:

You sonsabiches started class warfare and have been waging it against most of your fellow Americans for as long as anyone can remember. You've been far too successful in recent years, and it's about time your reign came to an end. You won't lose your considerable economic power, but you need to lose your monopoly on political power. Government of, by, and for the people needs to act as a check upon your inhuman economic juggernaught.

As far as I'm concerned, unrestrained corporate greed IS killing the future, not only for the children of American citizens, but for all living things on earth.

I'm not saying that widespread global corporate action is evil in and of itself. It's the only way that solar electricity and other green technologies will ever be implemented on an effective scale, and will probably act as agent for other positive changes in the future, as well. (Example: We'll get universal health care when the multinationals decide they can no longer foot the bill for employee health benefits in the US, and decide to pass the burden to government. No sooner, no later.)

Big biz is not going to disappear, nor does anyone want it to. We simply need to realize that business interests are not always in the public interest, and that representative government needs to periodically confront "market forces," not always to bow before them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:24 PM

The whole question is whether he can keep his shields up when the Malignant Dork Rays hit. I hope Scotty has enough power, Cap'n.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:29 PM

Poppa:

Passionately put, compadre. Hear, hear.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:42 PM

Couldn't agree with you more, PoppaGator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM

"I'm not saying that widespread global corporate action is evil in and of itself."


                         I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:28 PM

Perhaps. It certainly facilitates evil on a highly organized basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: PoppaGator
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM

Quote within quote:

"I'm not saying that widespread global corporate action is evil in and of itself."

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it is.

I dunno; to declare oneself to be "against" globalization or multinational corporations or whatever seems to me to be akin to being "against" the weather. It's a fact of life in the world as we know it at this stage of human evolution, and is probably the only possible agent of quick and widepread change of any kind, both for better and for worse.

The problem lies in finding ways for thinking human beings to counterbalance, if not control, corporate action, which has a "mind" of its own, metaphorically speaking. The logic by which wealth finds ways to perpetuate itself can be powerful, and often flies directly in the face of human motives and desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM

I think some actions by global corporations can readily be deemed harmful; others, perhaps not. If WalMart produces employment for 10,000 CHinese families by placing orders for tee-shirts and sneakers, that is good for them, mostly. If in doing so, they encourage primitive manufacturing with an inordinate ding to the environmental balance, that aspect of it is harmful. It could be argued that by leaving all their sites across the U.S. in the hands of small stores covering vertical niches (mom and pop hardware, sporting goods, audio-video stores) they would do more good by not existing at all. It's an interesting question to what degree largeness of scale is inherently harmful to the overall system, a question that deserves some hard research and analysis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

Well, in a way, Obama is the least vulnerable to the Republican attack dogs because about the only thing they have on him is that he is black...

They have allready set up the playing field against Edwards' The Lawyer" and Clinton "The Hillary' and if they try to set up Obama "The Black" it can backfire on them big time...

The Repubs don't want to run against Obama... Especially if he were to have Bill Richardson as his running mate...

The would be a perfect storm for the Dems to crush the Repubs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM

I was struck by Obama's speech after his Iowa win. My god, how long has it been since we've had a true orator contending for the Presidency? At least since John and Bobby Kennedy. Reagan had the gift of gab, but his speeches reeked of the grandiose sentiments that his speechwriters put in his mouth. Obama is a writer, and I feel sure that the speech he gave last night was his own.

Yes, watching Barak on the dais, Bobby came to mind...the hope, sincerity, and directness that inspired so many of us when we were young and the future seemed ripe with good possibility. Watching Obama, it was nearly impossible not to acknowledge those same dreams stirring again. Those same dreams, yes, and those same fears.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

"Well, in a way, Obama is the least vulnerable to the Republican attack dogs because about the only thing they have on him is that he is black..."


                      Remember who will be doing the attacking. It won't be the other candidate; it will be the 527 groups, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Medved, and on and on...

                      How many times are we going to here that he has ties to Islam in his past, that his middle name is Hussein, that he had a weird land sale in Chicago...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

"...that the resemblance is more like Bobby Kennedy."

Frighteningly so. That speech in Iowa after the result - it was so like Bobbie in California minutes before he was killed. And you know there are people out there in America whose dearest wish would be to kill the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

I was thinkin' the exact thing, Lonesome... And then, of course, the other memories crept in...

Scarey times... The same people who needed RFK and MLK to go away are still around... Or their kids are...

God, I hope I am wrong but history does repeat itself...

Boss Hog hates the Obama's of the world because he does give people "hope" and hopefull people are more inclined to participate in democracy and that is Boss Hog's largest nightmare becaaue when people start participating they get too close to where Boss Hog has buried the bodies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:46 PM

This is the beginning of the American Reformation.

Let us pray.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:02 PM

Poppagator...... I think I love you.

I do fear for Obama. He is a change agent. One thing I have learned is that challenging monied interests, in the hope of change, can be dangerous. Trust me on this one.

And Amos ...... one of my very favorite agnostic, atheist, folks...... mind if I pray with you?

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:08 PM

Yeah, Amos, pray that the sumabichs don't order up another assasination...

That is my prayer...

The movement got set back 4 decades the last time Boss Hog ordered up some killin's...

Man, I hope I am wrong but I am so concerned...

Obama is Boss Hog's worst nightmare...

No, it isn't as much his policy postion but his ability to close the divide... To end the partisanship... Boss Hog lives for partisanship becuase it keep folk at each other's throats and off him...

Obame did this as Illinois state house... He has the ability to bring folks together and that is so foriegn to the game plan that Boss Hog has used successfully for 4 decades that it, in itself, will keep Boss Hog up at night...

Those are my fears...

I was working in the Kennedy campaign in '68... I will never forget...

The Stones were wrong...

"Who killed the Kennedy's
it was you and me..."

No, it wasn't...

Those are my fears...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

The Stones were wrong about a lot of stuff like that, Bobert, but they were just trying to be "bad boys" and say outrageous-sounding stuff. The same went for the Who. Whatever they had to offer philosophically was pretty lightweight, and usually pretty dumb in retrospect.

It was Dylan who offered the stuff that had weight.

The Who, though, did say one thing that was very accurate:

"Meet the New Boss....Same as the Old Boss!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:51 PM

Rig--

Obama's middle name is Hussein.   This will only make a difference to those who wouldn't vote for him anyway--you perhaps? Just how dense do you think the electorate is? Nobody on the fence will be swayed by such trivia.

Independents, many of whom already lean toward Obama---and they will probably make the difference--will have unlimited opportunity to hear what he says--and are not likely to be influenced by schlockmeisters of the type you cite.

And your "ties to Islam in his past" smear will also only be cited by Limbaugh and other such sterling sources of fact. And the source will also be noted.

Difference between the Kerry and Obama situations is that Kerry--30 years later--still had to contend with the bitterness of those who felt we only lost Vietnam by leaving.

There is no comparable source of bitterness with Obama. And race also will not be the determining factor--even in the South.

Even sour cynics such as your good self will have to come to terms with the fact that Obama is a goodhearted man--who is also smart as a whip-- and who has managed to come to the fore at exactly the right time. He happens to be black. That is not a make-or-break factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:16 PM

Well said, Ron!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:21 PM

Yes, very well said, Ron. And personally, I'd rather have a man with 'Islamic ties' than an extreme right wing 'Christian' fundie. Or a fundie of any stripe....fundamentalists scare me. Big Time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:21 PM

Thanks, LEJ.   It's just that after a while I get tired of a steady diet of cynicism. And some people don't realize there's a difference between realism and cynicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:27 PM

The thing that gets me is that "Islamic ties" is just about the perfect smear--it leaves all the nebulous horrific details to the imagination.

But anybody who actually did any research would find there's actually nothing to the allegation.

If Rig--or anybody else--disagrees, let's have the facts--with source, of course.

Now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:29 PM

And thanks, Sorcha. I'd agree it's better to deal with smears earlier than later.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 06:57 AM

Welll, it's a very stupid ill-informed smear, and one which has been thoroughly discredited in its negative sense.

But give the percentage of Muslims in the world, I'd be surprised if any of us have no Muslim ties at all. I know several Muslims personally, and find them very bright and rational people, moderate and hard-working.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 07:40 AM

Just a few thoughts:

Mudcat is a site for folkies. Anybody ever heard "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall"? This is more and more apt.   I would think people here, some of whom seem to worship the author of that line, would actually read it once in a while.

It's time to ditch the stupid cynicism that assumes that since money is involved in campaigning, the candidate is in the pocket of big money. Money is involved in campaigning--has been for centuries. Get over it.

New Hampshire: Obama could benefit, as McCain did in 2000, from a NH factor: in NH, you can vote in a primary even if you are not registered in either party. Over 40% of NH voters are in fact not registered with a party.

Obama attended local schools in Indonesia--they were not madrassas--from age 6 to 10. Classes were taught in Indonesian, which he can still speak a bit.   His father is Moslem, I understand. He himself is Christian. This is the sum total of his "Islamic ties".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 07:43 AM

I'd have thought that most of the people who'd be voting against Obama because of his colour would be liable to be voting the other way in any case.

From what I've read about the Iowan caucuses there are indications that there could significant numbers of past Republican voters who would in fact be likely to vote for Obama largely for anti-racist reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM

I would LOVE to see Obama wedge the clammy Repub front into sections and suck up the benefit to swell his vote. Such a development would be most gratifying, and like the Iowa turnout, would stump the pundits, who need a little reality-slap once in a while to keep them tame...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:41 AM

Ron - I wasn't giving you my views, I was merely anticipating what the bitter-right will do. But if he gets the nomination, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:44 AM

Considering the common origin of the Christian and Muslim religions, it is one of history's great ironies that they have been locked in combat on so many occasions...but the irony is lost on those prepared to fight over such competitive matters, I guess.

Mind you, all forms of hierarchichal human strife are ironic. In the extreme. They fly in the face of common sense and moral decency.

That some people would sieze on a trivial matter like Mr Obama having the middle name "Hussein" and try to use it to smear him is just pathetic. That others would listen to such a smear and give it any credence is even more pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:08 PM

LH - I've heard Sean Hannity go after people on much thinner conditions than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:25 PM

I wouldn't doubt it. Such people are simply utterly unscrupulous. Their intent is to destroy their targets, by any means possible.

There are people like that on this forum too, and they aren't worth talking to about certain matters, because of it. They operate on sheer malice, and the lust to destroy whenever a subject that stirs their hatred comes up. It is that which sometimes poisons the dialogue on certain threads here to the point where one is best advised to just never open them again on any excuse.

You can't talk usefully to someone whose basic impulse is to destroy you in any way he can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:26 PM

"Senator ObamaÕs victory speech was a concise oratorical gem. No candidate in either party can move an audience like he can. He characterized his stunning victory as an affirmation of Òthe most American of ideas Ñ that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.Ó

Mr. Obama has shown, in one appearance after another, a capacity to make people feel good about their country again. His supporters want desperately to turn the page on the bitter politics and serial disasters of the past 20 years. That they have gravitated to a black candidate to carry out this task is Ñ to use a term I heard for the first time this week Ñ monumentous."


New York Times
The Obama Phenomenon


By BOB HERBERT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:37 PM

That sums it up very well. That is the overall effect of Obama's approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:53 PM

"...Some powerful political currents were on display in Iowa, starting with a yearning for change and inspirational leadership among Democrats. Senator Barack Obama positively soaked it up, growing steadily more confident and powerful in his oratory. Senator Hillary ClintonÕs events were more like required-attendance lectures than rallying points for a political movement.

Republicans, too, talked about change, but mostly it was changing their association with President Bush. His name was hardly mentioned in Iowa, except by a dozen or so Republicans at a caucus we attended who explained why they had turned out for Mr. Obama."

NY Times editorial, January 5, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:26 PM

When Clinton plays the "experience card" that must run up against the problem that this experience includes her voting for the invasion of Iraq and screwing up on health reform, and reminds people, however unfairly at times, of the experience of having Bill fooling around and lying, and of interminable allegations about land-deals and all that.

All the stuff she'd rather they didn't focus on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

Then there's this from the CNN news blog:

   December 4, 2007 4:34 pm ET

Obama can't win in the electoral college. Someone name the "purple states" that he's going to persuade. Iowa? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Florida? Are you kidding me- he won't win in any of those states. A vote for Obama is just another way to help the Republicans keep the White House. Because of the electoral college we have George Bush instead of Al Gore. Keep it up Obama supporters the Republican party is rooting for you!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:29 PM

Then the electoral college must go.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

Rig--

There you go again. Hope people read what you wrote carefully. You quoted from a news blog--not CNN itself.

On a news blog anybody, regardless of credentials, can comment. It's like Mudcat--but news, not music, is its official focus.

Therefore your quote is essentially meaningless--just some poster opposing Obama--with no evidence to back up his or her contention.

You're pretty slick, though--nice try.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:40 PM

I just posted this link on the Dennis Kucinich thread, but it is particularly relevant here.

NOW with David Brancaccio last night was on "Dirty Politics." Most interesting! You can watch it HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:57 PM

Ron - you continue to want to go after the messenger. I really was looking for a quote from a program I heard on NPR that talked about Republicans registering for the Democratic Caucus so they could vote for Obama because they thought he'd be easier to defeat in the general election than either Clinton or Edwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:03 PM

Rig--

Even if some Republicans think that, it should be apparent pretty soon that their calculations are too clever by half----the country, including many Republicans, and, more significantly, far more independents, really is looking for a "uniter, not a divider"--and has found the real thing in Obama.

Even you will eventually have to lose your cynicism. ( Yeah, I know---the day after hell freezes over)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:12 PM

Thanks for the link to that excellent video on dirty election tactics, Ron.

By the way, I think you do have somewhat of a tendency to go after "the messenger" as Rinslinger suggests, in that you launch overly personalized attacks....having been gone after by you myself a few times when we either disagreed or you thought we disagreed about something. ;-) I'm not holding any grudges about it, though.

We actually have very similar hopes, you and I, as regards the ongoing political processes in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:40 PM

It's not "going after the messenger" to require actual evidence and sources--especially for the smears and unsubstantiated theories Rig seems to specialize in.

All people have to do is learn to give sources and evidence up front. Otherwise they are just spreading rumors--and I will point this out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:52 PM

Fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:23 PM

LH--

I'll have to say you shouldn't thank me for the link to the video--I think that was Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Don, Ron, alla same meee, ey?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM

Ron - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if Obama gets the nomination I will vote for him. I'd just have to see the Democrats opt for another shoot-youself-in-the-foot candidate like they are so prone to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM

Don - The Brancaccio video was great. I live in the Pacific Northwest and our TV signal was off last night so I missed the show.

                            Thanks, again!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 06:40 PM

I have been getting Don Firth and Ron Davies mixed up for so long here (partly due to their very similar tone and approach in political discussion threads) that when I think of either one of them, I see the same face in my mind!!! I see an older guy, medium build, fairly tall, fair skin, with a wispy, greying beard and mustache, going a bit bald on top...glasses...rather studious in appearance...wearing a turle-neck sweater and jeans.

I kid you not! ;-) Whether my inner vision is anything in accord with the reality of either Don Firth or Ron Davies, I do not know.

Perhaps I should look up their photos in the memberphotos and find out?

Naw....too easy....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM

Well, folks, you heard it here first...

Obama can win and will win if:

1. The Swiftboaters can't come up with bunch of somewhat believable lies to smear him, which I doubt they can...

2. He stay6s in the positive campaign mode and...

3.... he picks Bill Richardson as a running mate, who will bring both New Mexico and Arizona into the Dems electorial college column... The Dems can hold what they had in '04 and those two states, plus the very real possibility of a John Warner for Senate run might bring Virginia into Obama's electorial column as well, would insure his election...

BTW, not to be dropping names but looks as if this ol' hillbilly will be having lunch with John Warner this Thursday and will be sure to let him know that the two of them will need each other in November...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

Do that, Bobert, and mention this to him also: William Shatner is available as a nonpartisan political advisor...for a fee. His wisdom and influence is inestimable, he has his finger on the pulse of our times, and those seeking public office who would pass up the opportunity to avail themselves of his unique strategic aid when it is offered would have to be mad.

Don't forget, now!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 08:45 PM

Tell him as well that I would consider representing the nation to the Dominican Republic, or even better to the Republic of Cuba as soon as that position becomes available...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 08:55 PM

Not to worry, LH and Amos...

I was kinda thinkin' of you, Amos, as a good Secretary of State and as fir you, LH...

...Ahhhh, Secretary of Rocks...

Hey, ya' gotta start somewhere???

Heck, I just want Warner to fully understand that he has in his power not only getting elected to the Senate but bringin' Obama along on his coat-tails into Penn. Ave...

Things are lookin' more an' more like I know what I'm gonna be doin' this year...

(Geeze???...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:18 PM

Bill O'Reilly is such a little sweetie!

CLICKY.

(The story may not be around for long. I don't know how often Yahoo chances them)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:49 AM

Maureen Dowd writes:

"...The Obama revolution arrived not on little cat feet in the Iowa snow but like a balmy promise, an effortlessly leaping lion hungry for something different, propelled by a visceral desire among Americans to feel American again.

The Bushes always self-consciously and swaggeringly put themselves Òon the American side,Ó as Poppy used to say, implying that their rivals were somehow less American. But many Americans can no longer see themselves in the warped values of the Bush White House or the pathetic paralysis of Congress or the disapproving gaze of the world.

They want a different looking glass. So they rolled the dice and, as The Chicago TribuneÕs Mike Tackett put it, Òvoted for a smile.Ó

I interviewed three Republicans in the Obama section of the caucus who were ready for the red state, blue state merger. They said they didnÕt want Hill and Bill back in the White House, and that John McCain was too much of a yes man for W., who had betrayed Republicans with his handling of the Iraq war and his fiscal irresponsibility.

HillaryÕs aides were grumbling last week that Obama had no rationale to offer but himself.

Perhaps that was true when he started. People usually run for president because somebody tells them they should and then graft on the reasons afterward. But on Thursday, ObamaÕs vague optimism and smooth-jazz modernity came together in a spectacular fusion with the deep yearning of Democrats who have suffered through heartbreaking losses in the last two elections with uninspiring candidates.

Often unable to surf the electricity he sparked over the last year, Obama has now put on his laurel wreath and dropped his languid pose, tapping directly into what he calls the Òfire burningÓ across the country Ñ the dream of a cool, smart, elegant, reasonable, literary, witty, decent ÒWest WingÓ sort of president who wonÕt bankrupt us or endanger us or co-opt our rights or put a black hood on the Constitution.

ÒI want to go before the world and say, AmericaÕs back,Ó he told cheering Democrats in Milford, N.H., adding: ÒWe are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come.Ó

Even though Obama was wooing the young demographic so coveted by Hollywood, he took a page from J.F.K. and avoided the casual look last week. There were no jeans or snow boots. Just dark suits, stylish ties and dress shoes...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:12 AM

Yup, that's the way it is... Moreen has hit the exact right note in describing why people like Obama... It is very much his style...

The medium has become the message... That's what Obama has over the entire cast of wantabees... Yes, I'm also tired of the US pyuttin' on it's frown toward it's own people and those folks who live elsewhere...

If Obama brings nuthin' more than a face change and ***the smile** to the West Wing, he will be a huge success... The pro-human policies will follow...

Plus, something that hasn't been brought up but will, I believe, come into play in the coming months is folks getting to know who else Obama will be bringing to the party...

Yeah, I know that both current Virginia Senator, Jim Webb and former Virgina Governor, Mark Warner have been mentioned and both would bring a ***smile*** with them... Personally, I'd prefer Warner but I can very much live with Bill Richardson, as well... These are all folks who can bring the ***smile*** back into governance...

What I'd hate to see is either Clinton or Edwards on the ticket... I like Edwards but he wouldn't help the ticket... I don't particularially like Hillary...

But Amos and LH are shoe-ins for cabinet positions even if it does require the creation of a Department of Rocks for LH...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:24 AM

It doesn't take a lot of brains to understand that a Vice President is chosen mostly for what s/he brings in terms of votes to the ticket. That is politics 101. Richardson is the odds on favorite for VP for a simple reasons. He brings western States and the Hispanic vote, which most of us who have actual experience in these things know is the most important emerging electorate out there. He adds the one cred that Barak Obama needs. Foreign policy experience, with a resume' that is hard to match. No matter who gets the nomination on the Democratic side, it is a very good bet that Richardson will be the VP.

Clinton did pretty well last night, but I think I come down on the side of Steve McMahon and Mike Murphy this morning on Meet the Press. She still has a chance, but the trending should be of great concern to her. She is headed one way, and Obama is headed the other. If he does well in NH and SC, this thing is over.

My guy, John Edwards, it appears to me, is making a 12th round stand. Based on what I saw last night, he is playing the position game for after the nomination. He is still the one I would prefer.

Obama and Richardson. This could be a very good year.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM

I can just see the Republicans rubbing their hands together and salivating over the prospect of an Obama/Richardson ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM

I would to call Mudcatters' attention to a dailykos diary about the meaning of Barak Obama's candidacy for President of the USA. I find this diary to be an interesting and thought provoking read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/173727/4473/966/431261
A Black Woman's Musings on Coffee with Dad, Racism, and Barack Obama
by shanikka
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM PST

This daily kos recommended diary was written in response to an earlier dailykos recommended diary that was titled "Coffee with Dad -the stone racist would vote for Obama" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12243/06635/138/431080
by Rosebuddear
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM PST

The author of that first diary wrote about how she attempted to convince her father who she described as a racist that he should vote for Barak Obama. One of the points that Rosebuddear, the first diarist, made was that Obama was a "good Black person" and not like the so many Black people who her father despised-people who were on welfare and who lived in public housing & tore up that housing.

shannika, the author of the second diary, wrote that the first diarist's description of Black people as "Bad Black/Good Black" was in and of itself was racist, because-among other things- 1} most Black people aren't on welfare; 2} most Black people don't live in public housing and 3} Most Black people who live in public housing don't tear up their dwelling.

I agree with this point and the other points that shannika made in that diary.

Here's an excerpt from shannika's diary:

"...It is my depressed and sad view, based on what I've heard folks say, including the many well-meaning folks like the diarist [who wrote the diary about her father *], that a unconscious motivation is the possibility of the chance for America to "officially" (by electing a Black president) declare the harm of racism in America "over."

Free at last, free at last....?

Racism is this nation's original sin. So, what better way to make a Declaration of Indepdendence from the responsibility to clean up the mess than by embracing a Black presidential candidate who already excites because he is a rhetorical powerhouse and conveys a real sense of hope, yet notably has very little to say publicly about Blacks that is positive and certainly has said nothing other than stereotypical things (i.e. "Black children will see they can succeed" -- as if the majority of Black children haven't been seeing that all along, somehow, in all the other Black folks who have succeeded before Barack Obama) to the point that folks like the diarist are actually speaking about him as a contrast to millions of nameless and faceless "Black people" who "tear up" "affordable housing" and "take advantage" of "welfare." (At least, since he started running for President, anyhow.)

That, to me as a proud Black person who has fought all her life for Black people (and a whole lot of others, proving that one can have "a Black agenda" and actually do white folks a lot of good too!), is some scary shit.

Because the work not only is not done, it was never done and things for the collective are getting horribly, permanently, WORSE.

My true hope is that one day Barack Obama will actually talk about how he will make it better - using the actual words "Black people" in more than a way that just heaps on more criticism."

-snip-

* my addition

And here is a comment from that diary:
"...I have also been worried by comments I've read about how the nomination and election of Barack Obama would represent some kind of major sign that we've taken a big step forward in ending racism. But in my simplistic way I've responded by saying a win by Barack Obama would mean he was able to win in spite of racism, not that we've somehow made great progress against racism. (My own daily life tells me that racism is alive and well in this country.)
I also get disturbed whenever I see or comments that are along the line of "Obama is the right kind of Black person," which we saw in the Coffee with Dad diary as you pointed out, although white folks would never think to say that John Edwards is "the right kind of white person." "
-davidkc

-snip-

For the record, let me also say that I strongly support the presidential candidacy of Senator Barak Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:58 AM

Here's another essay from dailykos that focuses on Senator Barak Obama and partly explains why I support Obama's candidacy for President of the USA:

Thoughts On The Obama Campaign
by DemFromCT
Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:46:07 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/

Here's an excerpt from that front page diary:
"...I do have an observation about the Obama campaign. I love it. I like the idea of inclusion, of forward looking solutions, and the day when the former Bush administration can be looked back on with the perspective it deserves. And I love, absolutely love, the 2:1 turnout in Iowa, and the 3:2 turnout currently projected for indies from NH voting in the Dem primary over the Republican one.

Win or lose, Obama is running the kind of campaign that will be transformative. What does that mean? It means finding the Holy Grail of politics: getting new people out to vote, while keeping your base intact. Position papers won't do it. The only way to do that is to feel it in your gut...

In order to win, you have to offer a vision of hope, and a sense that the candidate can get us to a better place. The Obama campaign is doing that in a big way. You can feel it when you see the new faces and talk to the new voters. You can get a sense when you hear about the big crowds, though the key there was seen in Iowa (the new folks showed up)...

Do other campaigns have it in them to do it? Show me the voters showing up, and I will write nice things about their campaigns, too. But in the meantime, the GOP has people who alienate Latinos and minorities, and treat 9/11 as a vehicle for personal gain. We have campaigns that bring out new people to vote. I think I'd rather be on our team than their team. And I think we're about to see that America would, too."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

A great piece, Azizi, and I especially enjoyed your comments.

As a person who has spent a great deal of his life involved in the political scene, let me tell you what inspires me about Obama. First off, he reminds me of the Kennedy that I felt would have been one of our greatest Presidents ---- Bobby. Second, I work for racial and gender equality for several reasons. One of those is because I have three daughters. Another is because it makes no sense to short ourselves of way over half our available braintrust for the most important office in the land. Another is because my "chosen" family includes a number of folks that I couldn't look in the face if I didn't ACT on them.

I find comments like "the right kind of (fill in the blank)" to be about as ignorant as they can be. The only right kind of person that I am looking for is the one that will be the right kind of President. The amount of melanin in ones skin, so far as I can tell, doesn't affect that ability anymore than their shoe size. It is time for the ignorance of racism and sexism in all their forms to end. I think a political season in which the odds on fav's are a person of African ancestry and a woman means that USA's best days are ahead of us.

One more thing. And it is a gentle rebuke to the blogger above. I tire of hearing that Obama doesn't use the term "black" enough. His whole point, and the one that excites me the most, is that there is no blue States/red States, only the United States of American. I don't believe this is a rejection of the distance we need to travel to true racial and ethnic equality. But it does say, what is good for your kids, parents, families, etc. is good for mine.

This is going to be remembered as one of the most important elections in the history of this still young country.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 12:57 PM

I don't think the Repubs want any part of a Obama/Richardson ticket, Rigs...

About the only issue that the Repubs would have going for them against Obama is his lack of foriegn policy experience... Richardson shores that one up...

Yeah, I remember back in 2000 folks were thinkin', "Well, at least Dick Cheney is there..."... Yeah, I know, hahahaha...

But history does in some ways repeat itself and Richardson would be Obama's equivelent to a 2000 Dick Cheney...

(Horrors, Bobert!!!)

No, not really... Richardson brings alot of "experience" in foriegn affairs and strips the Repubs main issue... Plus, in the debates, Richardson will be all over the Repub's VP, no matter who it is becuase it is unlikely that McCain would accept the #2 position and the rest of the field is clueless...

But, Rigs, like in '04 the Repubs will try to Dean Obama and say that's who they want to run against... Problem is for the Repubs that the Dems have allready seen this play before...

BTW, if I get a chance to ask Mark Warner this Thursday about an Obama/Warner ticket I sho nuff will...

I believe that combination would even take Page County, Va. where Dems rarely win...

BTW, if Obama were to carry the states that Kerry carried and just add Virginia that would put the Dems on Penn. Ave...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:03 PM

For anyone to keep beating the drum constantly in their speeches about what race they belong to (whether it be the White race, the Black Race, the Native American race, the Hispanics etc...) is NOT helpful to creating unity and harmony in a society, nor is it helpful to freeing any disempowered minorities. It is helpful to maintaining the division, suspicion, fear, and contention that already exists between racial groups.

Human beings are human beings, period. That's the truth that should be spoken. We are all human first and foremost. One's race should not matter one iota, any more than the color of one's hair or eyes.

The fact that Obama does not harp constantly on "Black" issues and his "Black" identity in order to grossly manipulate people's emotions and supposedly gain himself some votes by so doing, but instead speaks simply as an AMERICAN (with no racial emphasis of any kind) is one of the strongest things he's got going for him, and I applaud it. I wish more people had the good sense to do just as he is doing, and not pander to the emotional punch of constantly dragging RACE into every frikking dialogue. It's like a disease with a lot of people...the way they do that. It doesn't help Black people one bit, in my opinion, it perpetuates division along race lines.

What will help Black people is for Obama to act like an AMERICAN....with no racial bias whatsoever....and get elected! That will help undo this awful racial divide that has been festering in American culture ever since the first slaves were brought to these shores.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:30 PM

Rig--

None of us want to see the Democrats pick a "shoot yourself in the foot" candidate. I gather this is a snide comment by you against Kerry--who actually was a much stronger candidate than Dean would ever have been.   The top 2004 issue was always national security. There is no possible way that a person who wanted to withdraw all the troops from Iraq immediately then would have been seen by the electorate as stronger on national security than a person who fought in combat in Vietnam (Kerry). I've already given much more plausible reasons why Kerry lost in 2004--and Dean would have lost worse than that. If you'd like I can detail the real reasons for Kerry's loss again.

Nobody has ever come up with any evidence that Dean would have been seen as stronger on national security than Kerry--though I have asked for this evidence more than once. And that is by far the crucial issue.

However, that is now (surprisingly) ancient history. The way for the Democrats to pick a "shoot-yourself-in- the- foot" candidate now would be to pick Hillary--who has the burdens both of the 1960's legacy and the 1990's legacy--and will never be able to shed either.

Obama has neither the Vietnam war legacy nor the visceral anti-Clinton feeling-- which is still widespread--to deal with. Moreover, he is a real uniter, not a divider. And not only inspires trust but uplift--and not just among Democrats. Clinton is seen not only as somebody who continues the adversarial politics the US is sick of, but refuses to take stands on so many issues--and on top of that is untrustworthy.

There's no question who's the stronger candidate for the general election--by far. And it ain't Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:08 PM

"...white folks would never think to say that John Edwards is 'the right kind of white person.' "

On the other hand how about stuff like:

October 01, 2001 (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton was honored as the nation's first black president Saturday at the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Annual Awards Dinner on in Washington, DC.
.........................

Talk about "the right sort of" in this context can be seen in two ways. One is as an expression of lingering racism, and that is a valid enough way. But another is as evidence that a racial and racist stereotype is crumbling in the face of a reality that does not accord with it.

Obviously if Obama gets to be president that wouldn't mean that racism is dead in America (and any attempts to claim that it did would deserve to be challenged). But it would be a powerful symbol that it had been dethroned.

And if he turned out to be an outstandigly good president, which seems pretty likely, by the time he came to leave the White House the symbolic change might have helped achieve a real change, with racism being seen not so much as wicked as ridiculous.("Ridikulus" as they say in Hogwarts when dealing with boggarts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:34 PM

"if he turned out to be an outstandigly good president, which seems pretty likely"

Well, McGrath, I think that may be taking wishful thinking to the extreme. I believe Obama shows great promise and I am supporting him, but I think we need to see him get to the Presidency and walk the walk before we begin to speculate about his legacy.

Obama difficult to criticise? His past drug use is something he has admitted to, and I believe they'll go after him on that basis. Remember, NO ONE thought Kerry could be attacked on his armed service history, and they made that into an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM

Racism is ridiculous. It always has been. But people have this tendency to be afraid of anyone who's "different" in some obvious outer way from them, and the best way to overcome it is through education and getting to know people who are "different" from oneself.

I would rather see a leader who focuses on the common values that unite all people than one who tries to set himself up as some kind of special advocate for any one sector of the population, whether that sector be racial, religious, class level, or in any way partisan or set apart from the whole people.

If one cannot easily think outside the imaginary box of one's own racial, cultural, religious, or party indentification...then one has become trapped to a great extent INSIDE that box...and that can seriously limit one's freedom of thought and freedom of action as a human being moving freely amongst one humanity...which is what we all are.

Think how ridiculous it would be for brown rabbits, white rabbits, and grey rabbits in nature to divide up and start fighting over their differing colors! That's how ridiculous it is for people to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:03 PM

Obviously if Obama gets to be president that wouldn't mean that racism is dead in America (and any attempts to claim that it did would deserve to be challenged). But it would be a powerful symbol that it had been dethroned.
-McGrath of Harlow

I strongly agree with this statement.

I believe that Barak Obama recognizes that his becoming president would not mean the end of personal and institutional racism within the United States. However, I believe that a President Obama would diligently work toward the eradication or diminution of institutional racism and other forms of inequity within this nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:05 PM

It seemed that Obama had not watched the Republican debate and had not been briefed. Did he actually say he was flipping channels between the debate and football? That seemed a bit glib to me.

Is he really that confident? Does he think that he can sit back and ride the charismatic wave? I think he had better start showing the voters that he is more than a media darling. But maybe that is what America wants.

I had really high hopes for Obama but after watching the debate, I think that he lacks substance. Is he really all talk and no action? Will the voter, once again, be swayed by image alone? It seemed that Hillary might be right. He lacks experience.

The only thing that would save him is a strong VP. I think Obama/Richardson or might be the ticket. I was actually impressed with Richardson. He came across as someone who was willing to work hard to promote change. Its hard to know where Obama stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

George Step-in-awful-stuff said that Obama and Richardson made back-room deals that hurt Hillary in Iowa, but had the effect of keeping Richardson alive. I haven't figured out the Iowa system yet, so I don't know if that's possible or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:34 PM

"Obama has admitted drug use."

1)   Exactly--before it became a blockbuster scandal. It can be no surprise "unearthed" by Rush or his friends.

2) Any drug use was at least 20 years ago---and he has clearly rejected it totally now--in fact, did so back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:40 PM

Dianavan-

So sorry you don't think Obama treated the Republican debates with the gravity you think they deserved. A lot of us--Americans, not people commenting from the outside----think he has a great sense of humor--and has his priorities straight. And in order for him to comment seriously, it would be good to know who his actual opponent in the general election would be--which is unclear now, you may note.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:45 PM

Every single young person I ever knew 20 years ago had had some kind of limited experience of drug use on some occasion.

Talk about a tempest in a teapot!

The hypocrisy of people using this kind of thing against other people when they themselves are probably addicted to their dialy dose of caffiene, sugar, alcohol, maybe cigarettes....it's just astounding that they can point the finger at someone else over such matters. But it's typical human nature that they would, because what people really hate to see in someone else is often what is hidden in their own nature.

And other than that, those who issue such attacks are just plain unscrupulous in the first place. Their urge is not to accomplish justice, but to do harm to someone else for their own gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:55 PM

The issue with ruthless, no-holds-barred assaults such as the Republicans have often demonstrated in seeking permanent ascendancy and unqualified power, is not whether the assault team has any legitimate grounds, or not. Better if they do not but they will bend over backwards to invent some.

The entire remedy is in the talent of rendering those assaults null and void in a timely, skilled, impeccable manner. You have to choose when to ignore, when to defuse with quick humor, and when to counterattack with unimpeachable facts that leaves the bullshit dead in the water.

You also have to show in comportment that you have more than enough shields to bounce any incoming beams off without strain.

Kerry mishandled this to some degree, and so did Gore and Edwards.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:57 PM

Yes, that's quite correct, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:59 PM

Many moons ago I wrote that he'd be the next POTUS, and I hope he is. I'd love to see the machine sink into the sh#t it's become and see a good person elected to that important office in Washington. IMO, he's the best they have in the race and I wish him success.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM

On the subject of Racism and Senator Obama, what I find interesting and particularly telling about the times in which we live is that when I see racism being directed toward him, it isn't racism against African American/Black people. The kind of racism I'm seeing that is being directed towards him is racism against Muslims. (I know he's not one, but people who are trying to muddy his image are spreading rumors that he is.)

What that tells me is that, although racism towards Black people is still very much a problem in our society, it is no longer considered acceptable to be out in the open about it, whereas it is seen as perfectly acceptable to openly practice racism towards Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM

Excellent point, Carol! It shows who the favorite chosen symbolic "demons" (boogymen) are at the moment, doesn't it? There's always one out there.

In the 50's or 60's one was usually accused of being a "Communist" or a "fellow traveler", meaning one who sympathizes with Communism. Now one is accused instead of being a "Muslim" or an "anti-semite".

To call someone a "racist", of course, is also a very handy way of destroying his reputation, whether or not it has any real basis in fact. If you try to defend yourself against such accusations, the more you struggle the faster you may sink in the quicksand that the very accusation itself has placed around you.

And then there's the demonizing word "socialist" (used that way in the USA only). That negative label has been used by countless Americans to attack countless other Americans ever since the fledling union movements arose after the First World War.

There is absolutely NOTHING shameful about being a socialist....but try being one in the USA!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:44 PM

Why on Earth should Obama have been paying any serious attention to Republican candidates messing around together? They aren't his opponents at this point.
.........................

I was amused to see some stuff about "likability" as an issue in this Times Online story - with Clinton almost trying to spin the suggestion that Obama is more "likable" than she is as a weak point: ""In 2000, we unfortunately ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with, who said he wanted to be a uniter not a divider "

Though I remember at the time, in common I suspect with most people outside the USA anyway, I found the suggestion that Bush was "likable" and the kind of person you'd want to have at a social get-together quite astonishing. The kind of parties where he'd be the life and would would have to be well worth missing.

And that's not being biassed about politics - from what I've seen of him Huckabee would be welcome enough at a party. And he seems more at ease playing that bass than Bill Clinton ever did with that sax.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:51 PM

It's kind of hard to play the sax and smile at the same time, so any politician would naturally be at a disadvantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:52 PM

Perhaps it is not too late to get Huckabee and Bill Clinton to join forces and start up a bipartisan musical group for veteran politicians....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:56 PM

Mister H is not an inspired bass player but he sounded competent. That lead dude was not an easy act to fall in with.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:03 PM

With Tony Blair on guitar...

Idi Amin used to play the squeezebox. But pretty badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:23 PM

CNN poll: Sunday 6 Jan:

Of likely New Hampshire voters:

Obama   39%
Clinton   29%

Biggest change is in "electability"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:51 PM

Wow!! If he sweeps NH like he did Ioway, he's going to be almost unstoppable!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:56 PM

Exactly. If these numbers hold up--and I think they don't take independents into consideration--where he's also likely to do well--that may be it for Hillary. The professional pols know a winner when they see one--in fact that's the only reason they're now with her. Her invincibility aura was already shattered by Iowa--and now it looks like it's totally gone.

Obviously, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:04 PM

"AFTER so many years of fear and loathing, we had almost forgotten what itÕs like to feel good about our country. On Thursday night, that long-dormant emotion came rushing back, like an old dream that pops out of the deepest recesses of memory, suddenly as clear as light. ÒThey said this day would never come,Ó said Barack Obama, and yet here, right before us, was indisputable evidence that it had.

What felt good was not merely the improbable and historic political triumph of an African-American candidate carrying a state with a black population of under 3 percent. It was the palpable sense that our history was turning a page whether or not Mr. Obama or his doppelgŠnger in improbability, Mike Huckabee, end up in the White House. We could allow ourselves a big what-if: What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies? For the first time, we found ourselves on that long-awaited bridge to the 21st century, the one that was blown up in the ninth month of the new millenniumÕs maiden year."

NY Times column

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:38 PM

When did Islam become a race? Islam is a religion which encompasses all of the "races" into which humans erroneously divide themselves. "Racism against Muslims" is a lot like racism against Christians.

And, by the way, "Hispanic" is a matter of linguistic and cultural identity - it is also not a race. My son-in-law is very pale skinned and has red hair; he is from Panama and is a Hispanic. There are very dark-skinned (aka "black") Hispanics from Santo Domingo and lighter colored Hispanics from Mexico. Hispanics from Spain are mostly physically indistinguishable from Italians. There are also Hispanics of Asian descent - such as Alberto Fujimori.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:56 PM

I don't know that anyone said Islam was a race. The comments you are alluding to most likely had to do with various forms of prejudice against Islam and against Hispanics, I should think.

The point being that when people are heavily prejudiced against any identifiable cultural group of any kind whatsoever (religious, racial, cultural, tribal, political, language, lifestyle, sexual orientation, clothing style, you name it...) they then tend to behave toward those people quite similarly to the way a racist behaves...that is, they demonstrate unthinking prejudice BASED on the group's outward identity.

And we all know that, right? It's bloody well obvious. In other words, artbrooks, you're not telling anyone here anything they don't already know when you say that Islamic peoples are not a race and Hispanic peoples are not a race. Neither are Jews...and God knows, we went through that discussion enough times in the past, didn't we?

But if prejudiced people ACT like they're a race, then it gets just like racism in effect, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:51 AM

Consensus of surveys now show about a 4 point Obama advantage over Hillary. 5 point advantage of McCain over Romney. So the ground has definitely shifted.

McCain obviously would be Obama's strongest opponent. But Hillary's "experience"" allegation is a Potemkin village--and would be no help for her against McCain. Obama's "change" approach would still be effective.

And there's talk that Rig's boy, Lou Dobbs, may enter the race. That would be icing on the cake for Obama--Dobbs would split off the anti-immigration fire-eaters--mainly Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:51 AM

"Consensus....now shows"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:00 AM

Be fair Little Hawk - in her post at 06 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM Carol C did use the expression "racism against Muslims", and artbrooks post reads as if it refers back to that.

Obviously Islam isn't a "race", but then "black" isn't a "race" either, insofar as that word has any real meaning at all.

However prejudice and hostility can readily be transferred from one way of categorising people to another. If the kind of labels that get classed as "racist" become tricky to use, because of legislation or public perception, labels based on other criteria, such as religion, are often used instead. But the mindset is essentially the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:03 AM

Obviously, what I should have said is that Dobbs' entry actually would make McCain's victory in the primaries more likely--thus is not good for any Democrat--since he's by far the strongest opponent.   But if Dobbs were to stay through the general election, that would help any Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:04 AM

But Dobbs is playing coy anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:24 AM

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama rocketed to a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire one day before their showdown in the state's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Monday.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona also began to pull away from rival Mitt Romney, opening a five-point lead on the Massachusetts governor as what had been tight races in both parties began to open up.

This is the first of the rolling New Hampshire polls taken entirely after last week's caucuses in Iowa, where Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee scored breakthrough wins that left Clinton and Romney reeling.

Obama, an Illinois senator bidding to make history as the first black U.S. president, gained 11 points on Clinton to lead the one-time Democratic front-runner 39 percent to 29 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was third with 19 percent.

"This is a breathtaking movement in Obama's direction," said pollster John Zogby. "It's a surge for Obama and movement away from Clinton."

(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:44 AM

Ron - I've read where other Republicans are trying to convince the Democrats to nominate Obama as well. You're not alone out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM

So your position, Riginslinger, is that in a Presidential election the number of people who would vote to keep out Obama would be larger than the number who would vote to keep out Clinton?

Seems to me that Clinton's got a combination against her of people who'd be hostile to her as a women and people who'd be hostile to her as an individual. Not that that's necessarily a fatal combination - Maggie Thatcher survived it. But Obama doesn't seem to have that second hurdle of people disliking him as an individual, rather than because they don't like the idea of anyone "black" in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

I'm only trying to speculate as to which candidate the Republicans would rather run against. I think it has a lot to do with how their political operatives are able to damage the opposition candidate in the general election.

               You make a good point, though, McGrath. It could be that more people are more frightened about having a woman in the White House than having a black in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:44 AM

One of the reasons Clinton is faltering against Obama is that her voice is tense, even shrill, and resonates in the annoying higher frequencies of mosquito flight, while his is relaxed, has a calming overtone, and resonates in bass frequencies that make it sound stable and certain.

Although people have to talk tot he issues, I think their final decisions also hinge on things like this, sensory apperceptions and associations that contribute to the impression of the person as a whole.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

Yes. Also, Hillary's age is working against her a bit, I think. I think there's an appetite out there for someone a tad younger this time.

Worst of all, though, consider this: It would be just like having the Clinton presidency (of the 1990s) all over again, because Hillary and Bill would be back in the White House...and I'm sure that they would both play a significant role in shaping policy. They both played a significant role last time. Bill was the chief executive, but Hillary was very much involved. Now Hillary would be the chief executive and Bill would be very much involved. That's just a rerun of a previous democratic presidency. It would be nothing more than Round 3 for the Clinton dynasty, and I don't think most people want that. I wouldn't! I'd want something brand new, not a rerun of the past.

Bush Jr., after all, was in a sense Round 2 & 3 of Bush senior (although a whole lot WORSE)...and that hasn't turned out to be such a great idea either, has it? ;-)

I wonder to what extent the Republicans can damage Obama...? I'm sure they will try like hell to do so if he runs against them, and what will they pull out of the hat of dirty tricks, and how effectively will he deal with it?

As for McCain!....the man strikes me as a purblind militaristic fanatic when it comes to US foreign policy. He repeats every pathetic myth concocted by the neocons to justify pre-emptive war on small nations of Muslim people. Pre-emptive war is totally unconstitutional, and it is an international crime, a blatant violation of the laws that govern sovereign nations. It is the Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo method of dealing with achieving political objectives outside one's own borders. That makes McCain a closet fascist, in my opinion.

Ron Paul has the guts to call pre-emptive war what it is...but none of the other Republicans do. That's pretty shameful.

It amazes me that a majority of Republicans could want John McCain for president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:30 PM

The Republicans take advantage of the reality that people are stupid. We've heard rumblings already that they are beginning to make the case that Obama is Muslim. If he gets the nomination, they'll go into high gear with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

Yeah. It's pitiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:38 PM

'Beginning' ?! They've been trying that particular smear for quite a while now. The only people who believe it are those who WANT to believe it and who ignore facts. There ARE those people out there, but most of them wouldn't vote for him anyway. If that particular smear campaign continues, it will backfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM

YEah, that smear was dead in the water two months ago, AFAIK.

As for McCain, he is actually a smart and personable guy who just happens to have a certain amount of his attention locked into the military mindset -- understandable after his 'Nam tribulations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM

For the left: Obama's victory speech in Iowa was the most powerful address since Robert Kennedy of MLK.

For the right: Barak Hussein was cocky* after the Iowa caucus.

*means uppity

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:52 PM

I don't think it's dead. His Democratic opponents won't go there, but in a general election the Republicans will bring in the clergy and make the accusations from the pulpit. That will make in holy, and it will stick.

                Look at all the people who still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM

I hope he is more prepared for it than Kerry was for the Swifties.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

The thing is, that kind of stuff would only matter if it takes in people who would otherwise be voting for the Democratic candidate (probably Clinton), or if it motivates people who would otherwise not be voting into getting up and voting for the Republican.

And at the same time if those people outnumbered those for whom the effect of those kind of blatant lies might be to make decent people less likely to vote for the Republican and stay-at-homers likely to get out and vote Democrat.

Sounds like a very risky strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

First of all, the candidates themselves would never do it. They'd let Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the 527 groups, and the preachers do it. None of it could ever get traced back to the other candidate.

                It sure worked wonders against John Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM

Ahhhh, I'd just like to make an observation about the concern that the Repubs would use Obama's admitted drug use -- which, BTW, was a long time ago -- agsinst him in the campaign...

First of all, one only neds to look at the current guy... He's an alcoholic and a cokehead...

Secondly, the Dems never tried to "politcize" this in either 2000 or 2004 so for the Repubs, in these tuimes when voters are sich of nasty polictics, the Repubs would be shooting themselves in the foot if they so much as whispered anything about it...

And if they were stupid enough to bring it up, I'm sure there would be campaign ad people lickin' their chops to write the rebuttal ad...

I could write a few good one's myself that would turn this back on the Repubs in spades...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

One problem the Democrats seem to have is: they don't have these ready-made attack mechanizims already in place. There really aren't any liberal Sean Hannitys or Rush Limbaughs out there.
                   To begin with, you'd have to have a day-to-day audience listening to them, and stupid enough to believe what they say. The fact that SH, RL, and the others are there, and broadcasting every day of the week makes it all possible. All they have to do is switch the topic from the "Public Screwells" or Creationism, or the teacher's union, and talk about the election for a few months.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:09 PM

I think Amos is absolutely right when he says, "I think their final decisions also hinge on things like this, sensory apperceptions and associations that contribute to the impression of the person as a whole."

Hillary the cynical, old shrew.

Obama the young, charismatic politician.

Richardson the experienced, hard worker.

Edwards the legal brain, willing to fight corporate greed.

I actually think they are all capable. If the Dems can put together the right combination, they will definitely win the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:26 PM

In the US, artbrooks, the term 'race' may only be used to refer to skin color, hair texture, and eye, nose and lip shape, but in much of the world it can be applied to groups that are defined in other ways. Racism is a behavior. I don't see the appropriateness of only using it in reference to that particular behavior as directed toward people based on the physical characteristics that I just listed. The behavior is just as heinous regardless of whom is on the receiving end of it, and we do not have any suitable words to describe that behavior when it is directed towards groups that you don't consider a race. It is perfectly appropriate to use the term when that behavior is being directed at Muslims by people who are not Muslims, and that is what I will continue to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM

CarolC, please feel free to redefine words to fit your own personal desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:30 PM

Edwards would make a great Attorney General... Hillary, on the other hand, is best off where she is...

As fir progressives/liberals not havin' the will to attack??? I don't know... Edwards sho nuff looks like he could kick some butt...

But Obama will neeed someone in his campaign, other than himself, to do some of the dirty work... Kinda like Clinton had James Carvelle... But his people, I am sure, have given this a lot of consideration...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

Bobert - I agree Edwards could certainly take care of himself in a dispute. The probelm for the Democrats, as I see it, the Republicans have all these henchmen to do the attacking for them. That way the candidate himself/herself can never be accused of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

As I said before, artbrooks, and apparently you neglected to read it, I'm not creating that definition myself. It is used by much of the world. You many not agree with their definition, but it is a commonly used one, nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

Dianavan, you said... "I actually think they are all capable." (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson...AND Kucinich)

Yes! They are. That's right. And it would be far better if they were working together as a united coalition for their party going into this election, rather than jockeying against one another in the usual programmed manner for the one top spot of presidential candidate.

But the system as it exists forces them to compete with...and inevitably to attack one another.   That's not such a good system.

Now here's a theory that's been percolating around in my head in the last few days...just as a matter of interest. I think the Founding Fathers of the USA made one key error when they designed their tripartite system of government, and based it on the Constitution. They selected something very similar to a king...a temporary one...to rule it at the top! Why did they do that? Well, simply because people at that time were so completely accustomed to being ruled by one monarch, one man, that they couldn't even imagine a system that did not have one supreme leader at its top! Accordingly, they created an executive office that imbued a single leader, the President, with powers that in my view are too great and too dominant...and they created a political system that is based on the cult of that one single personality. That's not such a good idea, because a single personality is usually in truth not adequate to effectivelty and wisely lead a country (with some rare exceptions here and there, and we've seen those now and then).

It is better for a number of well-informed heads to reach a final decision on vital matters of national policy than it is for one to do it. That's my opinion. A large number of professional people are more likely to reach a decision which is not flawed by their own personal foibles, weaknesses, etc....because they all act as a check on one another.

But a president, ultimately, decides alone. Bush: "I'm the decider."

Well, dictators ultimately decide alone too, don't they? No one can gainsay a dictator's final decision on policy.

Thus what I am suggesting is that the USA would have been wiser to form a dual system of government....Congress and the judicial branch...Congress with a prime minister, no doubt, or a central committe to lead it....rather than creating such a powerful executive office as they did in the President.

There were many in the first Congress at the inception of the USA's independence who wanted to crown George Washington the first King of the USA!!!!!!!! That's a historical fact. Washington did not want that, and he told them so, and that speaks well for him, but it shows the mindset at the time. People were used to having kings.

A US president has powers considerably greater than a parliamentary prime minister in countries like Canada, Great Britain, etc....he's basically in for 4 years almost no matter WHAT he does, and he exerts an enormous personal force on the agenda if he is inclined to....and that can be a disaster if he's out of touch with reality or on a destructive course, as some of them certainly have been. He ends up creating damage that a prime minister would never get away with, because a prime minister's government would lose its credibility and immediately have to call a new election....they would face, in effect, a plebiscite. The US President doesn't have to do that. He's practically like a god for the 4 years that he's in office. He's almost untouchable.

Not good. It lends itself to abuse of power by men who are inclined to abuse it...and many are.

I think the founders of the USA fell into this error precisely because they were so used to being ruled by kings. They thought they were being very progressive, and they were, but they could only see just so far out of the box they grew up in.

Our prime minister does not get voted for as an individual across the whole country, he runs in a single local riding somewhere (and his party will be careful to pick one where they're quite sure he won't lose....although he still might!). We vote for the party whose policies we like the best AND whose leader we like the best (hopefully) but we don't vote for the leader HIMSELF directly except in one local riding...and he does not have the tremendous executive powers once elected that an American president does to personally veto the acts of the parliament.

The American system is geared to leadership by one strong man, and that attracts...or creates absolutists, people who assume almost the mantle of a monarch once elected. It does not benefit democracy to do that, it endangers it.

Now all the Democratic candidates (and the Republican ones) are caught up in the usual dynamic...first they attack one another, to get the top spot...then they attack the other party...all so that one single person among them can become the new "god in the White House" for 4 years, and no one can do diddly about it if they go berserk once they're in there.

Not good at all.

I'd rather see a system where Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich could ALL run equally for their party, cooperatively with one another, running as candidates in their own regions, and present a united front on behalf OF their party to the public, and discuss and work out policy together with the rest of their party and the other party after being elected (assuming they were). I'd like to see the same for the Republicans.

I'd like to see an end to this personality-cult/single leader approach to politics. It produces people who can't handle the load, and it also produces, on occasion, tyrants.

The Founding Fathers did not go quite far enough in distancing themselves from the Absolute Monarchies of their day, in my opinion.

There. ;-) Now, it's just theory. I know it ain't gonna happen. But I am always interested in what could be as well as what is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM

So is bigotry racist when it's directed at Catholics or Protestants?   How about when it's gay people? Or Democrats or Republicans? Or longhairs? I'm not questioning that what is involved is essentially the same way of thinking - but drift the term too far and it blurs things.

Except perhaps in some pretty limited contexts the term should perhaps always be kept in inverted commas. Otherwise it seems to indicate a degree of acceptance of the notion that it's all actually about something that can properly be described as "a race", which is very rarely the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM

Well, Rigs... I realize that attack ads still do work but if the Repubs try to Swiftboat Obama I think the Dems have had enough time to figure out how to counter...

Actually, John Kerry had opportunities to counter but never did...

If I had been John Kerry I would have just looked into the camera with a steely look and said plainly, "The men who say they know what went on that day weren't there... I was... My crew was... And so was that Viet Cong soldier who fired upon my boat just before I shot and killed him... Now if any of you can prove it didn't happen this way, fine... Step up to the plate just as I did on that June day in 1969..."

That's the way you deal with it... End of story...

By not doing that Kerry allowed doubt to set in... The way to deal with Swiftboaters is put it back on them and do it "swiftly"....

No, what I see the Repubs doing is attacking Obama's strenghts... One of the best things he has going for him is that he is convincing voters that he can end partisanship do I see the Repubs demanding that Obame tell the vioters how he plans on doing this and then attacking Obama's responses and try to get the fight into the corner... That is what the Bush apologists do here in Mudville... They try to control the converstaion by constantly changing the subject...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

LH - Sometimes you need fast and immediate decisions that could only be issued by one man/woman. And sometimes, when you have a committee trying to run something, they aren't capable of reaching a decision. Look how hopeless the US Senate becomes at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:31 PM

Well...Canada, England, and a great many other modern democracies seem quite able to reach important decisions quickly, Rinslinger, despite not having a chief executive with veto powers over his own assembly. We have not been hamstrung at all in that sense by having a weaker chief executive office than in the USA.

You Americans are used to your imperial presidency because you take it for granted, but you don't have the basis of comparison that many others have when it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

I guess I just always assumed that people like Harper and Gordon Brown had similar authorities to an American president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:17 PM

No, indeed. They are chief executives, but they do not have the extraordinary powers and untouchability of an American president. They are there to make the hard decisions in an emergency...which decisions must, of course, be ratified at some point by the sitting parliament.

Here's the difference. If our prime minister screws up really badly on a major policy issue, and the public loses confidence really badly in his government, he is simply going to be forced by parliament itself within a reasonable amount of time to call an election over it. He doesn't get to wait till a 4-year interval passes. He has to face the music then and there.

He can't veto legislation that has been legally passed by the parliament, he can only use his (considerable) persuasion to influence that vote before it is cast...and he gets, like any other member of parliament, one vote on the bill...but he undoubtedly influences the other members of his party by persuasion, because that's how a party works in concert with its party leaders.

When we do have an election in Canada, it doesn't last a solid year! It lasts 6 weeks. That's plenty enough time for the politicians to harangue the public, get their message out, and bombard the airwaves, and generally put the government and society in a state of confusion. Who the hell needs more than 6 weeks to have an election campaign???

Look at what happens in the USA in comparison. An election there basically throws your whole society into a frenzy that lasts almost a year. That isn't good for running your government efficiently. But it's great for professional people who get highly paid to do all the promo stuff they do during an election, isn't it?

No Canadian prime minister's government could possibly have survived the idiocies in foreign policy perpetrated by George Bush in the last 7 years. He'd have been thrown out a long, long time ago. But the imperial presidency is almost unassailable if your president decides he just won't give in. Nothing short of impeachment can stop him then, and impeachment is a national trauma almost equivalent to civil war. The odds against it ever being carried through are astronomical, and if it is carried through it gives the country a nervous breakdown. (that's because your president is like a god, in effect...or a symbolic father figure for the whole nation...and that's just out of proportion)

In comparison, kicking an unpopular Canadian prime minister out of office is a very moderate and accessible exercise, as it well should be, and it has been done many times, I can tell you. Just normal political stuff. No national nervous breakdown.

This means our prime ministers have to keep in mind that they are not unaccountable for their actions. They are public employees with a job to do, and they can get fired! They have to remain just a tad humble...or pay the price. ;-) All to the better, if you want good government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

Actually, artbrooks is incorrect in saying that the definition I am using is wrong. Even Websters dictionary supports my usage...

2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary

However, I most often see or hear people from your side of the pond using the term in the way I am using it, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:40 PM

Well - LH - That does sound like a better system. I'd have to think about the veto thing a bit.

                What about those folks in the US who want to give the president a Line-Item-Veto. That would give him more power than ever, wouldn't it? And what do you think about all of the power that George W. Bush has simply usurped over the years. That seems destructive as well, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:00 PM

True enough, that definition would indeed allow the term "race" to be applied to the range of groups I mentioned, Catholics, Protestants, gays, Republicans, Democrats. Even wider - to cover "women", "men", "children", or morris dancers.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary's equivalent sub-definition is clearer in indicating the kind of context in which this meaning can be properly used: class of person etc with some common feature (eg race of poets, of dandies, etc.)

But I think that moving on from there to use the word racism to cover prejudice against any and every "class of person with some common feature" is extending it a bit too far. And I doubt if there's a dictionary definition of that word which would recognise that use.

People do use the term racism in relation to prejudice against religious groups - for example, Catholics and Protestants in the Northern Irish context, or Muslims or Jews more generally. I'd see them as using it in an analogistic way. Making a point of enclosing the word in inverted commas is a way of representing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

Very theoretically the Queen as Head of State has a veto on legislation - and that's really where the President as elected Head of State, inherits it - it got carried over into the US Constitution as the kind of things Heads of State were supposed to be able to do.

However so far as the Queen goes it's not a real power - the last time it was used was in 1708.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:02 PM

Yes, again, that's my point. The President's king-like powers are that way precisely because all the people in that society in the 1770's were accumstomed to the idea of a monarch wielding those sort of powers. The American revolutionaries attempted to liberalize things and spread the power around, they just did not take that iniativer quite far enough...in terms of what has happened since in liberal democracies.

Now most of the rest of the western world has, in fact, become more progressive in that sense than the USA has, because the USA is resting its governmental structures on an old model that stems from way back in the 1770's, and it's become a bit out of date in the interim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:33 PM

Well, we are being pretty Eurocentric, post-Vatican II on this question of whether he is a Muslim. I think it would be wonderful if he were, and do not think it is a negative thing at all or should be an insult. Nowadays we think we are whatever religion we want to be or declare ourselves to be. That is not certainly how it used to be, even when I was growing up...my father broke the Catholic chain by marrying a Protestant, so I consider myself only half Catholic, but nevertheless that is the religion I inherited. Obama's father was raised Muslim and became an agnostic I believe. Obama has declared himself a Christian. To our way of thinking that is what he is. To his father's culture and religion, his father was a Muslim and therefore so is he as you are what your father was (for male and female? DOn't know.) So it is not far-fetched to at least wonder if he is one. It should not be a problem for him at all, but of course it is...We shouldn't necessarily insult those who wonder, and we shouldn't consider it anybody's business but his if he is and it would add to his already impressive multicultural heritage. Being a Mormon should not be a problem for Romney, but of course it is...but people are always making it sound like the other people are the problem....don't go making him deny his father's heritage now..no one should have to do this. He is in sort of a pickle but supposedly educated tolerant people making it sound like being associated with a Muslim family history is somehow tainted are certainly part of the problem themselves. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM

If only Obama would have become an agnostic like his father he'd be a lot more attractive politically.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:43 PM

Well said, mg, I applaud your thinking, but the fact is that in the present American society no presidential candidate can afford to be indentified as having been "Muslim". Why? Because there's too much prejudice out there against Muslims, too much fear of them, and it would be a death blow to his candidacy.

Obviously, that is unjust...that form of prejudice...it's irrational...and it's wrong...but the political reality is that it's there and it's a factor which cannot be gotten around.

Kennedy was hurt (some) by being Catholic. Romney is hurt by being Mormon. Obama would be hurt a lot worse by having been "Muslim".

It would be great if the general public were wholly rational and free of prejudice, but they are not.

So what is one to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:43 PM

Well, as a member of the race of liberals and the race of Mudcatters, I suppose I can accept that not everyone is as literal and pedantic as I. I, however, maintain my own right to believe that the words "prejudiced" and "racist" do not mean the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:59 PM

They certainly do not!! A man can be prejudiced about any number of things besides race!! He can hate poor people, redheads, or gimps without a trace of racism to it!! He's still guilty of blind prejudice, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

Carol was obviously referring to generic and blind prejudice against Muslims, and she used the term "racist" in her statement. So what? She was talking about prejudice. It works the same way, regardless of what word you call it by.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:32 PM

"Obama Ahead of Clinton Before New Hampshire Primary
By Meredith Buel
Bedford, New Hampshire
07 January 2008


Large crowds of supporters are cheering Barack Obama as polls show the Illinois senator is poised to win a significant victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary. It would be Obama's second come-from-behind triumph in a week over New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who displayed rare emotion as she campaigned on the eve of the election. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details on the Democratic candidates running in the primary in this report from Bedford, New Hampshire.


Several recent polls show Obama leading Hillary Clinton by a double-digit margin less than a week after the one-time front runner came in a disappointing third in the Iowa caucuses.

At a rally in Lebanon, New Hampshire, Obama urged his supporters not to be overconfident.

"I know we had a nice boost over the last couple of days, but elections are funny things," said Obama. "You actually have to wait until people have voted and counted the votes before you know what is happening."

About 45 percent of New Hampshire's voters are independent and can participate in either the Republican or Democratic primaries."...


Hmmmm.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:18 PM

Obama Moslem or not. Obviously not. But look at how Rig phrased it--not "Moslem"
but "Islamic ties". It's the nebulous phrasing which is particularly damning--allows all sorts of speculation. I suspect that in some minds it's worse than "Moslem"--and that is exactly why that phrase is used.

And of course totally without foundation--especially the sinister "ties" which are meant to be raised. As I've already pointed out. It appears his father was Moslem. Obama himself went to school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. Not a madrassa. In fact it may be an advantage for him--he still speaks a bit of Indonesian. End of "Islamic ties".

Another item:

Rig: "Ron, I've read where other Republicans are trying to convince the Democrats to nominate Obama as well. You're not alone out there."

Gee, Rig, if I didn't know better I might possibly think , that, as the master of the deft smear--Bush may still have a place for you even in his last year-- you're trying to smear me by implying that I want Obama so the Republicans can beat him. Good thing we know you'd never stoop to anything so low. Heaven forbid.

And of course your theory, as usual, shows less than perfect logic, shall we say. In fact Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate--especially for his willingness to reach out to non-Democrats. And you've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you're unaware that there are such things as sensible Republicans--moderate to liberal--not of the Bush-Cheney-Rove stripe. I assure you we do exist. Sen. Lugar is good example. McCain is sensible on some issues, but nobody who imagines we can achieve "victory" in Iraq gets my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:19 PM

"Sen. Lugar is a good example."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:36 PM

Bobert--

Just wanted to compliment you heartily on your 7 Jan 2008 4:25 PM post--especially your idea for Kerry's response to the Swift Boaters for Character Assassination.

Just perfect--too bad Kerry didn't have you advising him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:16 PM

I don't think they mean the same thing, either, artbrooks, which is why I insist on using the term 'racism' to indicate racist behaviors against Muslims. The kind of hate mongering that is being waged against them as a group as well as against them as individuals cannot in any way be called 'prejudice'. Prejudice is far too mild a word to use in this context. It's racist hate is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:16 PM

"Perhaps you're unaware that there are such things as sensible Republicans..."


                      You got that right!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

mg,

By standard Church rules, it is the religion (and denomination) of the MOTHER that determines the religion of the children. A child of a RC mother and an Eastern Othodox ( of whatever denomination) is RC UNLESS the child converts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:52 PM

CarolC, you should, of course, feel free to use whatever word you are most comfortable with, as a member of the Mudcat race (which is, according to your definition, "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"). BTW, you might, just for the fun of it, put "racism" into the dictionary site to which you linked earlier.

And does anyone have anything to say about the Obama supporter race or about Senator Obama? Personally, I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that he is presently 3 years older than was JFK when he was elected President, without a great deal more experience as an elected official than Sen. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:59 AM

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

Seeing as how one of their definitions of race is perfectly consistent with the way I am using it, when they use the word race in the above context, it can most certainly mean what I am intending it to mean when I use it.

You're right. That was fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:10 AM

I see I misunderstood your intent in saying what you did, artbrooks.

The dictionary may define it in those terms, but that definition doesn't in any way convey the difference in emotional impact that each of those terms has on people. And it is that emotional impact that I think is the most important part of those words and the way they are used.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 06:10 AM

Of course, when stuff like a person's name, or the religion of a parent, is seen as the decoding factor, with religion being seen as some kind of biological inheritance, rather than as a matter of individual religious affiliation, the term "racism" can be appropriate enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 07:06 AM

Rig--

Sure is good Obama doesn't have you on his staff. He believes in the "big tent". That's a little bit different from bitter cynicism.


Another item:

artbrooks raises an interesting point.

Related point. I understand Obama is 46. Somebody else was 46 in 1992--and the victor that year. Somebody we've heard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 07:06 AM

To call someone a "racist"... is also a very handy way of destroying his reputation, whether or not it has any real basis in fact. If you try to defend yourself against such accusations, the more you struggle the faster you may sink in the quicksand....

And then there's the demonizing word "socialist" ...

There is absolutely NOTHING shameful about being a socialist... (or, by implication, a racist? W.H.) (Little Hawk)

Wolfgang (wondering which definition of "racist" applies this time)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 07:15 AM

I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Zimmerman.

But this seems to be a time for some of his most famous lines.

As I mentioned before there's: "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall".

And:

"Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. (Riginslinger)?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:22 AM

Ron - I am a huge fan of Mr. Zimmerman, and that makes all the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:28 AM

Glad to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:22 AM

Of course, when stuff like a person's name, or the religion of a parent, is seen as the decoding factor, with religion being seen as some kind of biological inheritance, rather than as a matter of individual religious affiliation, the term "racism" can be appropriate enough.

I think that religion often can have a genetic implication in peoples' minds as well. In the case of the Muslim religion, I think a lot of people see it as being "not European" (not really "white"), and I tend to suspect that this is why it's so easy for Western societies to think it's ok to treat Muslims and Muslim countries as though they are inherently inferior - which, I would suggest, is the reason Western governments feel perfectly justified in adopting a colonialist stance in their relationship to those peoples and countries, and feeling like it is perfectly ok to subjugate their people and steal their resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM

A few mintes ago I received as nasty a political e-mail as I've ever seen, slurring Obama for his church affiliation. I copied all the addresses that had passed it on, and dropped them this:

                   I am sending this to all of those who have already received and forwarded the e- mail which I just received regarding Senator Barak Obama and his church affiliation, and to others who will very likely receive it soon. The quote below largely sums up that letter.




"if you look more closely at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's church, it sounds more like a racist cult than anything else"

I find it interesting, to say the least, that someone would say this about a church which forthrightly states that it is commited to preaching salvation in Christ. The church is staffed by highly educated people with credentials from a whole spectrun of mainstream universities, seminaries, and schools of divinity. It's ministries include involvement with such subversive, extremist organizations as Girl Scouts.

To imply from his membership in the church that Senator Obama is not a loyal American, or is a dangerous extremist, is the basest sort of political smear. It is absurd, and totally un-Christian.   

If you are about to make any assumptions about me, or my background, I will spare you some of the effort. I'm from a Minnesota farm, I'm a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I graduated from North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, and the extremist groups to which I belong or owe loyalty are the United Methodist Church and the Lapeer Art Association.

                         D. Dean Elkins, Lapeer Michigan

It may not do any good, but it FELT good.   Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

God, what the crumb-bums won't do to dramatize their tiny little hatreds.

I spit.

Thanks, Dean.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM

Yeah, but we're just in the primary. Imagine what they're going to come up with in the general election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:10 PM

Then we need to fill our quivers and stand by to repel hatred, all hands....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM

There are more and more independents. By virtue of that very status, it's obvious they don't take orders from anybody. I suspect they're also more likely to do research and think before they vote--and not to be swayed by pathetic stupid smears such as are under discussion.

With Obama as the nominee, the passion on the Democratic side in favor of their candidate is likely to be intense. With Hillary, it would be a pale shadow.

On the Republican side, even if McCain, the strongest candidate, is the nominee, there are a lot of Republicans who don't feel he was strong enough on tax cuts--he opposed the Bush cuts-- (now supports them), are against McCain-Feingold, and especially want to be far more punitive against illegal immigrants than McCain. For all these reasons, and more, the enthusiasm on their side will be tempered--some may well not vote, or vote for a write-in.

The economy is not in good shape, according to the general public perception--people tend to throw out the president's party in that case. The Republicans have been in power since 2000--- (Congress only changed hands ,actually to gridlock, recently)

Iraq is temporarily improving--but at the cost of arming both sides in the potential return of the civil war. This is particularly important, since it's the main reason for McCain's resurrection--and the upward trend could just as easily reverse, especially since "national reconciliation" is painfully slow.

These factors are likely to be more significant than any imagined Rush-Swift Boat etc. campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:37 PM

Good points, Ron, and well made.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM

Your point puzzles me, Wolgang. I was not implying any similarity between calling a person a "racist" or calling them a "socialist". I was simply taking note that in the USA the term "socialist" is used as a labeler to demonize people and attack them. "Socialism" seems to be seen as evil in the USA. I don't think it's used that way anywhere else, at least not by very many people.

As for racism, that is seen as evil anywhere....as it should be.

I was taking about several different things in one post, but not necessarily implying links between them that you suggest...simply thinking about several different things, that's all.

Clearly, to label someone a racist falsely, merely to do them damage, is to be slanderous and dishonest, correct? The question is...ARE they genuinely racist or not? If they are, fine, you can call them "racist" and be on solid ground. If they aren't, then to call them so is just a mindgame you're playing that is intended to damage them publicly in some way....and I've seen some examples of that from time to time. I'm sure you have too.

But to think that you can damage someone by calling him a "socialist"?????? Only in the USA! ;-) That's what's so weird about the USA.

So what was your point?

Look, Wolfgang, I don't read any toxic beliefs into the things you say, I assume you're a good, rational person with sensible ideas and high ideals. I would appreciate it if you were equally generous to me in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:23 PM

In the USA, Ronald Reagan ran Walter Mondale out of contention by simply calling him a "Liberal."
             When folks are so dumbed down they don't even know what a word means, the meaning is drawn by how you say it.
             I think in order to fix the political system in America, you'd have to go back and reconstruct the educational system first.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:25 PM

Right on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM

At noon I am calling Obama the winner.

This is great!

When I was a kid I was called a niggar lover since I refused to adopt the status quo hatred.
As a teenager I was beat up for claiming that China's economy would someday rival ours.
As an adult I was told to love it or leave it.

Maybe now some social forgiveness and healing can fade our scars.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM

My usually Friday night television watching consists of NOW with David Brancaccio followed by Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill, and Bill Moyers' Journal. I find these programs are frequently very enlightening. And sometimes they can be pretty disturbing.

If you want a good insight into the "below the belt" aspects of American politics, NOW this past Friday evening (January 4th) gives you a good look at it. I think everyone should watch this program. It runs about half an hour, but it's well worth spending the time to watch the whole thing. But it might be a good idea to have an airsick bag handy!

Click HERE, then wait for a moment or two while it loads.

I think you might find this past Friday's Bill Moyers' Journal interesting as well. Three interviews, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, analyst, and two candidates who seem to have been kicked into the corner by their respective parties, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. This is the January 4th program and may not be on after the next program, but you should be able to go to "ARCHIVES" and pull up the Jan. 4th program.    HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM

Super

Now is second only to Frontline as the best docu news in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 03:49 PM

Wouldn't most ofthe people who'd lap up that kind of stuff be pretty likely to be voting against any Democrat in any case?

And dirty tricks can backfire, with decent people deciding they don't want to associate with that kind of campaigning by tailoring their vote in the way the dirty trick merchants want them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 04:22 PM

McGrath, a lot of "undecideds" and independents were put off by the Swiftboat lies about Kerry and ended up either voting for Bushy or not voting at all. It isn't necessary to get potential voters to switch - it is enough to simply persuade them to stay home on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 04:42 PM

Limbaugh's ignorance is monumental. Most African-Americans have caucasion ancestry in their background. In some African countries, they would be considered to be "white".

O is not a Muslim but a declared Christian. Nixon's father was a Quaker but did that make Nixon one? I think not. Hillary's father was a rib-rocked Republican, Hugh Rodham.
Some may argue that Hillary is one too but she has registered Democratic.

Isn't it weird that the Crusades are still being fought?

Obama has a lot of charisma and this seems to be the most propelling aspect of his campaign. He is vague on many issues and seems to be beholden to certain branches of the Health Care Industry lobbyists and one lobbyist of the Nuclear Industry. His campaign unlike Kucinich or Edwards is funded by corporate lobbyists as well as private donors.
I think the 527's control him as well as Hillary and the Union 527's run Edwards race.

He preaches hope and inclusion but doesn't address the issues that divide the country.
There are ideological differences that may take many years to take apart.
I don't think he comes out very well on campaign finance reform.

He is not clear on a time-table on Iraq, either. Dennis says "get out now!"

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:08 PM

"Get out now" is an appealing statement, but somewhat disingenuous. It took us over two years to disengage and get out of Vietnam, and we only did so by dumping most of the military equipment into the South China Sea (I was there and saw it). Much of what the US military currently has in the way of tactical equipment is in Iraq and will have to be brought home or moved to a nearby, allegedly friendly, nation. One estimate that I've seen said that it would take nearly six months of effectively round-the-clock airlifts to simply bring the troops back. I haven't run the numbers, so I can't say if that's accurate or not.

Bushy got us into this mess, and is leaving it up to his successor to get us out. Nice guy, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:21 PM

Listen, ya' all...

Yeah, there will be a number or fringe radical right wing groups that are going to try to bash Obame for this or that...

Rigs got an email today bashing Obama's church...

This election is going to be differenet because, where these thing might have worked in the past, I think the average voter has had just about enough of Swiftboating... They certainly have had enough of the Rush Limbaugh's of the world... Might of fact they have had enough of radicals, be they on the left or the right...

So, and you heard it here first, the more Obama bashing that the right can do the better Obama's chances of winning in Novemeber... I know this flies in the face of "conventional wisdom" but "convwentional wisdom" has gotten us the likes of George Bush and that is why the voters will be very leary of negative ads this time around...

Obama/Richardson in '08!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:45 PM

Obama/Richardson? As a citizen of the great state of New Mexico - please!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:57 PM

Hey,

I'm sitting over here in the Uk watching what's going on on your side of the water and I feel a thrill of optimism.

I feel proud of all you ordinary intelligent American folk who are backing Obama.

He wouldn't be doing so well without the support of individuals, and individuals have to ultimately make their minds up on their own on voting day.

If you see this through and put him in thhe bloody white house, you will solve all your foreign mistrust issues in one fell swoop.

You will completely explode the myth that white america refuses at all costs to share power with it's black brethren and that America is all about subjugation of "others".

More importantly, you will prove that America has the intelligence and wisdom that Obama espouses and represents.

We (the rest of the world - ably represented in it's entirety by me) couldn't believe that you gave Bush a second term - we couldn't believe you gave him a first term but hey - mistakes happen (as you can see from the grammatical and other errors on this page)

Anyway, point is, your doing the right thing. Give this guy the job. The world is behind you on this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM

Not so much a myth that needs exploding, more of a reality that is changing, but still has some way to go before it is reduced to being a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:32 AM

I read something that said he was our Princess Diana. Good analogy. Sorry he lost today but there is still tomorrow. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:39 PM

He didn't lose by much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:41 PM

No, but the polls had him 13 points ahead. I wonder how they could have been so wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

He did not lose, in any large sense, in that he has as many delegates to the DNC as she does; and starting with Nevada there is a string of primary elections ahead which are more liberal states than New Hampshire.

It was an unexpected turn, but it has not defined the race in my opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:49 PM

No, I wouldn't think it defines the race, but it certainly extended it.

                   But it's not just "liberal" states. South Carolina will be a conservative state, but a majority of the Democrats are black. So if they swing to Obama, he could score well there too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM

Perhaps the polls were off because a lot of younger people favor Obama, but then they don't actually vote. Voting is always more sparse among younger people for some reason, although I certainly voted consistently when I was young. I guess a lot of my friends at the time didn't, probably because they were a lot more interested in the social stuff they were doing (dating, partying, music, friends, etc.) than they were in the political process.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM

Virginia: McCain 49% Clinton 38%
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Virginia voters shows Senator John McCain enjoying advantages over both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain leads Clinton 49% to 38% and Obama 45% to 43%.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 03:24 PM

Obama Is 'Intangible, Elastic, Hollow' (DER SPIEGEL on January, 8th)

Newspapers from right to left in Germany have similar objections to Obama

...now he is enchanting the public with a canned speech that offers everything apart from the most important thing: political substance...
Promises of salvation can't be renewed every eight years. Instead what is needed is a period of political stability, a moment of de-emotionalization....

Not my opinion, but interesting to read.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 03:57 PM

Kathleen Parker said the same thing in her column today!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:33 PM

I think that the most relevant comment was made by Edwards: something like, "remember that only about 1% of Americans have had a chance to vote on their candidate so far". The mystique of Iowa and New Hampshire notwithstanding, it is early times yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

Maybe if he changed his last name to Obama-rama-lama-ding-dong he could pick up even more youth votes.......or baby boomers......or neither................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:11 PM

Some Mudcatters may be interested in reading this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/9/165437/3750/368/433885
I Had Lunch with Barack Obama Today!
by The Angry Democrat
Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:57:22 PM PST

"I had an intimate lunch today with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama...and about 400 of his closest friends. Come read what Barack had to say on the heels of the NH Primary.

Barack Obama held a private fundraiser in downtown Boston this afternoon. My rough math is that he raised between $250K to $500K from the event, not bad for a few hours work. Some random observations and thoughts. (I don't have a perfect memory, so I will be paraphrasing what Barack said).

5. ...About his "loss" in New Hampshire - He was in a sense pleased and relieved by it. To keep it all in perspective, he pointed out that Iowa was less than a week ago, and that 2 weeks ago a 3 point loss to Hilary in NH would have been considered a good performance for him. So, don't believe the polls, the pundits etc. He also said he started to feel like Icarus, got a little too close to the sun and now it was time to come back to earth. He also said it is just as well that he came back down to earth now rather than later. Finally, he said this was bound to happen because making the type of change he represents is never easy, and there are entrenched interests who will always resist that type of change."

-snip-

Obama lost New Hampshire by 3 percentage points-just 3.

Here's his New Hampshire concession speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_lQYC7vqBg

This speech may be even better than his Iowa caucas victory speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:28 PM

"...Because they know int heir hearts, that this time must be different."

This guy is a public thinker and orator of class, unlike any seen in decades.

Compared to Wee-Willie Bush he is a bright comet compared to a punk smokestick. He deserves all the help he can be given.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:37 PM

This man is absolutely amazing -- if you have not seen the link Azizi posted up thread, take the time to watch him in action.

:"Yes, we can!!!!!"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:39 PM

Here's a link to the text of Senator Barack Obama's New Hampshire speech:

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2008/01/barack-obamas-speech-in-new-hampshire.html

**

I predict that this will be called Obama's "Yes We Can" speech because of this portion:


"...We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change. We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.

And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea – Yes. We. Can."

-snip-

It was interesting to see the way the audience not only chanted the phrase "Yes We Can" but echoed that phrase after Senator Obama stated it. This call & response pattern is very characteristic of Black churches. Such an approach helped to unify the audience and get them "fired up" when they probably were feeling low because of the campaign's loss. It was truly masterful!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:45 PM

As a matter of information, I read that Barack Obama has used the phrase "Yes We Can" in his campaign since 2004.

Also, "Sí, Se Puede" (Yes, We Can) is a popular rallying cry of Latino activists.

And there's a whole lot of Latinos/Latinas in Nevada.

That's another reason why this chant is masterful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

Well, as for McCain taking Virginia over a Dem... Yeah, if one were to take a poll with jus' that question then I'm sure that those mubers would be close to being accurate...

Problem is...

...Mark Warner, who BTW I will be lunching with tomorrow with a number of established Dems in Page County, Va.... Mark Warner, unless he is chosen as a running mate of the Dem nominee, will be running for John Warner's Senate seat and Mark Warner is the most popular ex-governor that Virginia has ever had...

Waht this mean is that those polls can be thrown out the window 'cause Mark Warner will carry the Dem. presidentail candidate along on his coat-tails... Unless Deenis wins, that is... Mark won't be able to get Dennis over the line here in Vuirginia...

But Obama, Clinton and especially Edwards will get Virginia electorial votes... Virginia has had enough of Repubs for now, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:42 AM

We must have Michelle Obama as first lady. A few days ago she took on the Mean Girls who are terrorizing other girls and boys in junior highs and high schools throughout this land. Hooray for her. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:58 AM

Stop the presses!!! Get Ripley on the phone...

Yup, me agreein with mg twice in one week is fodder for "Ripley's Beleive it or Not", fir sure...

Yeah, Michelle Obama is one tough cookie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:15 AM

CHARLESTON, S.C. – Senator John Kerry is set to endorse the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama at a rally here today, the first of several high-profile Democrats expected to announce their support for Mr. Obama in his fight to win the party's nomination.
Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who was the party's presidential nominee in 2004, will argue that Mr. Obama represents the best prospect for uniting a divided country, aides to both men said, as well as transforming America's image around the world.
The endorsement is weeks in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM

The endorsement is weeks in the making. How can an endorsement be "weeks in the making"?

I suppose it means he took an awfully long time making his mind up about it. Not something to boast of, from Kerry's point of view or Obama's.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM

Does that mean John Edwards knows how it feels to have John Kerry for a swift boat captain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM

No, Rinslinger. It means that Woody Allen will soon be revealed as the father of Brittney Spears next love child.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:15 PM

I thought he would never come clean!! Does Mia know???


"Weeks in the making" is the time it took to confirm he would do it, and then decide when he would do it, is all. No big mystery there.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM

Mia and Woody aren't talking. If they were, though, I think this latest revelation would put the final nail in the coffin. ;-)

I am most pleased that John Kerry has endorsed Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:33 PM

In other words "he took an awfully long time making his mind up about it." Not quote as whole-hearted and enthusiastic as might have been hoped for.


I'm reminded of the union leader who was taken ill and had to go in hospital. In due course he received a get well card from his committee - with a note saying this had been put to the vote and passed by five votes to four with two abstentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:36 PM

Sounds like the card Bill Shatner got from the rest of the Star Trek cast when he was down with the flu....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:14 PM

Here's an interesting dailykos diary about Senator Kerry's endorsement of Senator Obama:

Back from the Obama/Kerry Event
by segseg
Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/14154/6472/806/434472

Excerpt:

"Sen. Kerry gave one of the best introductory speeches I have seen. Full of passion, simple yet inspiring language, true conviction for the host he was to introduce. Simultaneously folk around us asked "where was this guy four years ago." Kerry laid out why the naysayers were wrong. How Jefferson was in his twenties when he wrote the Declaration of Independence and how MLK was a mere 34 years old when he marched on Washington.

He conceded that youth inspires and the old politicians must make way for young new exciting passion and ideas. He knew Obama would end the swiftboaters and change tone which he tried to do four years ago.

(Then like Kerry, he went on a bit to long, but what are you going to do.)

Obama then spoke. I had seen most of the speech he gave before on TV, but live, the guy is a leader and a rock star....

I now believe hope alone can breed new ideas and ultimately success. I will not let my ex-favorite politician Bill Clinton to tell me to stop believing in Fairy tales. As the Senator put it, that is what the dream of a country from Sea to shining sea was to many: a fairy tale. But thousands upon thousands went west anyway. Putting a man on the moon: a fairy tale, but Kennedy inspired hope to go and we did.

The Hope to change and make things better–that is what is missing from our country. Bitter over 9-11 we have digressed into grumpy finger pointing doom and gloomers. It must change and change now. Obama can, we can.,,

Hoping the fairy tale of a greater America comes true".....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:58 PM

Kerry's Endorsement is worth listening to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM

Excellent. Kerry sounds genuinely inspired this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:37 PM

Well, geeze.... Yeah, I guess this is good but not all that good... I'd rather see Bill Richardson, who I think is about to bow out, endorse Obama...

But we'll take what we can...

BTW, I was at a smallish luncheon (maybe 70 people) today with Mark Warner in Luray... The invite only crown was made up of both Repubs and Dems and really not too sure how I got an invite...

Mark made his way around the room and spoke with everyone personally... I had made this nice badeg that read "Obama/Warner '08" and had it pinned to the inside of my sports coat and when Mark came over to my table I whispered in his ear that I had something for him to see and showed him the button... I know he liked it and he whispered back that he was shocked at the N.H. primary...

I don't take that as an endorsement but it was obvious he was delighted to see his name on the button with Obama's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM

I notice Richardson left the field without endorsing anyone, so I suppose he is holding it in reserve for a shot at Veep. Not a bad tactic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:36 PM

Ned Lamont, who rose to national prominence after defeating Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in the 2006 Connecticut race for the US Senate just endorsed Senator Barack Obama.

See this excerpt from Lamont's website:

"It's Time To Change The Game

When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics – changes that would make government work for them again.

Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works."...

http://www.nedlamont.org/

**

Btw, Senator Lieberman {of the Independent party or whatever party he belongs to} went on to win that campaign in Connecticut. Lieberman recently endorsed Republican Senator John McCain for US President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:43 PM

I meant to mention that Ned Lamont was initially for Senator Dodd who is no longer running for the Democratic nomination for President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:20 PM

Well, one thing that I have noticed on another thread is that some folks are beginning to let media-speak set into their opinions of the various candidates... And the media-speak on Obama is that he hasn't done any thing and isn't saying anything...

This is a terrible injustice but is more a sad commentary on just how unjournalistic our media has become...

I used an example in the other thread of the work that Obama did in the Illinois state house in bringing about video-taping of interogations and confession of suspected criminals...

Where was the political payoff??? Where ere the lobbiests with big checks... No where...

This was a "heart" issue and speaks volumes about the man becasue he not only got the legislation thru but he also had bipartisan support in doing so... No easy feat with the right wing law 'n order folks fighting him...

This showed courage... He had nothing to gain politically but everyone gained from his work in making for a more just system where confessions could no longer come from intense beatings...

Will we hear about things like this on the campaign trail??? Probably not... Campaigns are in the details of policies... That is unfortunate because if they were I believe that Obama would look even better...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:32 PM

The media are closely tied to various special interest groups...namely those with the most money. Accordingly, the media cannot be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:54 PM

That should have read, "Campaigns aren't"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:06 PM

OK, I have to reverse myself on Kucinich. I found out that he would run with Ron Paul as a VP and I find this intolerable. Paul is an avowed racist, and had views that run counter
to everything I believe in. DK has just effectively lost his bid for the presidential race by suggesting Paul as a running mate. What must he be thinking to run with Paul who supports David Dukes and is unseemly critical of African-Americans. Wow, was I mislead.

Back to Obama or should I say O-prah-bama (hope he doesn't run against Chuckobee).
His manner is much like a preacher with the "Yes I Can" mantra. He seems likeable and appears to be sincere but I don't find much substance under his stump rhetoric. I know that he has paid a few dues (yes, real experience Hillary) in Chicago politics but he seems unclear as to how he would 1. Bring the troops home from Iraq, 2. Implement health care so that it is out of the hands of the crooked insurance companies, 3. Restore   unionism (although he has received support from the SEIU), 4. Do something about restoring habeas corpus and abolishing the Patriot Act, 5. Get rid of NAFTA and get out of the WTO, 6. Stop the wiretapping and restore FISA, 7. Do something about the dysfunctional voting machines (go back to paper ballots counted at the precinct level), 8. Be serious about eliminating 527's and do campaign finance reform, 9. Outlaw the Telecommunications Act and give the media back to the people, 10. AND take Iran off the table.

Then I could consider his nomination as being viable.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:15 PM

Did Kucinich say he would run with Ron Paul? Boy, talk about the odd couple...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:57 PM

Having just seen an interview on CNN that happened tonight with Ron Paul around this very issue of him supposedly being a "racist"...some really vicious smears that are clearly being spread noisily by some unknown fuckers who've been quietly hired by some other Republican Party candidate(s), Frank Hamilton, I think you are 100% mistaken about that, and you better check your facts and check 'em twice.

He spoke at great length about the injustice of how black people are being unfairly treated in the criminal justice system, and various other related matters.

You're chewing on a large red herring of the type that is released in all elections these days to ruin someone's candidacy. Just another "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" effort is what I think it is. Dirty politics.

And you are spreading their message for them. That's your mistake, but not theirs.

I saw the interview. I heard the full explanation. This is not a new story, it's ancient, and it was discredited a long time ago. Ron Paul did not write any of the articles you are referring to, and he was not aware of them or in sympathy with them when they were written. If someone who happens to like and support Ron Paul also writes an article that has racist views IN it, that is not Ron Paul's fault...nor does it have anything to do with an evaluation of Ron Paul or his stand on issues.

This was a long time ago, this issue you have happened upon, and it's just a red herring being dragged around by some disinformation spreaders who are out to knock Ron Paul out of the Republican lineup, because his views on American foreign policy are embarassing the hell out of his party which cannot bear to hear the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM

Is Ron Paul a racist?

Yes.

Here's an example of his racist writing:

"LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058 Aug 4 1993, 12:15 am

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality...

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

Also, there's these comments found on http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=574 :

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985,published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent....

What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

-snip-

Sorry, but I'm not buying Paul's excuses for those words.

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:22 PM

Not quite as bad as Robert Byrd, I suppose, but still pretty damaging.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM

Reposted from the Kucinich thread...

The word I got from the Kucinich campaign at the national level (and I am in the Kucinich campaign myself - on the state level) is that, and I quote: "There will not be a Kucinich / Ron Paul ticket".

Frank, could you please post this to wherever you posted that stuff?


Ron Paul doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Kucinich does. Ron Paul believes that the Christian churches should "eclipse the government in importance".

Kucinich and Paul have totally opposite plans for health care. Kucinich believes everyone should have it, and that profit motive should not be a part of the health care equation. Ron Paul believes that the market should determine who can have it and who can't.

Obama, by the way, believes that everyone should be required to have it, whether they can afford it or not. He has no plans to remove the extra costs that result from the profit motive of the insurance companies - in fact, his plan actually subsidizes the insurance industry. With Obama's plan, everyone will still have to pay premiums, deductibles, and co-pays to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies will still make their profits by denying care. Michael Moore endorses Kucinich's health care plan. He does not endorse Obama's health care plan.

With Kucinich's plan, the profit motive and all of its associated costs (advertising, lobbying, dividends to stock holders, etc.) will be eliminated, and we will receive a higher standard of care for less money overall.

Obama says he is against the Iraq war, but he has voted to fund it. Kucinich has voted consistantly to not fund it.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are good friends, and they share some of their beliefs about foreign policy, but their domestic agendas and some of their foreign policy ideas are completely incompatible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM

Somebody writes stuff that he doesn't agree with, that is very damaging to him, puts him in the frame for writing it - and he feels a duty to cover for that person. Doesn't make much sense really.

Accepting responsibility for something done in your name doesn't mean going along with it, or making out rhat you did it yourself - it means recognising you have a personal responsibility to try to undo any harm and insult caused to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM

BTW, using the 'racist' charge against Ron Paul to try to diminish his voter base won't work. There's too much plausible deniability, and most of his supporters appear to be White. The only way to effectively undermine his support is to show people in what way it's in their own best interest to not support him. I know this, because I've been doing it out on the street, and I've found it to be very effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

I've seen Ron Paul speak about it. My impression is that 1. He didn't write that stuff...and 2. He is not a racist.

Furthermore, let me say this:

If every one of us here had someone able to search through every word we have ever said or written in our lives....then searched through it all diligently and separated out a few choice bits of prose carefully...

We could ALL be depicted by someone in the media as racists.

And that includes the Black people and the Hispanics and the Whites and the people of North American Indian blood among us. Every single one of us.

I guarantee it.

You just have to pick the right moment. Everyone has said something at some point in their lives that someone else could later use to depict them a racist, and if they are a writer or a public figure it may well be on record somewhere.

If you were getting highly paid under the table to hunt up some stuff with which to tar some politician as a racist....and you had the resources of a well-staffed office to do it....you'd find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:19 PM

LH - Yes, I know I've said things that people have taken completely differently than I meant them. Then when I go back and look at what I've said or written, I can understand completely why they took it the way they did, even though I didn't mean it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM

For instance, the Toronto police force has gotten in trouble on occasion for merely saying that an inordinate amount of crime is presently being committed (per capita) by young Black men in Toronto.....and that is the TRUTH!!! And there are a large number of social/financial and cultural reasons for why that is presently the case....and they have nothing to do with Black people being intrinisically better or worse than anyone else!

But the Toronto police spokesman have still been called "racist" for daring to openly say that a large proportion of violent crimes are being committed by young Black men! Even though it's literally true.

So is it "racist" to tell a literal truth? Well, it all gets pretty damned politically motivated in about half a second, doesn't it? The chip you are carrying on your own shoulder will determine exactly how you react to any given truth when it is stated. Do you react in a completely defensive manner, based on your own self-conscious identity as a member of a racial or cultural "group"? Or do you deal with a truth dispassionately and objectively, simply AS what it is...a fact.

Can you step outside the mental box of your own race, religion, nationality, and culture and just act as a completely objective and unprejudiced "human being" instead? Can you stop BEING consciously "White" or "Black" or "Christian" or "Muslim" or "atheist" for one minute and just be human???? Can you do that for 5 minutes? For a whole day?

Very few people seem to be much good at doing that, I've noticed. They fall back on their group identity in the blink of an eye, the moment they're under stress. This means, ultimately, that they don't think objectively so much as they merely react to any outer stimulus which awakens the memory of their past emotional pain.

As such, they are not really free beings. And they probably ARE racist in some measure, although they'd never admit it to themselves or anyone else either. It becomes the unspeakable...that which must be denied at all cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:44 PM

Here's what Mister O. says for himself:

"This is a defining moment in our history.

Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations have fought for feels as if it's slowly slipping away.


We've seen the cost of Washington's inaction and indifference.

The time has come for a President who'll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who'll listen to you and learn from you even when we disagree; who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.


I'll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois,by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.

I'll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I'll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists; citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.Ê


And when I am President, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home. We will finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. And we will restore our moral standing in the world."


These are policies and goals, not project orders, but they ring true and they certainly point in the right direction. Let's put him in and let him roll on them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:53 PM

nterestingly enough, whoever gets elected President will have a good deal of power to effect change--largely thanks to the work that the Shrub did in marginalizing the Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:11 PM

Hmmm. I wonder how he envisions "finishing the job" against Al Queda in Afghanistan? I've read my history books, and this is what I know about Afghanistan...the fighting there (other than that between the local warlords) ends when the foreign occupying forces leave.

However, I guess he's saying what he figures he has to say, as an American politician.

I like most of what he has to say very much. It's not perfect, but it is positive and it's well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:12 PM

Hey,

All you beautiful intelligent inspired Americans!

I read her and there how we may or may not see Obama win and he may still lose but the battle is not lost etc ...

The point as I see it is that This battle has gone further than any previous battle of it's kind.

He friging won Iowa - forget about whether history will or won't be made, it has been made - and more importantly it is still being made.

The boundaried are being pushed further every day that Obama is still in the hunt.

You are all part of it right now and you should be proud of yourselves.

Talk about cutting edge!

And what about "liberal europe" criticizing "reactionary America" -

PAH!

I stick to what I say about the Myth of reactionary America.

I think most Americans are more mature than that. My experience supports that view.

Enough with all stereotyping.

I read a thread like this and I feel like I'm about to burst as I sense in everyone a deep sense of "wow are we really breaking into a new era"

You are redefining America right now - you are all afraid of being disappointed - but you all want the best and you know that that is what he represents. Keep going.

the very idea -- "yes we can" -- it's eating away at the walls - erosion takes a long time, but then suddenly you're there.

I hope this doesn't appear sentimental or superficial, but then I think I'd be underestimating you if I carried on in that vein so I'll just move on - you're the ones making the change so I reckon you know better tha me that something unfathomably significant is happening.

Tally ho chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

Yeah, it's certainly good to see, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:48 PM

Little Hawk,

I stand by my comments of 10 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM.

The everybody does it/everybody is a racist sometime or another stance doesn't excuse racist words and racist actions.

How will we ever get beyond racism if we continue to excuse it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:56 PM

No one excuses it Azizi. It is, along with anti-semitism and sexism and the "n" word, among the greatest and most pervasive taboos of our age. To call someone a "racist" or an "anti-semite" at the present time has the sort of fatal power of accusation/condemnation that calling someone a "witch" once had in Salem.

Now who wrote the articles in those old Ron Paul newsletters? If it wasn't Ron Paul, and if he had no knowledge of those articles at the time, how does that make him a racist?

Guilt by association?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM

I wonder what Ron Paul would say if he were confronted with all of those things now.

                The other thing is, when something like this comes to light in the middle of a political campaign, it really deserves a good looking over.

                Remember that rumor about John McCain having a black child out of wedlock, planted by George Bush and totally untrue in South Carolina, in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:14 PM

WHAT??????????????? Oh, for heaven's sake. I never heard about that one before, Rinslinger. It's downright amazing the stuff that these political disinformationists come up with. And think how well they are paid for it!

It's the "National Enquirer" approach to public affairs, and people go for it, because nothing spreads faster than malicious gossip.

I've seen Ron Paul's reaction to it on CNN, and I was well impressed with what he said in response to it. I know one thing for sure, the rest of the Republican Party would absolutely looooove it if people forgot all about Ron Paul's platform on Iraq and foreign affairs and the Constitution, and instead obsessed from now on about whether he's a racist or not.

That would be most convenient from their point of view, and that's why it's happening. The people who sprang this story did not do it in order to help end racism in America. If racism ever ended, they'd be deprived of one of the key guns in their arsenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:24 PM

Yes, I agree with everything you say above.

       But the deal with McCain was this, as I understand it:
Cindy McCain was in India, and there was a little girl, an infant, who needed an operation. The only way Mrs. McCain could get the child out of the country and back to the states for the operation fast enough was to adopt her. So she did; the operation was a success and the girl is alive and well today.

       Karl Rove took that, and twisted it into a story about John McCain having had a black child out of wedlock, and the child now lived in the McCain's home.

       The press found a child of color in the McCain's home and ran with the Rove story.

         I think all of this has been pretty well documented. It makes one wonder about any kind of dirt coming up during a political campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:54 PM

People who do what Karl Rove did should be thrown in prison for a minimum of 25 years in my opinion. That might go a long way toward cleaning up American election campaigns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:01 PM

I believe she was from Bangladesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

Why 25 years, LH???... Why not just give them probation and 100,000 days of community service???

Might of fact, throw in another 100K for Rove, Bush, Cheney, Rumsy, Wolfsie, Pearle and a couple hundred for Powell for gettin' sucked into Bush's "horror show"...

As for Obama???

Hey, folks will be shootin' at him 'cause "why"??? Because he's the front runner... He is the one who has captured America's spirit... Who wlse are they gonna use up their dry powder on??? JOhn McCain??? He has "zero" chance of becoming the next president... That zero with a capital "Z"... He doesn't offer US anything more than a complete rerun of George Bush???

Yeah, I hope the Repubs nominate McCain... Really, no bull like when the Repubs say stupid stuff like "We hope they nominate Obama"... Thay don't mean it... I very much mean it.... MCcain??? He will keep our kids dieing in Iraq going into the next century... Bring the sumabich on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM

Well, I'm certainly not blowing my horn for McCain, but it was a pretty rotten thing Karl Rove did to him in South Carolina. And I agree with LH; he should have been prosecuted for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:51 PM

Don't underestimate McCain. He's an authentic American hero. If, God forbid, Hillary is the nominee, he can bring up the festering sore of Vietnam without even trying--just by his own history. With Hillary trying to deal with both the 60's and the 90's--each with huge numbers of people still bitter--what do you think the Swift Boating was about?--the Democrats will have big problems--again.

But it will all likely hinge on Iraq--as I predicted over year ago. There is now a serious movement to replace Maliki. If that happens, the US public will give up on Iraq--there'll be no chance of "national reconciliation"--and all the Republicans, especially McCain, will be sunk. But it's not clear if that will happen.

The other possibility is a recession. That almost always results in throwing out the president's party.

Obviously a recession is nothing anybody would wish for.





Back to Obama:

Sometimes it seems that Azizi, Peace, Amos, Bobert, mg, a -very-- few others, and I are the only ones who are not dyed-in-the-wool cynics. Ironic--I used to think of myself as a classic hard-bitten cynic. But compared to quite a few Mudcatters, I'm Roy Rogers--Happy Trails and all.

But actually, I think it's just attitude--we are willing to believe that the US, led by Obama, can improve. While many Mudcatters seem to feel the case is hopeless. Our attitude (hope and belief) is more typical of younger folks--we're not teenagers, right?--but just to feel that hope makes you feel younger, and more positive about life in general--rather than picking sourly at any good news in search of flaws, as is the wont of many here.

I've somehow fallen into the role of optimist. Not type-casting, I assure you. As an enthusiastic amateur historian, I know how hopes can be dashed. Some here seem to endorse Paul Verlaine's prescription: "Prends l'eloquence et tords-lui son cou"--"Take eloquence and wring its neck".

But I also know that perhaps the greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade--(see Neustadt) It's been so at least since TR's "bully pulpit". And what better goal can there be but the end of bitter partisanship so we can actually get the US moving in the right direction? Obviously the power to persuade can be used for good (Obama's goal) or ill--Bush's manipulation of the US public to earn himself a place in Hell next to the Austrian corporal.

After Bush's abuse of the presidency and his betrayed promise--"uniter not a divider"--it's such an incredible relief to have somebody come on the scene who wants to use the position for good--and is truly more than willing to have a "big tent"--turning his back on the narrow adversarial culture which has ruled for so long.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:05 AM

I'm voting for (and campaigning for) the candidate who's positions and proposals most closely fit my own ideas about what's good for this country. Many (most) people I talk to about this say that they also feel that my candidate's positions and proposals most closely fit theirs, but they can't vote for him because they think he can't win. So who's really the cynic and who's the idealist?

Some of the people in this thread seem to be implying that if I don't vote for the Black candidate, it's because I'm a racist. If Kucinich was Black, I would vote for him. If Obama had Kucinich's positions and proposals, I would vote for him. Anything else would be cynical on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:06 AM

The cynics are the ones who assume Obama is just a smooth talker. If the shoe fits....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:11 AM

Like Carol, I like Kucinich's policies best of all, but like you, Ron, I am quite enthusiastic about Obama, and for the same reasons you have stated. I hope that Obama is elected (he has a very good chance of it), and I hope in that case that some of the good ideas Kucinich has brought to the election have a useful effect on future policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:13 AM

As far as I am concerned he stands head and shoulders above any of the "possible" candidates, a category I do not place Dennis in in my mind. If I did I would be torn, but would go for Dennis.

But it takes votes to do what needs to be donbe; Dennis won't be in the election. Obama most likely will.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:15 AM

Smoother talker or not, I don't agree with what he says. I'm voting for the candidate who's positions and proposals I most agree with. The cynics are the ones who are voting for someone they don't necessarily agree with just because they don't think the one they agree with can get elected. That makes me the idealist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:54 AM

Yes, indeed it does.

If I was in the USA and could vote in a primary, I'd vote for Kucinich. If it ended up with Obama running for President after all the primaries were done, then I'd vote for Obama.

It's different in Canada, because you don't vote directly for the chief executive himself here, you vote for your local party representative instead, and the party that wins the most ridings across the nation forms the next government in office, and their party leader becomes the new chief executive...with less overall power than an American president. He cannot veto legislation. He leads his party in our version of "Congress"...our parliament. The other parties form the Official Opposition in Parliament.

I frankly think it's a better system than the American one, although I like the bicameral legislature (House and Senate) that the USA has...an excellent idea that helps balance regional power against "rep by pop". We could use that in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:07 AM

See this excerpt from http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6838_clinton_faces_t.html


Clinton Faces Trouble in South Carolina for MLK Remarks

"Before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton went on Fox News and responded to Barack Obama's frequent invocations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "It took a president to get it done."

The message was clear: knowing how to work the levers of power is more valuable in getting stuff done than even the mightiest of speeches.

But slighting Dr. King is probably not the best way to make any political point. Maybe the biggest ramification is this: South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress and a veteran of the civil rights movement, appears poised to abandon the neutrality he has maintained throughout the presidential race and endorse Barack Obama.

"We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics," Clyburn told the New York Times. "It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone's motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal."

Clyburn is a heavyweight in South Carolina politics, and his endorsement could help solidify Obama's support amongst the black community there. The black vote in South Carolina, as we've discussed, is not solidly in anyone's camp at the moment, and if Obama can add that voting block to others that are on his side, he will have a very solid chance at the nomination. After all, if he could win Iowa and be competitive in New Hampshire, two states that are heavily white, imagine what he can do in places that are more diverse..."

-snip-

Here's two comments that bloggers made regarding the above article:

For him to go after Obama, using a 'fairy tale,' calling him as he did last week, it's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing," Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who is neutral in this race, said on CNN earlier this week.

Asked in an e-mail from Politico about the situation Friday, she responded by sending over links to five cases in which the Clintons and their surrogates talked about Obama, along with a question:
"Is Clinton using a race-baiting strategy against Obama?"
-Posted by: Buddy on 01/11/08 at 5:41 PM

**

I supported Bill Clinton as a politician from outside Washington who was different in 1992 and 1996.

But I am personally and professionally offended by his tone in stating "…this whole thing is a fairytale." There is no doubt in my mind what Bill referring to!

I don't care how much Hillary may have worked for civil rights (after supporting Barry Goldwater), it will never match what Barack Obama has done and support he has gained by running for President.

I am in no way playing a so called "race card". The good people of New Hampshire, where 0.7% of the population is African-American, supported Barack Obama with over 104,000 votes!

I was born a colored child, who became a Negro in elementary school, transitioned to Black in the late sixties and then to African-American. At no point in that time, except when outside the borders of the USA, was I ever referred to as "just" a plain old patriotic American.

But with Barack I will be an American -- no color descriptor required!

Go Barack Obama '08

I once was lost but now am found, Was blind, but now I see!
-Bob , Florida - RFO on 01/11/08 at 6:58 PM Respond

-snip-

I stand with an increasing number of African Americans and non-African Americans who believe that the Clintons and their campaign spokespeople are using racial code words in their descriptions of Barack Obama, and are thus exploiting racism for their own personal gain {to try to win the Democratic nomination.

Whether the Clintons are racist or not, their and their surrogates intentional use of racism so that the Clintons may return to the White House is despicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:18 AM

Clinton would be just more of the SSDD. Another money-machine gofer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:23 AM

Of course they are using code words. Anything those two do is thought out. if someone else used certain words or phrases ...Romney, etc...I would say it was a slip of the tongue, perhaps a Freudian slip..but I doubt it would be intentional.

If I was Barack I would say..OK..I am quite willing to be the second black president..we have had the first one and it's now no big deal so get over it.

And I am totally for him domestically.(great concerns internationally) ...I think we absolutely need him..most especially the youngsters...and he needs to inspire them, and he needs to go after some of their behaviors like Mrs. O. did with the Mean Girls. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:58 AM

In case Mudcatters aren't familiar with Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks ,here's a link to a YouTube video of former President Clinton's comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE
Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, January 8, 2008 (more)


**

I haven't found the video of the New Hampshire campaign event where Hillary Clinton compared the relative importance of Martin Luther King, Jr and LBJ {former President Lyndon Baines Johnson}'s to the Civil Rights movement. However, here is a link to an interview that Hillary Clinton made about her comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM

**

Bill Clinton apparently recognizes that Hillary's campaign needed to do some damage control among African Americans because of our reactions {and others' reactions to} his comments and his wife's comments since he {Bill Clinton} called in to at least 4 national Black talk radio shows today to talk about these comments.

I happened to hear one of these interviews today. It was interesting to listen to Bill Clinton trying to back pedal his "fairy tale" comment and his wife's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr, President John Kennedy, and President LBJ.

Unfortunately for Bill and Hillary, their remarks have "gone viral" {meaning they're all over the Internet and all over the talk radio/Black media circuit].

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't buy Bill Clinton's explanations of his and Hillary's remarks.

The results of the South Carolina Democratic primary may show whether people accepted Bill's explanations for those comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM

It is funny. The righties are steaming about Obama bieng full of hot air.

The WaPo has a different take.

"So what explains the magic?

The most obvious explanation is Obama's stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity. The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer -- a promise about overcoming America's shameful racial history -- that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.

Obama's allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can't be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one. Not since 1896 -- when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House -- has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he'd be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.

Yet if Obama charms us by pointing to tomorrow, he doesn't come bearing a new ideological vision. In the 1980 primaries, the insurgent Ronald Reagan won on his robust, pro-military, anti-government conservatism, a philosophy that until then had languished even within the GOP. Similarly, in 1992, Bill Clinton triumphed because he was the first Democrat since the 1960s to formulate a viable and vital new liberalism -- one rooted in years of policy wonkery, a frank reckoning with his party's failures and an early recognition of the importance of globalization.

But where Clinton converted voters to his philosophy with binder-thick proposals, from AmeriCorps to welfare reform to the earned-income tax credit, Obama fans rarely tout his specific ideas. No one claims his agenda entails radical innovation or differs much from Hillary Clinton's. On the contrary, Obama's ideology, insofar as he has articulated it, seems to be a familiar, mainstream liberalism, heavy on communitarianism. High-minded and process-oriented, in the Mugwump tradition that runs from Adlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley, it is pitched less to the Democratic Party's working-class base than to upscale professionals.

The Obama phenomenon, then, stems not from what he has done but who he is. As the social critic John McWhorter has written, "What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land." He is the great white hope."...

---

The key is "who he is". That is where the righthas betrayed American consciences.

People trust him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM

Indeed Amos - I would worry that Obama does not actually bring any actual promises of any concrete meaning. Hot air is fine,if you want to send up a hot air balloon. A candidate for goverment office ought to have accurately described, fully costed plans for what he wants to do, and I see little of that yet from Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM

For a start, folks can read Senator Barack Obama's statements on issues by visiting his website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:16 AM

Richard:

The key thing about Obama is that he articulates policies, not hot air. Your dismissive approach does him a disservice. Your premise that what a candidate needs is a complete, fully costed plan is, I think, both unrelaistic and possibly tactically off. Treating the Presidential election like a board room squabble is exactly what was repugnant about Bush, Bush, Nixon, and Reagan -- the conversion of the nation into a corporate structure within a corporatocracy.

Obama provides something more important, I suggest -- a guiding vision and the policies which derive from it which can bring together people into a higher quality of organization. Obama will not be able to escape the details, of course -- but they are not his first line of attack and given the conditions it is possible they should not be, because what has been so badly missing from the nation's leadership is not people who can play board-room gotcha but people who can be trusted to represent ideals and principles. Obama's position is principled. This is worth a lot, because it means (if it is true and consistent) you can trust him to grapple intelligently with the projects of government and the collisisons of events in an ethical way.

It depends on whether you place your importance on ethics first, and then on administration, or whether you place them on administration first, and let ethics follow as it can. usually being scrapped or torn up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:31 AM

To look more closely at his specific plans, take the time to read this PDF paper:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:44 AM

I have to correct something I said about Obama. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, his health care proposal actually doesn't require everyone to buy coverage. In that way it's not really universal health care. He's characterizing it as "virtually universal".

Basically he's saying that with his proposal, economy of scale (creating a large risk pool) will bring the costs of insurance down, and he's saying that by bringing the costs down, everyone will want to buy insurance. This sounds good, but if everyone doesn't decide to buy it, the risk pool may not be big enough to bring insurance costs down low enough for most of the currently uninsured to be able to afford it. It seems a bit circular to me. This guy thinks that Obama knows his plan won't work, but that it's not important because he knows he can't get it passed anyway...

http://www.spot-on.com/archives/holt/2007/12/president_obamas_brilliant_hea.html

Clinton's and Edwards' plans are just as bad in their own ways. If everyone is required to have insurance, how will it be enforced? And what if someone still can't afford to pay the premiums, even with their plans? What sort of penalty will they be subjected to?

Same guy as above talking about Clinton's and Edwards' kind of plans here...

http://www.spot-on.com/archives/holt/2006/04/post.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:47 AM

I agree, Amos...

Other tham Hillary, who tends to be too wonkish, no other candidate is being held to a higher standard of articulating policy details than Obama...

This in itself is somewhat racist...

"Wwell, Ralph, let's see if the black guy has a brain..."

Duhhhhh!!!

I mean, let's get real here... Who is it who is being hounded more for policy details than Obama... Clinton ain't... She juts enjoys spoutin' 'um off to show how smart she is...

Heck, no one even asks Dennis anu questions and John Edwards ain't too far behind Dennis is that regards...

As for the Repubs, who is asking them anything at all...

So it comes down to some PR crap that the Repubs have devised to try to set aome doubts in the minds of the voters about Obama's grasp of policy... Well, there will be plenty of time to get down to the nitty gritty... The Repubs are collectively scared to death of Obama, understand fully that they most likely will have to defeat him and are starting early with their subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on him...

What I really want to know is the specifics on Hucklebee's "Fair Tax" idea... No, not the glossy version but the details??? And I want to know the specifics on McCain's plan in Iraq other than stay the course for the next 1,000,000 years??? And I want Guiliani to tell us why being the mayor of NewYork when it was attacked qulaifies him to be president??? Or why his kids don't support him??? Or how he expects to win "family values" voters with his womanizing past... And I want Romney to tell us why we should believe him when he flip-flops like a fish outta water...

Yeah, until these questions are being asked of the white candidates, there is, IMO, a certain amount of dual standards being pushed here...

Obama/Richardson or
Obama/Warner
    '08

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM

Yes, Bobert. Nobody is asking Dennis any questions. That is the problem. They're not failing to ask questions because they're giving him the benefit of the doubt (contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, and thereby implying racism on the part of those who support him). They're failing to ask questions of him because they are attempting to marginalize him. They try to shut him out of debates, and on the occasions when he is allowed to participate in debates, they try to avoid giving him any questions.

This is not preferential treatment, I assure you. Dennis would be grateful for more questions, and I think you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:01 AM

Funny, isn't it, Bobert -- you way off in the hills of West Virginia, and me down here in the artificial desert of San Diego, and seeing eye-to-eye regardless, innit? :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:02 AM

Why will Obama lose? Because he will not carry the black vote as well as Hillary. Besides there are more women than blacks.


The current notion of Black Power is an angry chip on the shoulder agitator.
Obama is eroding 'perceived' Black Power since he makes white people more comfortable and will not cast whites as racist. Compare that with Sharpton or Jackson Sr.
Barak will continue to show that he has white support with his message that he came from a white mother and black father. Whites will be assured that he knows the non racist white person in the most intimate way.

The inarticulate argument by blacks that Obama wasn't black enough is based on the challenge to the popular perception of black power as angry victimhood. Obama challenges the old notion of black power by merely making whites comfortable, at least to the paradigm of black power that persists today.

Now listein up: Until we see a candidate as a person and not a representative of his or her race , WE WILL NOT BE FREE of predjudice.

But we are here ready and able to support Obama.
Personally I would like to see Obama as President if he had the cabinate and economic advisors that Bill Clinton had.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:09 AM

Amos it seems you have sterotyped West Virginians by finding it funny you could find consensus with one all the way from your perch in San Diego.

A successful politician would have stated that differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:11 AM

I was funning with my mate Bobert, Douel -- he knows I lovvim.

And by the way, I don't think Obama will lose, and if he does I am really doubtful it will be because he "isn't black enough".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

If Obama wins the recount in New Hampshire, he will have Dennis Kucinich to thank (who, by the way, will have to pay for the recount himself, despite the fact that his campaign has less money than the other candidates)...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7779

Now that's principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

Indeed. It remains to be seen whether there will be a recount at all. But I wouldn't miond seeing it happen.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:48 AM

Yes, Kucinich suspects that there was fraud involved in the New Hampshire primary count, as do I, as quite clearly did some of the very surprised commentators on CNN that night (though they didn't come out and openly say so) and if so, that fraud deprived Barack Obama of the win, not Dennis Kucinich.

Yet Kucinich is the one calling for an investigation, and yes, that is idealism. Dennis Kucinich might just be the most honest and patriotic man left in American politics at this juncture.

If there was fraud, it was arranged so that Hillary Clinton would "win", needless to say.

Both the exit polls that day and previous statewide polls had indicated a strong win for Obama. Not just a win, a strong win.


Azizi, you said: "I stand with an increasing number of African Americans and non-African Americans who believe that the Clintons and their campaign spokespeople are using racial code words in their descriptions of Barack Obama, and are thus exploiting racism for their own personal gain {to try to win the Democratic nomination."

Right on. That is exactly what the Clintons and their campaign spokepeople are doing. Is it "racism"? Perhaps...but I'll tell you what else it is, quite aside from that...it's a totally cynical and unscrupulous attempt to damage Barack Obama through innuendo so that the Clintons can get back in the White House....and YES, it IS an exploitation of issues of race. It's despicable behaviour on their part, and I hope they pay a big price for it.

Donuel, you said: Now listen up: Until we see a candidate as a person and not a representative of his or her race , WE WILL NOT BE FREE of predjudice.

EXACTLY. That is what I have been saying for a long time on this forum. We have got to see a person simply as a person, not as a representative of this or that race...or religion. We have got to see ourselves that way too. There's a desperate need for people to do that...to see others simply as equal human beings, not stereotypes...and I hope I live to see the day when that is accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:48 PM

Donuel, with regard to your comment that "the current notion of Black Power is an angry chip on the shoulder agitator", that depends on who you ask for a definition of Black Power.

Also, it remains to be seen if your statement that [Obama] "will not carry the black vote as well as Hillary".

Hillary, and her spokespeople-including her husband former President Clinton-are doing a good job of royally pissing off many Black people. And Obama's doing a very good job of energizing and inspiring Black people. In my opinion, the era when Black people "loved" Bill Clinton, has passed.

With regard to your statement that "there are more women than blacks", as I'm sure you know, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. More than 1/2 of African Americans are female.

However, I don't accept your implications that the majority of Black people will vote for Obama just because he's Black and that Hillary will get the majority of the women's vote just because she's a woman.

And with regard to your statement that you "would like to see Obama as President if he had the cabinate and economic advisors that Bill Clinton had", I'd prefer that a President Obama would not consider Bill Clinton as his role model for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:10 PM

I have now (very rapidly) read the pdf of Obama's "detailed" plans you suggested, Amos, thanks for the link.

No "unfair dismissal" law
No "redundancy" law
A whole 7 days sick entitlement per year (wow!)
A proposal to reduce public sector deficit - but reductions in tax for many. Wow, I'd like that magic wand.
He's going to do something to reduce meth addictions. Er - what?
Plans to make trade agreements work for the USA - has he grasped what that will mean in terms of exchange control and transfer pricing regulations in tax law?

A lot of "inspiration" but still not a lot of detail. Gordon Brown he does not seem to be. Incidentally, what is the word "wonk" I keep finding? There is a similar word with a different vowel that I know (that does not refer to closing one eye). I know the adjective "Wonky" to describe an artefact so crooked that it will not stand stably on its base. But what is "wonk"? Is it another of these baseless neologisms like "pwned"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

Actually, I didn't see anything (perhaps I read too fast) about prison reform and doing something to address the awful facts that the USA imprisons more of its population than any other first world country, a disproportionate number of them are non-white, and the prisons are brutal, demeaning, and run by the inmates...

Indeed I haven't seen anything on that from any candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:44 PM

What's the point of firm policies that effectively get junked after elections? Far more important is whether people feel they can trust the people they are voting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM

A wonk is someone who specializes in discussing policy -- the kind of person who breathes euphemism and eats a bowl of watered down bureaucratic nuances with sugar for breakfast.
And who knows all six phases of a complete Medicare application.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:49 PM

"Wonk is a slang term with several meanings:

Wonk (colloquial American English) was originally a 1960s slang word applied to an excessively studious person (equivalent to "grind", "geek , or "nerd").[1] [2] It is commonly used to refer to a person who is knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of a particular field.

The origins of the term are obscure. It has been linked to an obscure Old English word 'wancol'[1] and attributed to United States Navy slang for a learned but inexperienced midshipman.[3]

Presumably from the above, a policy wonk is someone knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of government policy and programs.[1]"

From Our Friend Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

I received a pm asking me what I meant by the phrase "racial code words".

"...racial code words are words politicians (usually Republicans) are accused of using to supposedly help them win votes by raising whites' fears of minorities. According to pundit Clarence Page, racial code words include terms like "states' rights," "crime in the streets," and "welfare queens."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/04/some-thoughts-on-racial-code-words.html
"Some thoughts on racial code words from Ed Haislmaier"

-snip-

Racial code words refer to stereotypes about a specific group, and are often stated indirectly. Other referents for using "racial are "playing the race card", "race baiting", or using "racial innuendos."

Here's an example of Hillary Clinton campaign's use of "racial coding":
Bill Sheehen's expression of concern that if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would bring up the fact that he used drugs and the Republicans would question if he {Obama} ever sold drugs.
{Note Obama experimented with marijuana and cocaine as a teenager and never sold drugs. Other politicians-including Clinton have admitted to using drugs. However rarely if ever have they been accused of selling drugs. This "concern" fits into the "Black men as drug dealer steeootype.

The most recent example of the use of racial code words by the Clinton team is use of the phrase "shucking and jiving" to describe Hillary's competitors campaigns. See this Jan 10, 2008 article entitled "Racial code words rear their ugly head?"

"I've been pretty familiar with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's work for quite some time, so I'm willing to extend some benefit of the doubt here, but this was certainly a poor choice of words.

A big Hillary Clinton supporter and statewide official in New York might have just given the Hillary campaign a real headache. During an appearance yesterday on talk radio — at almost the same time as Obama co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. questioned Hillary's tears — New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo used some words with a very troublesome racial history, apparently in reference to Barack Obama.

"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."

Because the phrase "shuck and jive" has a racial background, Cuomo was speaking on Clinton's behalf, and Obama is Clinton's principal rival, the comments raised a few eyebrows..."
-snip-

That article also links to a recent article by Karl Rove that is full of racially charged language. Here's an excerpt of that article:

"...in the course of a single column Rove manages to flag Obama's "trash talking", "his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard", and the alleged fact that "he is often lazy." "

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14197.html

-snip-

See this poster's comment from a dailykos diary:

"It is more than Cuomo's comments, it is a growing number of moments where those associated with the Clinton campaign (formally/informally) have dropped racially tinged innuendos. This is becoming more than a series of dis-associated accidents. Are the Clinton's racists? I can't answer that. I haven't looked into their hearts. Are they playing to the racial insecurities/fears/prejudices of many Americans? Yes. Is that racist behaviour? You make the call."
-Sansouci on Fri Jan 11, 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/11/21112/9507/891/435412
Clinton "mistakes" on MLK vs LBJ
by Texas Populist
Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM PST

-snip-

See also this comment from a poster to that dailykos diary combines a number of the racial innuendos that the Clintons or their campaign staff and spokespeople have used to refer to Barack Obama:

"Give me a break, this whole thing is just a fairy tale. The Clintons are just shucking and jiving about their invisible hip black friend who is busy selling powder (or was it crack) at his local madrassa."
-by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008

-snip-

Also, see this excerpt from another dailykos diary:

"...Day after day we have seen the racially charged comments from Clinton aides, endorsers, and even President and Mrs. Clinton themselves. They have been extremely clever, delivered in such a way so that there is plausible deniability (especially in the cases of the Clintons) or where there are no Clinton fingerprints, the classic delivery method of a swiftboat attack."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/74429/0283/721/435566
The Swiftboating of Barack Obama
by Walt starr
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:22:09 AM PST

-snip-

There's a number of other examples that could be cited when Hillary Clinton used racial code words. The latest one I read about online is this one:

RUSH: Did you hear what Mrs. Clinton said on the Today show today with Matt Lauer? She said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president."

...Now, let's imagine, shall we, if Trent Lott or Mitt Romney or Ross Perot had said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president." Nothing that happens in the Clinton campaign is coincidence, folks. Barack Obama hasn't done the "spadework"?

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/is_hillary_playing_the_race_card/

-snip-

In this instance, the racial code word is "spade" which has been used as an informal reference for Black people.

What could be the reason for these uses of racial codes?
I believe these codes are purposely used to inject "race" in the campaign and to reinforce the view that some people have that a Black person should not be President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

shucking and jiving has a pretty benign meaning to many of us..I had never heard of racial meanings to it..if there are very public discussions of this I presume Cuomo should have known it, but I have never in my life heard of it in anhy more than a cute expresion..sort of meaning someone is slacking off, bullshitting, etc...not a horrible expression.means someone is trying to hoodwink you.

AI do think the Clintons actually would applaud a Black person being president of the US...perferably one they had lots of control over..but certainly not one who was running against them..how inconsiderate..and not someone who would not kiss up to them.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM

They would praise any Black person working for their campaign, they would find devious ways to undercut any Black person competing with their campaign...meaning Mr Obama.

It's not exactly racism per se, not necessarily...it's just the usual typical political dirty tricks we see in every election...one of which is to pander to people's fear of minorities...(and a minority's fear of being discriminated against too!) I guarantee that the Clintons will use such dirty tricks to hurt Obama, and I guarantee that the Republicans will also. To do so is a lot easier and more certain than predicting rain! ;-) Let's hope that they don't get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:05 PM

Some folks just don't know their place; fortunately Obama is one of them. Or, actually he does. I think he'd make a good President and would like to see him in the Oval Office.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

CarolC,

Of course I agree with you 100%... Yes, I am terribly frustrated that Dennie ask been rlled under the bus my establishment media... I have said many times over the years that I have been a Green Party supporter, worker and voter and consider myself still a Greenie... Dennis, to me, is a Green Party candidate who has been elected as a Dem... Doesn't really change much... I don't think you could get light to pass between Dennis's positions and those of Ralph Nadar...

With that said, I now can see some light between the Dems and Repubs and especially between Obama and everyone else and I hate to say it but Dennis ain't gouing to get nominated... Obama or Clinton will be, however... A Clinton nomination will put me sqaurely back into the Green Party...

It's not that I'm no happy backing Green Party candidates it's jus that I feel Obama gives everyone a little time to catch thier breath after Bush and we all need that, regardless of party...

This is why I support Obama... Is my reasoning 100% reasonable... I'll be ther first to admit that it isn't but it's my reasoning...

I fully support the work you are doing for Dennis and hope that should Dennis not be successdfull and Obama get the nod, that you will keep an open mind toward voting for him...

Kucinich/Richardson in 'o8 would be fine with me...

Kucinich/Obama, kuchinich/Warner, Kucinich/CarolC all work for me just fine...

But those aren't going to happen...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM

I repeat..whoever is using the word swiftboat in a derogatory fashion is slandering veterans. Do it with full knowledge and take responsibility for it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:27 PM

Thanks your for the information, Azizi. Like mg, I would never have considered some of those expressions to be "racial code words". I have used "spadework" all my life to refer to making adequate preparations for something, and I played pickup basketball myself in college. I guess "shuck and jive" has an African-American background but, as a person who has been light pinkish-beige all my life, I can honestly say that it has always been an synonym for "screwing around" in my subculture, regardless of the skin color or ethnic background of the person who was doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

More on Cuomo's use of the phrase "shuck & jive":

..."Speaking Tuesday to the New York Post's Fred Dicker, whose show airs on Albany's Talk 1300 radio station, Cuomo said of the early primaries: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy your way through."

He added later, "You have to sit down with 10 people in a living room. You can't shuck and jive at a news conference; you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you, saying 'answer the question.'"

The 1994 book "Juba to Jive, a Dictionary of African-American Slang," says "shuck and jive" dates back to the 1870s and was an "originally southern 'Negro' expression for clowning, lying, pretense."

A truncated version of Cuomo's quote appeared first on the Albany Times Union's Capital Confidential blog Wednesday with the claim - later clarified - that he was talking about "Hillary's win in New Hampshire."

Like a virus, the notion that Cuomo had made a racially insensitive remark about Barack Obama's loss leapt from Web site to Web site yesterday.

Politico.com entered the quote into its so-called "department of word choice." Wonkette.com. called the term "racist."

But several sites, including Newsday's SpinCycle blog, posted updates after hearing from Cuomo.

"The attorney general was clearly saying that Iowa and New Hampshire were important primaries because the candidates could not duck the tough questions," said Cuomo spokesman Jeffrey Lerner. "He clearly meant no offense to either candidate because he was praising both in the interview. 'Bob and weave' would have been a better phrase; that's certainly all the attorney general meant." ...

But Temple University's Nathaniel Norment Jr., a professor of African-American studies, said the history of the Cuomo's phrase made it inappropriate because it springs from an ugly period of our past.

It refers to "how black people had to behave in the presence of white people to survive. You have to shuck and jive or buck dance; you're putting on an act," Norment said. "In the context of a presidential election, I think it's very derogatory to say." ...

Cuomo's comments on the early contests, from a transcript supplied by his office:

"It's not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can't just buy your way through that race ... It doesn't work that way, it's frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with 10 people in a living room.

"You can't shuck and jive at a press conference, you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room.

"And I think it's good for the candidates. I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you're communicating. And I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good ..."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-uscuom115533466jan11,0,3011306.story

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:56 PM

mg, I'm sorry that the word "swiftboat" has taken on this negative meaning. I understand why you don't approve of that referent being used that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:07 PM

Mary, I understand your point of view, but you have an awful lot of folks to correct (Google search), including Wikipedia!.

I don't believe race or sex matter as much as some people would like them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

But that then gets into the whole issue of evolution of the language, not to speak of the fact that some words have multiple meanings. Should we not use the word "jazz" because it (perhaps) once meant fornication? Should we not discuss a type of amphibian because "frog" is also a derogatory word in some circles for Frenchmen? If "shuck and jive" originated with southern Blacks and meant clowning, lying and pretense, than why can't anyone use that word about anyone else if that's approximately the meaning intended, since it is now in general use in the American dialect of English?

Sorry, but while she has her faults (as does every other candidate, including Sen. Obama), I have problems believing that Sen. Clinton and her minions (or most of the other candidates) are cherry-picking phrases in order to cleverly disguise their real desire to throw the n-word carelessly around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

Here's the newest example of the Clinton campaign being racial insensitive:

"When I asked Bendixen about the source of Clinton's strength in the Hispanic community, he mentioned her support for health care, and Hispanic voters' affinity for the Clinton era. "It's one group where going back to the past really works," he said. "All you need to say in focus groups is 'Let's go back to the nineties.' " But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: "The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/171256/424/480/435807
Clinton pollster: Latinos don't like Black leaders
by Hope08
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM PST

Here's an excerpt from that dailykos diary:

" I really think that Clinton's people need to go to a cultural competency lecture. Like a real retreat, where they sit down and talk about how not to offend voters...

Just replace the word white with hispanic:

The White voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.

Does that make it more clear?

I truly believe that this is how the Clinton people view the world. Mark Penn in all his Blackwater/union busting glory says: let's divide us all up into our specific groups and I'll appeal to you on that basis. Latinos don't like Black leaders, well let me talk to you. She'll even tell you you're not illegal, but you can't drive. Poor white person, let me tell you how scary Al-Qaeda is, waiting for a "new guy" to come along so they can blow us all up!

It's sick, it's disgusting, it's a bridge to the past. We need a bridge to the future. Let's elect a leader who is striving to unite us despite our differences not play to our worst instincts. It's no wonder that young people are attracted to his [Obama's] candidacy. This battle to unite the country is not one that will be easily won. I think the tragedy is that the leading Democratic candidate is not even trying.

I just hope that those in the Latino community see beyond this cynical ploy she's going to play in Nevada and soon in California."

-snip-

Here's a poster's comment from that diary:

"[former Clinton political advisor] Dick Morris called it 2 weeks ago On Fox News he said the Hillary camp would bring out the race card in a subtle way and would try to convince American that the black candidate Barack Obama would be unelectable. He nailed it 2 weeks ago and now we are see sh** come out every day on the Clinton camp bring up the race card."
-illinihusker on Sat Jan 12, 2008

-snip-

[note I edited the "s" word with the asterisks]

**

Here's another post from that diary:

"They are wrong anyway...
My husband is from Mexico...in fact he is Aztec...he knows 80% of the Aztec language..and he likes Obama...there are so many kinds of Hispanics...Hispanics from Mexico are a diverse community in and of themselves...look at the brave women of Oaxaca who took over the radio stations and led a civil uprising to get the governor of that state to resign..

They would love Obama.. and there is black blood in Mexico too...and Irish blood and French blood as well as Mayan blood and Chinese blood..so I don't know where these people come off painting all Latin people as a homogoneous group..they are not...there are lots of ethnic backgrounds in Mexico...indigenous people all over the world are treated the same, however, they are treated like dogs...

Obama...si se puede

-RubyGal on Sat Jan 12, 2008

-snip-

["They" here referrs to pollsters. "Si se puede" "Yes We Can" is a Latino activist chant that is also used by the Obama campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

artbrooks,

you wrote that you have used some of these phrases and therefore they may not be racial code, context is everything. Also, with regard to the repeated incidence of the Clintons, and the Clinton campaign's use of racially charged words & phrases, what's that quote about once is an occurance, twice is concidence, and three times it's enemy attack?

Let me repeat a post that I previously quoted:

"...Day after day we have seen the racially charged comments from Clinton aides, endorsers, and even President and Mrs. Clinton themselves. They have been extremely clever, [the racially charged comments are] delivered in such a way so that there is plausible deniability..."
-Walt Starr

[I added the hypenated words for clarity and the emphasis is mine.]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

Correction:

Artbrooks, you wrote that you have used some of these phrases and therefore they may not be racial code. Let me say that context is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:26 PM

MG,

Your indignation about the term "swift boating" would have more substance to it if you were to come out and admit that John Kerry was immorally slammed by people who were ***not present*** on the day where Kerry and his crew state they came under attack, Kerry turned the boat around, engaged the enemy, killed the enemy and also pulled one of his men to safety...

It was these people, who by all accounts ***were not there*** who used million$ and mllion$ of "527" dollars to promote an utter lie about a decorated veteran...

Talk about being disrespectfull of veterans???

Your protests, without standing up to the Swift Boat "Lairs" rings hollow...

John Kerry did not deserve to have his service distorted by other vets who just happened to be Bush supporters...

You either respect vets or you don't... You can't have it both ways...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM

MG:

The people who used the word Swiftoboat in an operation to vilify an honorable veteran are entirely the ones you can speak to about where the term evolved to in the language. The term reflects on the dishonorable and dishonest use to which it has been put. Recognize and take responsibility is a fine charge, but lay it where it belongs. It has become a household word, like xerox or quisling, whose antecedents are past complaining.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM

"Hispanic", by the way, was invented by several mid-level Federal bureaucrats back in, if I remember the story correctly, the late 1960s who were looking for a gender-neutral (ie, other than Latino/Latina) word for a specific group. In concocting their definition, they managed to exclude Portuguese and Brazilians...the oral history is unclear if that was on purpose or not. My "Hispanic" neighbors, a few of whom even speak Spanish, would be insulted by the idea that there is such a thing as a "Hispanic voter".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:47 PM

Bobert, step off.
Mary probably knows some swiftboaters who, because of a handful of underhanded, slimy jerks are lumped in with them by people like you who can't tell that there's a difference and don't bother to look. It's prejudice, just a different kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

No one likes to see honorable men and personal friends slandered...doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

No, Jeri, mg probably hasn't a clue how hypocritic she sounds in not first standing up ***the*** "swiftboaters who slandered John Kerry... Unless you were on the moon during the '04 election, when BTW, most folks hadn't ever heard of "swiftboaters" or if they had didn't really know much about them, the "Swiftboater for Truth" put the term firmly on the map of consciesness!!!

Yeah, this was the beginning of "swiftboaters' coming into our consciouness and for probably 99% of Americans this was the 1st time they had heard the term... Yeah, the "Swiftboaters for Truth" came out and lied...

Yeah, I'll "step off" when I hear mg, regardless of how many siftboaters she knows, step up and admit that shaming a decorated Vietnam vet by people who ***were not there*** was wrong...

When that occurs I will never, never, never again make it an issue with her... Until then, it reeks of hypocrisy!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:23 PM

Here's another dailykos diary about the issue of race in the Democratic primary:

I'm worried
by david mizner
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM PST

"...I'm worried about the turn that the Democratic Primary has taken. The Clinton campaign--trying to push the idea that Obama would be arisky bet in general election--is using language and making claims that are at best racially insensitive. The Obama campaign, in turn--hoping to increase its advantage among blacks in South Carolina and beyond--is exaggerating the extent of the Clinton campaign's trangressions.

This discussion--which has dominated the Primary since New Hamsphire--diminishes the Party. We're parsing surrogates' statements for racial subtext while the war in Iraq rages on and the country slides into a recession. It makes Democrats look ridiculous, like a parody of ourselves.

But the impact is much worse than that, potentially. I'm sure Obama and Clinton don't want to be spending their time making and answering to charges of racism, but in campaigns, demographics are destiny. Clinton does much betterthan Obama among the white working class, meaning that Obama has to do extraordinarily well among blacks to win. The Clinton campaign knows it helps them with working class whites to highlight Obama's blackness, and the Obama campaign knows it helps them with blacks to highlight the Clinton campaign's racial insensitivity.

In my opinion, the best hope for Dems and the country has long been to unite the blacks and whites (and Latinos) of moderate means. Knowing this, the GOP uses racially charges issues--affirmative action, welfare, etc--to peel away working class and middle class whites. Division between blacks and whites helps the GOP--it preserves the GOP--and now we see that very division emerging in the Democratic Primary, of all places. We're doing the Repulicans' work for them..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/121312/890/608/435679

-snip-

Here's a comment that was posted by a reader of that diary which list the Clinton campaign's use of race code:

"Let me refresh your memory.

Clinton campaign staffers/volunteers get caught spreading the muslim email rumor, and one sent to a Dodd staffer.

Billy Shaheen dropped references that the GOP will state Obama sold drugs. That statement outraged the black community. Totally. Which resulted in Clinton apologizing personally to Obama.

Bill Clinton states Obama's campaign is a fairy tale.

Hillary Clinton states that it was the will of LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Bill. Ask Rep. Jim Clyburn of SC how angry he is of THAT ONE, when he was a partcipant of that movement.

Clintons supporter, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, drops the "shuck and jive" line, but said it was not in reference of Obama.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, maligns Obama's heritage and his name. And Kerrey is a Clinton supporter.

Now who in the hell is baiting whom here?" ...
-icebergslim on Sat Jan 12, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM

It occurred to me that a large number of people voted for George Bush believing that they knew his mettle and his character, and were willing to trust hom. Having now been badly disillusioned, they may think that pinning a candidate to specific programs is the only way to avoid the same pain again.

But that's fixing the wrong problem. There were also a lot of people who knew that Bush had an untrustworthy character despite all his assertions, and shunned him for that reason.

Seeing clearly who you are vcoting for is a differnt, some might say more reliable, basis to send a person into the presidency and the unknown future that waits there over four years, than specific programs and projects which may have to be changed with the coming of new events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

Well, well, well...

Racism??? Not in America the Pure...

But nevermind that for now... Lets look at the reality of what is most likely going to unfold here and it hasn't got one thing to do with racism but thwe will of the American people and that is...

The Democratic race is between the establishment Democrat, Hillary Clinton, who BTW, as a woman deserves our respect and admiration for being the first woman to win a primary, and Barak Obama who come out as an "outsider" Democrat... Let's keep in mind that the last 3 presidents came in as outsiders and if you take out Bush I, this phenomona goes back pushing 4 decades!!!

That is one heck of alot of trend to overcome...

But that's not all... Edwards is slipping and slipping and one more defeat and he's probably out... Who do the Edwards supporters go with??? Let me suggest that most won't go with Hillary which means that once Edwards is out of the way, Obama will pick up even more steam...

Okay, I will admit that even being a news junkie, a historian of sorts, a political science minor, etc. that I could be wrong but I don't think so...

Right now, this is Obama's race to Penn. Ave to loose and right now, I don't see him finding a way to do that... He is too sharp... He is too in tune with what America craves... And he has the best personality for the job that awaits him...

Yeah, we'll get beyond the cyber-bickerin' about race and we'll come out of it a stronger nation with a better story to tell for it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM

Very true, Amos. Leaders at all levels have staffs - the President's senior staff is called the Cabinet - who, with their (appointed and career) subordinates develop the general goals and desires of the leader {"I want peace in the world and a balanced budget"} into detailed legislative proposals, action plans and implementation programs. We who call ourselves liberals or Democrats (or progressives, conservatives or even Republicans) need to try to step aside from the name-calling, and perhaps give others the benefit of a modicum of doubt, and support a person that best exemplifies what we want for our country...without worrying about whether that person has a fully-developed plan for everything under the sun available for dissection on her/his website.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

Azizi - Yes, the Democratic Party is being damaged as you suggest by all this back and forth sniping that is now happening. That is an unfortunate aspect of the way the primary system works in the USA...it sets people against each other who ought not to be fighting one another, but joining in a common cause.

We have a very different system in Canada, as follows:

1. Our federal election campaigns are only 6 weeks long, by law.

2. We do not precede a federal election campaign with almost a year of infighting in the parties where different people battle each other in primaries.

3. The way that a party leader is selected in Canada is this - when the party caucus reaches a collective decision that it is time for a leadership review....which can happen at any time...the party itself holds a leadership convention. It's a process that happens within the party itself only, and it is usually preceded by a period of, say, a month or two during which there is much discussion in the party ranks and in the media as to who might best be the new leader for that party. Various people are nominated from within the party, and they campaign informally...not through having public plebiscites, but through discussion amongst the party membership.

4. Then the convention is held, and the delegates vote. There may have to be 2, 3, or 4 ballots before it's done...depends how the field is split. That happens on one evening.

5. This doesn't necessarily happen in the period immediately prior to a federal election. It more likely happens after an election...when a party has generally lost confidence in its current leader to the extent that they are looking for a new one who can lead them better. Or it may happen when a party leader decides to step down.

6. So, you see, our party leadership conventions are briefer, they don't depend on going all over the place to the public for many months and battling each other with promises and innuendo in order to scoop up the most popular votes, and they don't precede the general election, thus dragging ill will and innuendo into it.

7. The party, whichever one it is, usually tries to select whomever they feel might best lead them to victory in the next election (which might be several years away), and whomever they feel is best qualified to lead them. Sometimes they make strategic errors in that regard, naturally. ;-)

Your American elections are too long, too drawn out, and way too divisive, because they set people in your political parties against their own party members...and a lot of damage gets done which then has big fallout in the federal election that follows the primaries. It's a "field of dreams" for the practitioners of dirty politics.

In Canada, we are usually voting for a party whose leader has already been its leader for an extended time, and we've had time to get used to that person and what they stand for.

The process in the USA is simultaneously both too rushed...and too lengthy at the same time, if you see what I mean, because it tries to do everything in one frenzied continuous dead heat of about a year's duration which encompasses the primaries, the conventions, AND the federal election.   That's too much. It damages the candidates and it damages the entire process.

However, I guess you're stuck with it, right? I just wanted to explain a possible alternative way of going about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:29 PM

Hey,

You know one of the best things (among many) about Barack Obama is that he isn't getting sucked into the "race issue", even though realistically he has of course always known that it is a significant factor in the career of any black politician - even in Africa.

He won't bite.

They're trying to poke him, bait him, goad him - but when you look at him he doesn't look like someone in a cage. He looks like he's soaring above all that - it doesn't bother him - and he can see something better in the distance nd he's going to get there. And he makes it seem more important and more interesting.

as we spit at each other down here in the pit, he carries on working to excel as a fully rounded politician and presidential candidate. When people turn round to hear him talk, he is too busy speaking to and fighting for Americans to get drawn in to the big distraction.

Of course the fact that he is black is hugely significant. To pretend otherwise would be naive and patronizing. It is a burden of such complexity and weight that it is testament to his characer that he remains so professional, optimistic, realistic and idealistic despite it.

He isn't president - yet - but he already stands high on the shoulders of his African ancestry as a possible candidate for the position of leader of the free world.

With each dignified, brave and groundbreaking speech that he makes I find myself more and more agog at his strength of character.

Sorry, but if a man is to be judged by his character then boy - you don't need to look any further.

I envy you this opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:31 PM

Hey Bobert,

I like your style bro!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:31 PM

For the record, it may not surprise readers of this thread to know that while I believe that "The Clinton campaign--trying to push the idea that Obama would be arisky bet in general election--is using language and making claims that are at best racially insensitive", I do not believe that "The Obama campaign, in turn--hoping to increase its advantage among blacks in South Carolina and beyond--is exaggerating the extent of the Clinton campaign's trangressions".

I do believe that [as Little Hawk phrased it] "back and forth sniping" between Hillary Clinton supporters and Barack Obama supporters. And I do believe that this snipping can result in a Republican win, since some supporters of either candidate may decline to vote in the general Presidential election for the other candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee.

What can be done about this? Well, for one thing, my suggestion is that Hillary Clinton needs to publically speak out against the use of veiled racially charged language by her supporters. Barack Obama can also speak to the need for unity-Oh right, he's been doing that all along.

Well, Obama can continue to speak about unifying America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

I envy you this opportunity.

Easy for you to say. You already have single-payer, not for profit, universal health care where you live. For some of us (me included) this presidential election could be a matter of life and death (inasmuch as some of us, me included, have no access to health care of any sort).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:45 PM

Ok.

You vote for the candidate who's offering free healthcare.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:55 PM

Seeing clearly who you are vcoting for is a differnt, some might say more reliable, basis to send a person into the presidency and the unknown future that waits there over four years, than specific programs and projects which may have to be changed with the coming of new events.

This is what happened when Obama took on the issue of trying to get universal health coverage of some sort in Illinois...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

Essentially, he caved to the lobbyist's demands, and did not deliver on any kind of universal health coverage for the people of Illinois.


Conversely, when Kucinich was facing the prospect of selling out the energy consumers while he was mayor of Cleveland by privatizing the public electric utility, he sacrificed his own chances of being reelected to the mayorship and ended up saving the people of Cleveland many millions of dollars when he refused to do so. I can see very clearly who I'm voting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:29 PM

CarolC, CarolC, CarolC...

First of all, I loves you to the bottom of my worn our Crocks, Crooks, 'er whatever they are... If JtS hadn't gotten to you first I wasn't far behind... Might of fact, I was in the same Wes Ginny song writer's contest at Claymont but you know what Wes Ginnyians think about bluesmen... Yeah, a big "duhhhh'...But...

...nevermind that stuff, fir now 'cause it don't matter if Dennis or Obama or JtS or Jesus has the best health care plan right now... No, it doesn't mean nuthin'... Leaders lead...

This is all about leadership... The American people have been so beaten down by the corporatists they are on the verge of just throwin' up their hands and sayin', "We quit... You win... Just kill us and make it quick..."

It ain't about who has the best health care plan any more... It's about restoring the hope that Bush has worked so hard to tear down...

The only thing we fear is fear itself... That's what this election cycle is about... Not specific policies... Not about who has the best handle on health care...

It's about someone who can get US over Bush...

Dennis, bless his heart, ain't gonna get Americans feelin' like they can go out and be great... I love the guy... I love his policy positions... But he ain't the guy who can restore the good feelings...

He's a policy wonk, much like Hillary, but with much better policies but he ain't "the guy ( or gal)"...

I am sorry he isn't... I love the guy... I love his ideas... We need him in the mix but...

...sadly, he ain't the guy (or gal)...

Wish her were...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:33 PM

Make that "Wish he were..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:49 PM

Well, Bobert, from where I'm sitting, Obama looks like just another card carrying member of the corporatocracy. And if it's electibility you're worried about, then maybe you'd better be backing Edwards, because recent polling is indicating that Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who can beat all of the Republican candidates.

From my perspective, the only way we're going to prevail over the corporatocracy is to not settle for any more of their BS, no matter how pretty the package they use to deliver it to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:52 PM

For the record, in my 12 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM post, I failed to include the source of the comments that were quoted in that dailykos article about Hillary Clinton's pollster saying that Latinos don't vote for Black candidates.

The source for that quote is
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_lizza
The New Yorker; The Political Scene; Minority Reports
"After New Hampshire, a hint of racial politics."
by Ryan Lizza
January 21, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:16 PM

I need to address this bit, Bobert...

But he ain't the guy who can restore the good feelings...

Do you have health coverage, Bobert? If you do, perhaps you can't understand how stressful it is to be over the age of fifty and not have any at all. It's like a black cloud hanging over us that never goes away. It's always there, lurking in the background, even during the happiest of occasions. Restore what good feelings? We've never had anything like that in this country, and we're not likely to as long as almost 50 million of us don't have any access to health care, and about the same number of us are underinsured, and employers can use health insurance as a form of economic blackmail at the bargaining table.

Bring on the good feelings! I'm ready for it. But it ain't going to happen until this criminal state of affairs has been corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:50 AM

True enough.

It's a criminal state of affairs that is being maintained for the usual reason...those who are making the most money from it are controlling the agenda from the top down for their own gain. They care not who lives or dies, but they care about their profits. The politicians who serve them have let themselves be bought. The USA media has been compliant, in that they do not expose the real truth of the matter and they keep repeating the old myths. They too have been bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:43 AM

Well said LH.

Or to put it in Bobert speak "You ain't got no good feelins iffen you're dead"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:40 AM

Well, yeah, Carol...

I totally agree with you that Obama hasn't "promised" to provide health insurance for every American... Yes, I have it but have no faith that my provider wouldn't cancel my policy if, ahhhhhhh, the P-Vine or I get sick...

The problem that we all face here isn't necessarially what one candidate promises to do but which candidate best resembles a Trojan Horse... Yeah, the corportaists are gonna shoot down all the Dennis Kucinich's and all the Ron Paul's that come along leaving US with purdy much having to guess what is in the hearts of those that pass the corportists test...

John Edwards voted for the Iraq War... That scares me... There were enough people out there providing enough information that Iraq didn't have WMD's for a thinking man with a "good heart" to have not voted for the Iraq War...

For the same reason (and many others, gender not included), I cannot bring myself to vote for Clinton...

Obama took on the law-and-order righties in Illinois... He had absolutley nothing to gain and everything to loose but he did it... That gives me a glimpse into his "heart"...

I believe that Obama is the Trojan Horse... Fo I know that foer sure??? no, I admit I don't but I know that I couldn't vote for anyone who went along with Bush's invasion of Iraq...

Would zI like to see Fennis as president... No, I'd ***love*** it.... The first thread I started here in Mudville many years ago was about Dennis's Department of Peace... I am a super Kucinichite...
But I am also a realist... At least at some level and Dennis is absolutely not electable as president no matter how bad you and I would like him to be...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM

Didn't Bill Clinton promise universal health coverage back in the last century? And Hillary was supposed to sort out getting it?

No good making promises if you can't deliver. And the ability to deliver is going to be dependent on the result of the election, presidential, House and Senate, and on the ability of people to kick up a fuss about getting the things they need.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:30 AM

If everyone who agreed with his policies and ideas voted for him, Bobert, he would win. Especially if all of them got his message out to others. The media blackout against Dennis is preventing a lot of people from hearing his message who would support him if they heard it.

I know that I couldn't vote for anyone who went along with Bush's invasion of Iraq...

Then I suggest that you are supporting the wrong candidate. Obama voted to fund the war. He also voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

Obama panders to the lobbyists, he supported the war when it came time to pay for it, he supported the Patriot Act when it was time to kill it, when asked, he was unwilling to commit to bringing home the troops by 2012, and he was unwilling to take the use of nuclear weapons against Iran off the table.

He's Hillary Clinton lite, as is Edwards. Clinton is the scariest of the bunch, because she's entirely open about being a neocon, but the track records of the other two aren't a whole lot better.


That's a good point, McGrath, but I go on the candidates prior history. If a candidate's history shows that their priority is pleasing the lobbyists, I think we can predict what their future actions and decisions will be. If the candidate's history shows that they pander to no special interests, and they base their decisions on what's good for the voters, we can predict that that's what their priority will be in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

I guess in order to determine if Hillary is a neo-con, one would have to check out her willingness to up the US at risk for the benefit of Israel, and see where she sits on the issues of economic theory.

               I would agree, though, Obama is a pretty poor subsititure for Kucinich.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:48 AM

I guess in order to determine if Hillary is a neo-con, one would have to check out her willingness to up the US at risk for the benefit of Israel, and see where she sits on the issues of economic theory.

Her track record in the Senate shows that she is willing to put the US at risk for the benefit of Israel. I don't know as much about her economic theory as I do other issues, but her track record in the Senate shows that she believes that lobbyists and the corporatocracy should have more say in how this country is run than the voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:00 AM

So if it be true that her policy positions are (except on the war) generally to the left of Obama, does that imply that she is lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:04 AM

Which policy positions of hers are you saying are to the left of Obama, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:10 AM

Obama has the advantage, of course, of not having been in the senate when the vote on Iraq was taken. Hillary didn't do well by herself, I would certainly admit, but Obama has supported all of the war related stuff that came after.

                   To determine if Hillary was a neo-con, it seems to depend on the definition. I hadn't considered any non-Republicans to be neo-cons, though Joe Lieberman could certainly be put in that camp. Of course, he's an independant now.

                   It seems to me that Obama is at least, if not more, willing to pander to corporate interests than Hillary, which means CarolC is right. Kucinich is the only honest agent of "change."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:19 AM

As a matter of curiosity, when Clinton, or Edwards, or Obama (alphabetical order, no preference implied) is nominated, are you folks going to support the Democratic candidate or go off and mope for four years?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:24 AM

Some of it depends on who the Republicans nominate. If they nominate McCain, I'd vote for anybody the Democrats put up there. If they nominated Ron Paul, I'd have to think about it.

                     If McCain wins, I'll mope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:58 AM

It is a rare eclipse that Amos Azzi and LittleHawk can all miss the same point I made.

To throw out all the good advisors we got to know from the Clinton administration would be a mistake. Robert Reich is one whom I speak of.

And when it comes to black power perception and that some blacks will perceive Obama as selling out to the whites, that is sad.

The new paradigm of black power could turn on this election and leave the bitter model in the past, or if it fails as in a fraudulant count the bitterness could explode.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

Well, D., I saw your point going by, but did not comment . Seems plain to me Obama will name the Cabinet he believes he can work with and will give him the best bang for thbuck along the lines of his policies and purposes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM

As a matter of curiosity, when Clinton, or Edwards, or Obama (alphabetical order, no preference implied) is nominated, are you folks going to support the Democratic candidate...?
-artbrooks

It depends on what you mean by "support". I will probably vote for the Democratic candidate, because of the likelihood that the next President will have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court judges.

One thing is for sure-I will definitely not vote for any of the Republican candidates for USA President or any third party candidate for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM

When I say that "if it be true" - I'm really just repeating what I have heard. I have read both their manifestos - but very hurriedly - and it seems I need to do it again, unless someone has a point by point summary somewhere....(which is what I really hoped for when I started my "identikit" thread, but no pundit has produced).

My very quick reading did not give me a contrary impression to the reportage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:28 PM

Here, from today's Observer is quite a telling glance at the rather vacuous rhetoric of the competing candidates (with a comparison with the equally vacuous but different rhetoric our guys go in for):

...Maybe Obama is so successful because he's the supreme master of what American politics excels in: high-flown language that denotes as little as possible. America is curious in that it is the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, it's a doing country, but its politicians rarely spend time on the stump specifying what precisely they will do in case it makes them lose votes. Instead, they settle on emotive, intangible phraseology, such as Hillary Clinton's recent 'I intend to be the President who puts your futures first', uttered in New Hampshire.

I listened to all the victory speeches of the winning candidates last week and it was impossible to spot any difference in the message. Mike Huckabee said: 'This election is not about me, it's about we', while Clinton came up with the variant: 'You want this election to be about you.'...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

Ummm...if I missed your point, Donuel, it might have been sheer fatigue or lack of available time... ;-)

I agree with you that "The new paradigm of black power could turn on this election and leave the bitter model in the past". That's because Obama is somehow transcending racial definitions altogether....and it's wonderful to see! He comes across simply as a "person"...a very intelligent person. That's what has to be done if the old divisions are finally to be put to rest, we have to become free of the labelling of race itself in our consciousness.

When I get up in the morning, the first thing I'm aware of is: "I'm a person"....not "I'm a white person" or "I'm a male person" or "I'm a Canadian".....just "I'm a person". It doesn't matter that I'm white or male or Canadian...so what??? Why should anyone care? I'M A PERSON...that's what matters. People need to get to that point if they are going to be at ease with one another and live as equals free of prejudice. They need to look at themselves and at others and just see...another person. Period.

Because a person has the potential to be absolutely anything at all.

Bobert - I think, just maybe, that Obama may be that Trojan Horse you're speaking of that will give the corporatocracy a surprise if he is elected. I hope so. If I could vote in the USA, I would continue to support Kucinich and get his message out, but if Obama or Edwards ended up being the officially chosen Democratic candidate for president, then I would support whichever one of them ran.

Hillary? I'd be very torn. I don't trust her backers in the least. It would depend who she ran against.

Ron Paul? I hope he continues getting his message out loud and clear to the Republicans, because they sure need to hear it.

(Huckabee is kind of refreshing in a way...odd...because I don't in any way identify with his evangelical approach or certain of his specific policies. There's something I like about the man personally, though. It's quite intriguing to me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

Remember, you can't believe anything that is said during an election and don't forget that politicians have the best of the best when it comes to creating an image.

Seems to me that you should look at the past performance of the candidates.

Both Hillary and Obama pander to lobbyists. I, too, worry that Obama is not the 'Black Messiah' that people are hoping for. Do not ignore the fact that both of these candidates have supported the Iraq war in one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:15 PM

All of this discussion is interesting and enlightening, and well worth doing, but to a large degree, it's fairly academic until after the national party conventions. Then, the choices will be limited.

Assuming that you are not going to be so foolish as to vote for a third party–unless there is an obvious nationwide groundswell for that third party and it has a real chance of winning, instead of pulling maybe 3% of the vote–or that you are going to just throw up your hands and say "I'm disgusted! I'm just not going to vote!" in which case . . . (I'm not going to finish this part of the sentence):

If, after the conventions, you are presented with the choice of Hillary Clinton versus, say, Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson, who would you vote for?

Worth giving some thought, because that may very well be your choice.

Don Firth

P. S. Don't get the idea that this is my preference and then jump on me for it. As I have said on numerous occasions, my choice is Kucinich, and I will certainly be arguing for him in my precinct caucus. But at this point, it looks like he doesn't have a snowball's chance, so I suggest that those with strong feelings for a particular candidate, especially one who is not doing very well at this point, give some thought to Plan B.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:17 PM

Black Messiah? Who the hell is wanting that?

And in what particulars did he "support" the war?

I have seen no evidence he pandered to lobbyists; it is clear he did negotiate with them in Illinois, and how could he not? If you don't deal with power, you don't build futures, or get a coalition of vectors. His idealism does not make him an idiot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:27 PM

A quote from Voltaire worth keeping in mind in this context: Le Mieux est l'ennemi du Bien - the Best is enemy of the Good.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:30 PM

Obama as the Trojan Horse has a certain quirky appeal. In any case he is a LOT more likely to change the core memes at play in Washington than Hillary, who was bred on them and plays them well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

Settle down, Amos.

My comment about Obama as the "Black Messiah" was aimed at those who are attempting to make this into a race-race. As to his record on Iraq, Carol C. has already noted, "Obama voted to fund the war. He also voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act."

Kucinich is the only candidate with a proven track record.   

Seems like the machinery is conspiring against him, though.

Thats politics. Once again, voters will have to choose the least offensive candidate which is what discourages people from voting at all. Once again, the U.S. will have to pander to corporate interests. Nothing will change.

Personally, I like Obama's message but change for the sake of change is not something I'd vote for. If elected, Obama will do whatever the Democratic machine tells him to do. That makes him very similar to most presidents. The difference is that Obama is an orator with a near perfect image which appeals to a wide range of voters. That doesn't mean he is able to make any real changes.

Hope is not the same thing as action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:49 PM

Now, now, CarolC...

I stated that I would not support "anyone who went along with Bush's invasion of Iraq" and I stand by that... Obama was in the Illinios state house at the time the vote was taken 800 miles south east in the US Congress to authorize the invasion...

So you can't pin the invasion on Obama but...

...nice try...

Yeah, I know Dennis's history during those time and he showed up big time in leading the House debate...

I'm truely sorry that Fennis has been disenfranchised by the corporate media... I would rather be fighting for him than anyone out there...

Actually, where I live in Page County, Va. Democrats are still considered communists and socialists so fightin 'round these parts is about it: a fight...

But I tell ya' what, CarolC... I will commit to work in Dennis's campaign here in Bush/Cheney country should Dennis get the nomination if you'll commit to work for Obama in yer parts if he should get it...

Deal???

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:05 PM

Sounds reasonable. ;-)

Why do you keep typing "Fennis", Bobert? It's quite distracting. Fennis sounds like a good name for a cat to me...and I think if I acquire another feline and he's male, that is what I shall call him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM

Sounds like a fair proposition, Bobert. That's what I'll be doing. If Kucinich doesn't make the Democratic nomination, I'll be working for whichever candidate does—and that includes Hillary.

Unless that hypothetical third party (liberal-progressive) I spoke of comes on like a tsunami and looks like it has a very good chance.

We've had Republicans up the ziggy lately, and frankly, my ziggy is pretty sore! Let's give the Democrats a chance to screw things up. Maybe if both the Reps and the Dems take things into the realm of the totally fubar, people may get sufficiently disgusted that we will get a viable liberal-progressive third party.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:17 PM

"Let's give the Democrats a chance to screw things up. Maybe if both the Reps and the Dems take things into the realm of the totally fubar, people may get sufficiently disgusted that we will get a viable liberal-progressive third party."

My thoughts exactly. ;-) That's how it works in Canada too...only we normally have 3 or more parties to choose among as to who gets the next chance to screw things up. That makes it a little more enlivening, I think.

I'd love to see a truly viable 3rd party in the USA...one that could win a national election, I mean...not just serve as a spoiler to screw up things for one of the Big Two.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:29 PM

Gol danged it, Fiddle Hawk...

PM WYSuzie... She'll tell ya why... No, forget it... I'll tell ya'... Ya' see, I never took typin' as a second language so I don't know which key is, ahhhhh, which key and seein' as my keyboard is so worn out that the only letters that is left showin' are q,x,v an' z... The rest are wored off...

Now, sure you can say, "Well, Bobetrz, yo gotta a screen to llok at and I fo look at the screwen and find 'bout 9 outta 10 typos but my lexdexia missed the 10th one and so poor ol' Deenis ends up Fennis on occasion... It ain't no Fuedual thing 'er nuthin'... Really... I love Fennis, I really do...

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:33 PM

LH - I think that's the answer to the whole thing. A competetive third party would really help things along. The way it is now, one party takes a position on something, so the other party takes what they consider to be the opposing position. There might be a number of better ideas out there, but they never get heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:48 PM

And in what particulars did he "support" the war?

I have seen no evidence he pandered to lobbyists; it is clear he did negotiate with them in Illinois, and how could he not? If you don't deal with power, you don't build futures, or get a coalition of vectors. His idealism does not make him an idiot.


I answered these questions in my 12 Jan 08 - 08:55 PM post. He pandered to the lobbyists in Iowa. He did not compromise with them. They ended up getting exactly what they wanted and the people of Illinois got zilch.

I stated that I would not support "anyone who went along with Bush's invasion of Iraq" and I stand by that... Obama was in the Illinios state house at the time the vote was taken 800 miles south east in the US Congress to authorize the invasion...

So you're saying you can't vote for anyone who went along with the invasion, but you have no problem with voting for someone who helped keep the war going and voted to fund the occupation? I don't see too much difference myself.

But I tell ya' what, CarolC... I will commit to work in Dennis's campaign here in Bush/Cheney country should Dennis get the nomination if you'll commit to work for Obama in yer parts if he should get it...

Deal???

To answer you and also artbrooks, probably not. I will probably write Kucinich's name in if he doesn't decide to run independently. If he runs independently, I will, of course, vote for him. If those other people want my vote, they're going to have to earn it. So far, I'm not impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:52 PM

Bobert...

Buy a new keyboard!

Do it now. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:08 PM

Dragon Naturally Speaking voice recognition software. You talk at your computer and what you say appears on the screen. It costs a buck or two ($149, unless you get it on one of their $99 specials).

'Swonderful! 'Smarvelous!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:15 PM

It might be that F is next to D.

Most voice recognition software is great for expanding the vocabulary. You look at what it says you said and your vocabulary expands massively.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

Dragon version 9 is pretty accurate. Much better than earlier versions. But you still have to proof-read. Yet, even with proof-reading, I find it's about three times as fast as straight typing.

But when it goofs, it can sometimes get pretty funny!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

I am not enthusiastic about any of the candidates for various reasons but I will support a Democratic frontrunner to get rid of Republicans.

Obama would be an interesting choice because he will bring out all the venom and racism that the Republicans have to offer. Turd Blossom made it very clear that he intends to trash Obama not stopping at racial slurs.

In the meantime, Obama is a personality but is not articulating any strategies for the
major issues of the country. He reverts to evangelical preacher style. His charisma
seems to be carrying him.

Hillary is more of a corporatist. She has the backing of the defense industry and the pharmaceutical companies.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

Well, CarolC, exactly which lobbiest paid Obama to require videao cameras during interogations???

(It was Kodak, Bobert...)

Nevermind...

As fir voice activated computers, no thnaks... They'd prolly just argue with me...

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 06:26 PM

Imagine Elmer Fudd using a voice-operated computer...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 07:50 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen of the world, let me introduce to you the one and only, the indisputable, the absolutely phenomenally best purveyor of the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .... the U.S. Democratic Party and the unfocused, illogical, and completely self centered minions of individual agendas known as the American Left. This talented bunch of fools, many of them right here for your inspection in this thread, will continue to amaze you with their breath taking lack of understanding that the Democratic Left in this country is the sum of its parts, that consensus is the only way it will win. You will be left breathless as you watch them march fearlessly to their political deaths by accusing one another of sexual and racial politics. Watch them, once again, alienate the all important political middle, while their opponents settle on a McCain or Huckabee that can also appeal to the American middle. Watch them squander, yet again, the golden opportunity to truly change the paradigm. I urge you not to miss this chance to watch the spectacle, as it very well may be the last one in this lifetime.

How many times, O Lord, must I watch this. We have a situation where all we have to do is have a campaign based on issues and charisma, let it play out, and we will have a President that can set the agenda for years to come just as Reagan did for the right. And I watch you all debate whether the Clintons are racists or whether Obama is black enough. And you may take it from the only one among you who has actually run a Presidential campaign in a major State. If that sounds arrogant, so be it, but it is the truth. We can blow this thing, and it can happen while you are all savaging the leaders over narrow agendas. Democrats, and the left, can ONLY win if they can find consensus among groups as disparate as working class hunters and vegetarians, environmentalists and building tradesmen, traditional religious and progressives, agnostic and atheist middle class folks, African Americans, Latin Americans, Jewish Americans, and the white Middle class. To do this is a real trick, when you see them doing what they are doing now. Fools.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 07:53 PM

Amen, Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:00 PM

BTW: 500!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:03 PM

Labels are a distraction. They only serve to promote the idea of politics and government as a team sport. It's time to dispense with the labels and deal with the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:03 PM

Another Clinton surrogate has maligned Senator Barack Obama.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/

BET Founder Slams Obama in South Carolina
By Katharine Q. Seelye ; January 13, 2008

Here's an excerpt of that article:

"COLUMBIA, S.C. — Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama's past drug use. He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."

At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.
Dr. King had led a "moral crusade," Mr. Johnson said, but such crusades have to be "written into law."

"That is the way the legislative process works in this nation and that takes political leadership," he said. "That's all Hillary was saying."

He then added: "And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved."
Moments later, he added: "That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.' And I'm thinking, I'm thinking to myself, this ain't a movie, Sidney. This is real life." ...

Update: 5 p.m. Mr. Johnson just released this statement, through the Clinton campaign:

"My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.

"When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school.
That results oriented leadership — even as a young person — is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton." "

-snip-

Judging from the numerous comments posted by readers of this article, lots of people are beyond angry with Hillary Clinton. She is losing a large number of African Americans votes as well as votes from non-African Americans because of the not at all subtle race baiting tactics used by her campaign.

If Hillary Clinton had known what a low opinion most African Americans have regarding Bob Johnson and BET {Black Entertainment Television}, she may not have never asked him to help her back pedal her now infamous MLK/LBJ comments.

Here's two examples of those comments criticizing Bob Johnson and the Clinton campaign:

"I find Mr. Johnson's comments demeaning and insulting. His barely veiled allusion that Senator Obama was doing something inappropriate (ie drug dealing), rather than the community organizing which Senator Obama did in fact engage in, is the same filthy tactic that has already been used by the Clinton campaign in NH with Mr. Shaheen's comments. Is the Clinton campaign going to "distance itself" from these comments as well? As an African American woman, what really enfuriates me is that this is an African American man denigrating another African American man. Simply disgusting!"
— Posted by Teach53

**

"The founder of the disgrace to Black culture that is BET needs to shut up and fix his channel. He holds no weight. Is this the best that HRC could get? Shame.

And what does Barack's drug use years ago have anything to do with the nonsense that is coming out of the HRC camp?? What about his "kind of campaign behavior"

Wow, his stupidity runs deep. I think he just made things worse…after all, Clyburn came to his own conclusions without the help of the Obama campaign. Is he stupid?

I love how Hillary is singlehandedly dividing the Democratic party (read: the outrage in NH), the Black community, Unions…I mean, the woman is on a roll…Keep doing that you're doing. We'll all be thrown back into the 1990's in no time. "
— Posted by Uzoma

-snip-

Here's an explanation of Uzoma's reference to "Clyborn":

Clyburn keeps heat on Clintons
by Mike Dorning

"In case the presidential candidates didn't get the message from comments published in the New York Times yesterday, Rep. Jim Clyburn, the most powerful African-American in the congressional leadership, issued a written statement underscoring his unhappiness over recent comments from Sen. Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton that appeared to dismiss, respectively, the importance of Martin Luther King Jr.'s contributions to the passage of civil rights legislation and Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy.

Clyburn is a powerful political figure in South Carolina and especially among African-Americans, who make up about half of the electorate in the Democratic primary there"...

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clyburn.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

You are absolutely right, B-Mick...

This is the Dems election to loose and what I am seein', especially out of the Clinton camp, is an amazing ability to use subtle racial remarks that can get one heck of a lotta black voters, in particular, to sit this one out...

Next thing ya' know the Clintons will have cleared out enough of the front lines that usually stand up and say "Hey, that is outta bounds" so that the Repubs will be askin' Obama if he ever solf drugs to school kids...

Makes this ol' hillbilly sick...

I have no problems with any camp except the Clinton camp which, IMO, could teach Karl Rove a few new tricks...

Well, I don't see Hillary *weepin' her way to the White House*...

But I do see her damaging Obama's chances...

The Clintons need to do some serious rethinkin' here... They are the ones who have played the race card... I don't give a flyin' frig if the old guard civil rights folks think that Bill Clinton was the first black president... If that's what they think, fine... Keep it to yourselves... He ain't black...

Hey, ain't no bad folks here... Just folks who need to rethink the game... The amin thing is to stop the insanity... If one looks at the Repub hopefulls its like looking into a looney ward at some state mental hospital...

Yeah, lets at least keep our ranks tight...

That's why I proposed a deal with CarolC... Lets just get the Repubs (including the Clinton Repub-lites) outta the White House, catch our collective breath and go on from there...

Sorry if I consider the Clintons as Repubs but they are...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

watch the sneaky two not really say stuff but omit stuff..I thought it was a bit cagey of Bill to refer to Obama and then the boys and girls..meaning other candidates..he did not put him in with the "boys" but watch for little blank spaces for the agile mind to insert its own stuff...there will be nothing to deny, nothing to fire out of control subordinates that you just can not seem to restrain ..for...watch and weep for America. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM

In case folks here are unfamiliar with BET and why so many African Americans are down on that television station and its founder/former owner, here's two more comments from that New York Times blog:

"One only needs to turn on BET to see how it promotes all the horrible stereotypes of young black men as being stupid misogynist drug-using gangsters. Frankly, I wouldn't take the endorsement of a guy who spreads these stereotypes seriously. James Clyburn serves as a positive example to the black community, and he independently criticized Mrs. Clinton for her comments."
— Posted by Nicholas Finch

**

"Robert Johnson has got a lot of nerve! Has anyone looked at BET recently? Johnson has gotten rich on the degradation of his own community. I suggest Johnson take a look in the mirror when he makes insinuations about insulting the intelligence of the black community. And by the way, Hilary and Bill may have been emotionally involved in "issues" concerning the black community, but last time I checked they did little but pay lip service to and play the saxophone. And by the way, as an African American I have NEVER considered Bill Clinton to be the first black president. That day will come when Barak Obama is sworn in!"
— Posted by Ashamed of BET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:13 PM

Exactly, mg... The Clintons are up to no good here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:20 PM

Hmmm.

Mick, I think the way your primary system is set up (as a "winner takes all" free-for-all like the game "Risk", held prior to your national elections) almost guarantees this kind of divisive and very destructive infighting in both parties, Democratic and Republican, but, yes, the Democrats seem to suffer more on account of it, perhaps because they (some of them) are more idealistic and less pragmatic in a sense.

You need to have a different system...one where your parties select their leader LONG before the next election, not just before it. And they should not do it by fighting public battles for the popular vote. They should do it through an internal party process that works to select the most effective leader overall...and it should be a relatively short process (a few weeks of discussion INSIDE the party caucuses, followed by a convention, period...NO primaries.)

In Canada, and in most parliamentary democracies, that is exactly how it is done, and it results in far fewer dirty tricks, far fewer lies and innuendos, far less misleading propaganda to manipulate the public vote, far less damage to the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:21 PM

Here's two more comments from that New York Times blog:


"The assertion that it took President Johnson's legislative leadership to pass the Civil Rights Act is another example of top down historical analysis that devalues the impact and political agency of grass roots movements. Without the pressure exerted by student, community, labor and church activist, which ultimately exposed the hypocrisy inherent in American society, President Johnson would have moved with "all deliberate speed" to sign the Civil Rights Act. Hillary Clinton's contention that her experience and connections will allow her to deliver on her promises is exactly the type of arrogant political leadership that the electorate must reject."
— Posted by JNB

**

"Unfortunately, the Clintons' despicable Dick-Morris-triangulation strategy to inject race into the campaign and then frame and blame Obama for the very act they themselves have done is being executed today as I anticipated it would last night ("Bill Clinton Tries to Tamp Down 'Fairy Tale' Remark" Comment #236). The only surprise is that the comments of her surrogates are are no longer subtle "dog whistle" undertones but open and blantantly vile bile that all but the most obtuse Clinton supporters intentionally adopting their "see no evil, hear no evil" poses must acknowledge. They're bringing it from both directions: one anonymous surrogate ridiculing Obama's white supporters by implying that Obama's "hip black[ness]" is his only noteworthy attribute that would attract those wannabe hipsters, while trotting out their African American toady Bob Johnson, to compare Obama to Sidney Poitier, who's often unfairly criticized as a "sanitized" black person whose acceptable to white people (i.e., "not black enough") and also refer to "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" to associate Obama with the "taboo" and taint of miscegenation in case there's anyone left who doesn't know that Obama's mother was white and his father was black. All the while, Hillary claims that race and gender shouldn't be misused in this way in the campaign. Yesterday I was heartbroken by the tactics of the Clintons, for whom I had so much admiration and a deep reservoir of good will. Today, they have gone too far to ever assuage my feelings or, more importantly, have my vote, as beguiling as Bill Clinton is and no matter how much I'd like to reminisce about the good times we had back in the '90s. I can no longer bear to see them every day on the national and world stage. I'm a lifelong Democrat but if Hillary Clinton becomes the party's nominee, for the first time, a viable third-party candidate (Bloomberg? Gore? even - gasp - McCain under the right circumstances, Iraq policy and the Supreme Court be darned) would get my vote."
— Posted by Richard O.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:29 PM

Mind you, our parliamentary prime ministers also have a good deal LESS power than your president does. It's a different approach to governing.

They cannot veto legislation, they can only act as party leader in parliament to influence by persuasion the rest of their party members and other seated members regarding proposed legislation, and their influence, needless to say, is usually considerable in that case...but once parliament ratifies a new piece of legislation, it's law. The prime minister cannot then veto it.

Your presidents have considerably too much power, in my opinion. Your executive office needs to be tamed. Under G.W. Bush it's been right out of control, and your Congress has been rendered into a shadow of what it should be.

A government such as Mr Bush's would have been voted out in Canada sometime well prior to 2004, probably prior to 2003. The Iraq War would never have been allowed to happen at all, because there was no legal or rational basis for waging it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM

Exactly, Mizi-A...

This ias the kinda stuff the Clintons don't mind one bit usin'... It is racism-lite...

The message is that black folk is fine for suggestin' ideas but ain't up to the task of being "president" and implimentin' those ideas...

What does this make Dr. King??? Chopped liver??? Bull... He had a better handle on what was going down in the 60's than any white leader... Okay, Bobby Kennedy was catchin' up but still not there when he was on his way to the Dem nomination...

As a white person, I resent the implication that Bill Clinton was the first black president... I resent that a former civil rights leader would imply that Bill Clinton slept with more balck women than Barak Obama...

Bill Clinton ain't black... Period... Get over it, Clintonites...

Yeah, the Clintons need to rethink their campaign... If they wanta have hillary cry at the drop of a hat that's fine... Here's a box of Kleenix... But please spare US the race thing...

Lotta of US are beyond yer juviline race stuff, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:43 PM

A government such as Mr Bush's would have been voted out in Canada sometime well prior to 2004, probably prior to 2003. The Iraq War would never have been allowed to happen at all, because there was no legal or rational basis for waging it.

Well, our system here is not that different from yours in some of those ways, Little Hawk, and it didn't work out that way. No legal or rational for the war didn't stop our MPs believing what they were told (or making out that they believed it), and lining up to vote for the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 09:09 PM

It is possible that I am under-sensetised to race issues, but there seems to me to be a possible aura of sanctimoniousness about the cries of "racist language". There is a debate on, and language is needed to enable issues to be addressed. The debate is stultified if every word has to be examined in microscopic detail to see whether it is politically correct.

Can it really be that the words complained of are an appeal to racial prejudice? It is a very long way from Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. Or is it more likely that the complainants are manufacturing an accusation?

Indeed, since as I see it Obama has gone out of his way not to be a "black candidate" are the accusers as much mavericks from his campaign as most of the accused may be from the Clinton campaign?

Surely it is more relevant to examine and compare the detailed policies of the candidates. I have been working on this, but have run out of time until next weekend, but I feel I am close to a comparison on health care: -



HEALTH INSURANCE:

Clinton: Use existing insurance system in for-profit medicine. Fix holes in Medicaid and SCHIP. New Federal provision like FEHBP for all. Expanded Medicare scheme. Insurers must cover – but set own premium. Tax credits to assist affordability (net tax cuts). No mention of assistance for non-taxpayers. Tax breaks for employers with good plans. Apparently no cover for those who "choose" not to insure.

Obama: Existing insurance system, expand Medicaid and SCHIP. New Federal provision like FEHBP for all. Insurers must cover. Premiums must be fair and NOT health-dependent. Federal subsidy for affordability, apparently not tax-based. Employers without health scheme taxed to support subsidy cost. Healthy living and quality of care proposals. Right to import safe prescription medicines.

Conclusion: Hardly anything in it, Obama by a whisker

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 09:24 PM

Richard - It always seemed to me like the "race" thing was hugely overdone in American politics, but that has a lot to do with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have made a living out of turning everything into a racial issue. And everytime they do, the media gives them the attention they need to capitalize on it.

                In this current skirmish, it isn't clear who benefits by bringing up the racial issue. If Hillary thinks the New Hampshire win had something to do with racial preferences, she might think it is to her advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:42 PM

it sounds like they are playing with Hispanic heads as well..the Clinton campaign..chips and avacados..reminding them that Hispanics might be uncomfortable with Obama etc. etc. I could not understand the first time I saw Bill Clinton how anyone would ever vote for him and the more I saw her same same. If you want J. Edgar back ....if you want more dirty tricks than anyone ever...I am sure she has some good plans..and would work very hard...but heaven help the person who crosses her. And what do they have in secret files on some of their supporters and endorsers one may ask???? Is it all true, totally voluntary and above=board? And tie in that nasty comment by Andy Young about women who have been involved with both Obama and Clinton..and a nasty comment by Al Sharpton about Obama's racial heritage...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:00 PM

McGrath...yeah, it was astounding that Tony Blair was able to strongarm his party and his government into going into that war...clearly going against the wishes of a great majority of his own population...just an incredible hijacking of a government.

To the credit of his party, there were many in it who vigorously opposed what he was doing. As far as I'm concerned he utterly betrayed his party and his nation.

It seems that no matter who you vote for in the UK, you get a government that serves the same grand imperial plan...in concert with the USA. Your parties have been bought and hijacked.

Canadians in general did not support that war either, and our government stayed out of it. It's clear to me that Tony Blair and George Bush had decided long in advance of the Iraq War exactly what they were going to do...and they were serving their own secret agenda for the war, regardless of what the British people thought about it. Their agenda had nothing to do with Iraqi WMDs or Iraq's ability to threaten anyone. Iraq had no real ability to threaten other nations after the Gulf War in '91.

They were after other things, things they never spoke of or would admit to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 11:27 PM

"...and a nasty comment by Al Sharpton about Obama's racial heritage..."

                      I didn't know Sharpton had commented on Obama's heritage. What did he say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

MG has brought up an important point about Hillary in saying "Heaven help anyone who crosses her..."

Given the "tool box" of executive powers that Cheney has carved out for Bush a Hillary with all that power could be very dangerous, especially when one thinks that Bill will be playin' with the tools behind the scenes...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 11:56 AM

Obama Endorsed By Two More 'Red State' Senators
AP   |   January 13, 2008 12:59 PM



Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won the endorsement of two fellow Democratic senators from the heartland _ Ben Nelson, a popular moderate in largely Republican Nebraska and Claire McCaskill from Missouri, historically a bellwether in presidential contests.

Nelson said Saturday he believes Obama has ability to bridge the partisan divide and to carry Democratic candidates across the country to victory in 2008. Nelson, pledging his support for his Illinois colleague, said Obama has "the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington."

McCaskill plans to announce her support for the Illinois senator Sunday, according to an Obama aide and a McCaskill staffer who spoke Saturday on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.

Her endorsement is expected to be a major boost for Obama in Missouri, one of nearly two dozen states holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, and could help Obama woo female voters in his race against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:03 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/whos-tired-of-pink_b_81087.html

Here is something nasty beyond belief..definitely sexist..racist against "pink" men...

I know that there are lots of really bad men out there..but I just don't seem to meet any of them...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

"Crucial votes in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't the only places the presidential race is seeing a shake-up.

Columbus-based market research firm Opinion Consultants released the results of its latest Central Ohio CEO/Leaders Poll, which showed a change in candidate support from April. Nearly half of surveyed Republicans would vote for Sen. John McCain in a primary while Sen. Barack Obama came in a commanding first place on the Democratic side with 58 percent support. A similar poll conducted in April 2007 found that nearly half of all respondents supported none of the top three contenders on their party ticket.

The poll was conducted between Jan. 2 and Jan. 11, during the first two presidential contests, and included more than 200 area respondents. Obama and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee garnered the most support at the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3, while Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain won the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8.

McCain, with 48 percent support in the local poll, edged out former New York mayor and early Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who garnered 28 percent support, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pulled in third place with 15 percent.

Mimicking the surprising results of the Jan. 3 Iowa caucus, Sen. John Edwards came in a distant second on the Democratic side with 17 percent support, while Clinton pulled a third-place finish with 14 percent. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:09 PM

LH,

I do not read any toxic beliefs into your post. I merely (merrily?) smiled about the surface form of your post which invited deliberate misreadings.

Read your post again:
(1) It comes immediately after the post by CarolC decrying "racism". In that context your To call someone a "racist", of course, is also a very handy way of destroying his reputation could be read easily with a different angle than the one I knew you did intend.
(2) All you post is about labels:
communist, fellow traveler, Muslim, anti-Semite, racist, socialist, in that order. This too invites another reading than the one you did intend.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:33 PM

Okay, Wolfgang. ;-)

Yes, one has to be very careful how one says anything in order not to be misunderstood. Imagine what it must be like when running for high office! Rather like walking through a minefield on wobbly stilts, I would think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM

Wolfgang has confirmed my suspicions, LH. While he only named you in his little snipe, he actually was aiming to hit both of us with it. That seems to be a little hobby of his.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:02 PM

"RENO, Nev. Ð As he campaigned in northern Nevada on Monday, Senator Barack Obama said he was concerned that a heated discussion of racial issues in the presidential campaign could divide the Democratic Party.

ÒI donÕt want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,Ó Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. ÒWeÕve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.Ó

Mr. Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the ongoing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. First, he conducted three back-to-back interviews with the major television networks here. Then, he hastily called a news conference at the Reno Events Center.

After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally here, Mr. Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

ÒIf I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,Ó he said. ÒI hope the other campaigns take the same approach.Ó

On a day that initially was devoted to speaking about the economy, he held a nine-minute news conference. Before taking questions, Mr. Obama mentioned his rivals by name and praised them.

ÒI think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. WeÕre all Democrats,Ó Mr. Obama said. ÒWe all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.Ó

He continued, saying: ÒThey are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think that they can move this country to a better place.Ó..."


You'da thunk he was being coached by Big Mick...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:14 PM

Well, Amos, in a way, this is good for not only the dems but for Obama... Let's get this outta the way now...

I mean, you know that the Repubs would love nothin' more than to "Willie Horton" Obama late into the campaign like they did Dukacas...

Problem is that for the Repubs is that Hillary is taking care of that little situation right here and now and Obam just rises above it and it's not lost on the population how his "grace" and his "non-confrontaion" are just what people are looking for...

Hillary and Bill, in their attacks, have made Obama a better candidate and also shown the Repuns that there isn't any weakness there and that if they think they can "Willie Horton" Obama that ...

... that dog won't hunt...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:11 PM

I don't see the democratic race as men vs. women, race vs. race. I see it as good (hopefully) vs. evil..and I think there is deep evil that awaits us. I have never felt this way about any other political person or duo but I really think it is so. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:14 AM

If you ask me, John-all-war-all-the-time-McCain is evil. And now he's got Joe Lieberman campaigning for him, who is more evil than he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:59 AM

Yeah, Rigs, these are two sides of the Axis of Evil with Cheney's position up for grabs... Now if McCain get the nomination and brings Giuliani in as his VP then the Axix will be complete...

But I think that McCain might even select his bud, Joe "Warmonger" Lieberman and in case there would still be an opening for someone new... Or old...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:41 AM

Oddly enough, I like McCain personally -- I admire his steady-on attitude and his spunk. But I think he is immersed by experience and training in a miltarist's view of the world; and it woudl be a mistake to elevate such a viewpoint tot he Presidency, IMHO.

I am still very much in favor of Barack Obama; I notice, however, that the media is shunning him to some degree, tending to dance to the tune of the Hillary Waltz.

We have a lot to see in the coming weeks before February.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:58 AM

"By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 14, 2008; Page A01

The first contests of the 2008 presidential campaign have led to a dramatic shake-up in public opinion nationally, with Sen. John McCain now leading the Republican field and Sen. Barack Obama all but erasing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-overwhelming advantage among Democrats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 11:20 AM

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won the endorsement of two fellow Democratic senators from the heartland _ Ben Nelson, a popular moderate in largely Republican Nebraska and Claire McCaskill from Missouri, historically a bellwether in presidential contests.

Nelson said Saturday he believes Obama has ability to bridge the partisan divide and to carry Democratic candidates across the country to victory in 2008. Nelson, pledging his support for his Illinois colleague, said Obama has "the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington."

McCaskill plans to announce her support for the Illinois senator Sunday, according to an Obama aide and a McCaskill staffer who spoke Saturday on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.

Her endorsement is expected to be a major boost for Obama in Missouri, one of nearly two dozen states holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, and could help Obama woo female voters in his race against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination. ... (Huffington Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

Abortion
I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. (context)

Climate change
The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe. (context)

Education
Today we are failing too many of our children. We're sending them out into a 21st century economy by sending them through the doors of 20th century schools...This is unacceptable. If we truly believe in our public schools, then we have a moral responsibility to do better - to break the either-or mentality around the debate over education that asks us to choose between more money or more reform, and embrace a both-and mentality. Because we know that good schools will require both the structural reform and the resources necessary to prepare our kids for the future. (context)

Energy
This is our chance to step up and serve. For decades, we have heard President after President call for energy independence in this country, but for decades, we have fallen short. Well it's time to call on ourselves. We shouldn't wait for the next time gas hits $3 a gallon - and we shouldn't accept any more headlines that talk about a dying auto industry or a terrorist plot to use oil as a weapon against America. We should act - and we should act now. Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. Now is the time for this call to arms. (context)

Gun control
If you want to go hunt, go hunt. Nobody is trying to take your shotgun or rifle away. But when you've got the gun lobbying saying that we can't use ballistics to trace back where guns came from ... then it is time for us to stand up to the gun lobby and say enough. It is time for a change in Washington...I believe that the majority of NRA members would not object to doing a background check from a bullet that has been used to kill a child. (context)

Health care
Every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair. (context)

War on terror
It is time to turn the page. When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland...There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard. (context)

Immigration
It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something.Today's immigrants seek to follow in the same tradition of immigration that has built this country. We do ourselves and them a disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these individuals. And we fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately. (context)

Iraq
I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of events on the ground. But I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. I say this not only because we owe it to the Iraqi people, but because the Administration's actions in Iraq have created a self-fulfilling prophecy - a volatile hotbed of terrorism. (context)

Gay marriage
Well, it is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people...That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of a same sex union are compatible. (context)

Reform
When I am president, I will make it absolutely clear that working in an Obama administration is not about serving your former employer, your future employer or your bank account -- it's about serving your country, and that's what comes first. A lot of people have told me this is pretty tough, but I refuse to accept the Washington logic that you cannot find thousands of talented, patriotic Americans willing to devote a few years to their country without the promise of a lucrative lobbying job when they're done. I know we can find them...A lot of people have told me this is pretty tough, but I refuse to accept the Washington logic. (context)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:31 AM

getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Hmmm... against the war in Iraq (even though he voted to fund it) but for war in Pakistan...

Did you catch that, Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:50 AM

Carol:

Snipping that statement from its proper context is inaccurate. Pakistan is a dubious ally at best, and Obama is much too smart to puruse a war where one is not advisable.

The question would be, where the Al Qeda strongholds and support channels really are; I don't know the answer, though. Do you?

But in any case I believe you could rely on Obama to avoid like plague any war which could be resolved through diplomatic or economic means. Don't misapply what he is saying here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:16 PM

"where the Al Qeda strongholds and support channels really are; I don't know the answer, though. Do you?"

Ummm....in Washington D.C.?

My point being, without the last 50 years of outrageous American interference in the lives of people in the Middle East, without the provocations, coups, betrayals, and wars perpetrated by the USA upon Muslim populations in the Middle East, without the CIA's messing around and gathering together in the 80's the most extreme Muslim fanatics they could find and funding and arming them to kill Russians in Afghanistan...

...there would be no Al Queda. There would be no reason for any Al Queda.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM

LH - Your comments sound like they came straight out of the Ron Paul playbook.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

Yes, we appear to agree on that, don't we? And so would many others outside the USA. Ron Paul seems to be able to think outside the American "box", which is pretty amazing for a USA politician. There are people all over the world to whom his reasoning doesn't sound extraordinary at all, but it sounds extraordinary within the bubble of the usual American political dialogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:50 PM

Yes, well, you'll get a lot of agreement there!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 01:31 PM

Amos, an acquaintance of mine who is Pakistani told me that the reason extremist groups like Al Qaeda a able to operate with some degree of impunity in Pakistan is because it helps Musharraf solidify his hold on power for them to do that, and for this reason, he assists them in doing what they are doing. He said that the reason Musharraf is able to do that is because he and the Pakistani army (the generals) are being propped up by the US and other Western goverments.

My acquaintance said that Musharraf punishes the moderate, pro-Western people in Pakistan, because they are pushing for democracy, and Musharraf can't allow democracy to happen there or he will lose his hold on power.

My acquaintance said that if the West would stop propping up the army, and Musharraf, the people of Pakistan would take care of the extremists.

If Obama wasn't a tool of empire, he would know these things, and his rhetoric would reflect this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 01:46 PM

Tell ya' what, CarolC...

If any candidate takes Ron Paul's position on Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan they can 100% guarentee they will not only not be nominated, will not be elected but also will never be in any position to do anything about these various wars and shady deals...

You gotta start somewhere...

I'm glad that Paul and Dennis are getting at least some air time... They are the kinds of polical martyrs that are needed...

Barry Goldwater singlehandedly launched the conservative movement but he had to take the fall to do it...

I'm not sure I want to sacrifice '08 to a John "Warmonger" McCain just so I can sit back and think how righteous I was in making my stand...

Do I know for sure that Obama will make the changes nessessary to bring a foriegn policy paradyme switch but, at the very least, he is somewhat electable and we know exactly what we will get with McCain... More of the same...

Call it pragmatism, if you like, but this time around I'm not willing to take win the moral battle and loose everything else...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM

I don't know why you've invoked Ron Paul's name in response to my post, Bobert. I endorse Kucinich's positions on this subject.

The reason people like Kucinich and Paul, who are the only candidates not bought and paid for by the corporatocracy, can't get elected, is because of the vast number of people like you who say, "I can't vote for him because he can't get elected".

It doesn't matter how eloquent and "above it all" Obama is. He represents the corporatocracy. If we want to free ourselves from corporatocracy rule, we have to take back our votes and only give them to the candidates who will work for us and not the corporatocracy. If we keep electing the representatives of the corporatocracy, we will never have a democracy, and we will never be free of being ruled by the corporatocracy. And considering the corporatocracy's long-term goals (endless war), we really can't afford to waste our votes on anyone who works for these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM

Amos, are those statements from Sen. Obama or are they your own? Sometimes an attribution is helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 03:45 PM

Sorry -- they are Obama's, not mine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

This posting is self-explanatory:

**

Open Letter to the Jewish Community: Obama E-Mail Rumor


January 15, 2008

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:

As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama's religious beliefs and who he is as a person.

These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.

Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.

Sincerely,

William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities

Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League

Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress

David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee

Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women

Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs

2008 Anti-Defamation League

http://www.adl.org/internet/Letter_obama.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

Okay, CarolC, make that Dennis's stand on Iraq??? Ain't gonna get no one to the White House except McCain...

(Sheet fire, Bobertz... Ain't been that long since you were saying "Green at all costs"...)

That was before Bush and Iraq and McCain...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:44 PM

"The question would be, where the Al Qeda strongholds and support channels really are; I don't know the answer, though. Do you?" - Amos

We have known since before the Iraq invasion, that Al Qaeda strongholds are in NW Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan. We also know that the U.S. supports the military dictatorship of Musharef and Musharef supports the tribal warlords in that region.

This has to change. This area of the world is very unstable and they have nuclear weapons.

We should also closely examine our relationship with Saudi Arabia who is another repressive regime that is not to be trusted. In fact, isn't that where the most of the terrorists originated? We should also question why Sudan harbours terrorists and wonder at the number of training camps elsewhere in the world.

Better yet, lets look at why they are so angry with the U.S. corporatocracy. Probably for the same reasons we are angry with corporate America, only more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM

Yer right, D...

We really need to re-examine our entire foriegn policy, top to bottom... It ain't workin' on any level...

Right now ain't the time to be sqabbling over "human rights"... Wish it were... IT's about stabilization of the region and then go after "human rights"...

I hate to say that but Bush has screwed it up so bad that this is our, and the world's, reality...

If I had to put a number on the years that Bush has set "human rights" back it would be somewhere between 20 and 40 years...

Nice going, George... You don't have to worry about leabing a legacy... You have sho nuff left one...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 09:36 PM

You can't stabilize the region until you stop violating the human rights of the people in the region. The region is unstable because the people there are really, really sick and tired of having their human rights stepped on.


If any candidate takes Dennis Kucinich's position on Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan they can 100% guarentee they will not only not be nominated, will not be elected but also will never be in any position to do anything about these various wars and shady deals...

You sure as hell won't get anything except wars and shady deals if you elect someone who is openly promoting and supporting the wars and has a track record of enabling the shady deals. If everyone who thought like you voted for Kucinich, he would be president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:00 AM

Those summaries of the Obama viewpoint increase my concern that there is sufficient lack of precision in what he is saying that almost anything (well, maybe not as to abortion where he is fairly specific) could lie within the area of the promised "change".

"Change" may be all very well, but yuo need to know exactly what change is proposed before you can support it or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

One interesting thing is that he grew up atheist - wonder when THAT will come up in the smear campaigns?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM

Is that right, Mrzzy? Well, I'm surprised it hasn't come out already, then. The Republicans could really make hay out of that! I would assume, that like all presidential candidates, Obama now gives the public the general impression that he believes in God? (my impression is that what most of them really believe in is winning... ;-) )

These questions of whether one is religious or not are matters that simply don't play any significant part in Canadian politics...nor can I see why they ought to. What does it have to do with being an effective public servant?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

It should never be allowed to slant a campaign around an individual's religious beliefs or lack thereof, unless (as in the case of Bush and Huckabee) they feel compelled to shove those beliefs down others' throats.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:04 PM

The Repbs are screwed... One of the reaasons they have been successfull in the past is because they have put together a coilition of the Christain Right and the few ol' time Repbs who wouldn't break ranks...

Oh yeah, they can still depend on this coilition... Poroblem is that the Dems have put together a coilition of old time Dems, the independants and the young voters...

So if the Repubs play the religion card all it's gonna do is energize the Dems to vote becasue in playing the relegion cars it will look again that the Repubs are catering too strongly to the Christain Right and that will cost them... It will be intersting to see just what the Repubs find that can work for them rather than against them???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

Well....they could arrange for another "terrorist" event prior to the next election, I suppose. It would have to be a big one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:38 PM

I wouldn't put that one past 'um, LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:08 PM

More power to the shields, Scotty!!!!!


Ach, Ah'm tryin' Captain!! Ah'm tryin'!!!!

Star Trek: The Next Generation: "Return to the 21st Century" episode XVI

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

STOP!

The race thing, in the context of these elections, is designed to try and bait Obama and his supporters into getting sucked into a race argument.

If that happens, then his campaign will truly be undermined. as it will descend into a squabble about race. Middle america will get uncomfortable, embarrassed and defensive and he'll slip away.

Understandably, the issue of race is one that inspires extremes of frustration in those who have been on the receiving end of it.

But I would appeal to Obama's black suppporters not to get drawn in. If you want him to win you have to constantly divert attention to his strengths as a politician, not jump to his defence as a victim of prejudice.

Don't play the role that the baiters love to wind you up to play.

Look at Obama - Last I saw, his own response to it was to say that he knows Hillary Clinton isn't racist and he was sure it was all just a big misunderstanding.

Because he knows that the argument of who should be president is of far greater importance than the argument about whether Clinton is using racist tactics - and he knows which victory he would rather sacrifice.

Every time someone stands up and says "hey ... that's racist" in this campaign, they push race higher up the agenda and Obama loses control of his campaign.

Do you really want him to be answering nothing but incessant questions about his views on who is and isn't racist?

Can't he be allowed to set a precedent as a black politician who isn't defined by his stance on racial issues but by his stance on other issues?

He's done really well in this respect - don't blow it for him now.

Don't bite!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:24 PM

I think you are so right, Lox. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:43 PM

Not to worry, Lox...

After livin' with Karl Rove we all are on our toes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:45 PM

Brilliant post, Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:56 PM

Lox is of course right. And fortunately, Obama has recognized this from the start--but it certainly is a tricky line to walk. Obama needs black votes--but cannot be typecast as a "black politician". His very ability to transcend this--and other labels--is one of the biggest sources of his appeal.


Another point:

"One interesting thing is that he grew up atheist". Source, please.

NB--there is a big difference between "growing up atheist" and growing up uncertain about religion--which I daresay some of us have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:09 PM

Yeah, I sort of wondered about that "growing up atheist" bit too, Ron.

I grew up in a family that never went to church, we did not officially belong to any religion, and I was not instructed to be religious or to read the Bible. Neither was I instructed to be an atheist! Neither was I instructed NOT to believe in God or anything else like that. I was basically simply left alone to form my own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:27 PM

Why does he need to be a "black" politician to appeal to "black" voters?

More bait?

A good candidate will hopefully appeal to as many voters as possible.

I don't see it as a tricky line.

The way I look at it, There are many routes into the same vortex.

The trick is to focus on the vision you have and to get people behind that.

Obama may just have the charisma and focus to keep the momentum going.

I certainly hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:38 PM

There is a lot of pressure on him--from some quarters--look at what Sharpton, etc. are saying. So far--for the best possible reasons--which we have both noted----he is resisting it. But he still needs the votes of Sharpton and people of similar attitude. That's the dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

AMEN, brother Lox!

I found it amazing that it took so long for somebody to start yammering about race. I watched what was probably the lamest debate I've ever watched most of. The moderator (whose name I have forgotten) kept prodding about race, and some guy in the audience began to loudly protest. They got him to shut up and probably dragged him outside, but the guy was right.

I found it inspirational that Obama won in Iowa, got pretty damned close in New Hampshire, and the guys who made predictions based on demographics were finding that nobody much was paying attention to race... except for the pollsters and predictors. I thought, 'we have finally grown enough as a society that people are voting for the best person, NOT the person who most resembled them.' Then came the idiotic comments from pundits and press, until that moderator tried to force the issue.

I know he's Black. Yes, I've noticed. I don't care! The press is stuck in the past with a viewpoint that has become effectively irrelevant, and they don't know how to deal with it! The world has moved on, and they're left scratching their heads and trying to figure out what IS important, now that race is proving to be not that big of a deal.

Meanwhile, that moderator hasn't been paying attention... or maybe it's not so innocent. If people can be persuaded to see Obama as the Black candidate, it will distract from the issues and it will be divisive. That's the opposite of what he's about and it undermines his whole platform. It really is, and should be, about voting for the best candidate

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:01 PM

Don't forget though that Sharpton only represents those who agree with him. He doesn't own the "black community".

In London recently, a black rapper was quoted as saying that the term "Black Community" was outdated.

The context was that of youth development schemes in the inner cities. He argued that there was no black community, just poor communities that in some areas were predominantly black.

I don't know who plays golf around here, but the best golfers in the world are the way they are because they concentrate on where the want the ball to go, not on the pitfalls they need to overcome.

If you want an opponent to hit the ball into the water, just say to him "watch out for the water" he won't be able to think of anything else and ... splosh!.

And while we're on the subject of Golf, another apparently white preserve, look how tiger woods has upset the status quo there.

People don't see him as a black golfer any more, just a good one.

Change is happening guys and it's good and as long as Obama concentrates on his game he'll continue to be in with a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM

Lox has made a good point, but I bet the "race" issue doesn't go away, or the "religious" issue if the Republican surregates can nail Obama with that one. They will do anything to derail his campaign from issues of importance to this country such as the ill-advised war in Iraq and the subsequent undermining of our economy (is there anyone out there that can't correlate the two?).

It could all be a strong test of Obama, but I doubt if it will be a fair test.

I still haven't made up my mind between the Democratic candidates but I sure hope we can come up with one strong enough to end the martial law state we've been living under the last 7 years. And I know lots of long-time Republicans who have expressed interest in voting Democratic as well, and Obama seems to be their man. They want "change," whatever that is!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM

Washington Post:

Black Dreams, White Liberals

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 18, 2008; Page A19

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . . It took a president to get it done.

-- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7

So she said. And then a fight broke out. That remarkable eruption of racial sensitivities and racial charges lacked coherence, however, because the public argument was about history rather than what was truly offensive -- the implied analogy to today.

The principal objection was that Clinton appeared to be disrespecting Martin Luther King Jr., relegating him to mere enabler for Lyndon Johnson. But it is certainly true that Johnson was the great emancipator, second only to Abraham Lincoln in that respect. This was a function of the times. King was fighting for black enfranchisement. Until that could be achieved, civil rights legislation could only be enacted by a white president (and a white Congress).

That does not denigrate King. It makes his achievement all the more miraculous -- winning a permanent stake in the system for a previously disenfranchised people, having begun with no political cards to play.

In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy -- that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.

Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African American dreams still have to go through white liberals?

Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience vs. inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.

Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item -- hate-crime legislation -- on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?

The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them.

Bill is annoyed with Obama. As Bill inadvertently let on to Charlie Rose, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with entitlement. He had contemplated running in 1988, he confided to Charlie, but decided to wait. Too young, not ready. (A tall tale, highly Clintonian; but that's another matter.) Now it is Hillary's turn. The presidency is her due -- the ultimate in alimony -- and this young upstart refuses to give way.

But telling Obama to wait his turn is a tricky proposition. It sounds patronizing and condescending, awakening the kinds of racial grievances white liberals have spent half a century fanning -- only to find themselves now singed in the blowback, much to their public chagrin.

Who says there's no justice in this world?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

Some good and cogent thoughts on your part there, BB. ;-)

Jeri - "it's not so innocent. If people can be persuaded to see Obama as the Black candidate, it will distract from the issues and it will be divisive. That's the opposite of what he's about and it undermines his whole platform."

Right. No, it's not so innocent at all. It is, I think, a continuing attempt on the part of certain established interests (both on the liberal and conservative sides of the equation) to "divide and conquer" and carry off the spoils in the confusion that ensues among a divided people. If people in general were to get past seeing others on the basis of race and would just look at others as individuals...then those established interests would lose one of their most valued playing cards...the "race card". They don't want to lose that card. It profits them to keep the pot at least simmering at all times, if not boiling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:21 PM

I'm a bit puzzled by the way "fairy tale" is seen as racist. It's a sneer all right, but surely it's a sneer based on the suggestion that Obama is inexperienced compared to Mrs Clinton, rather than on "race".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM

Obama has not successfully addressed the illegal occupation of Iraq in his speeches in my opinion. I don't like the fact that he is open to promoting nuclear energy either.

I find him to be vague on issues and trading on his personality with preacher-like catch phrases such as "Yes we can". My question to him would be "yes we can, what?" He is still in the grips of the health care industry. He is still receiving corporate campaign funds.
You might say, well these are individual donors but as long as there are 527's, people like Obama apparently feel no compunction about trading on them to finance his campaign.

Dennis Kucincich is the only candidate that has articulated his plans for stopping the occupation of Iraq and halting big Pharma and the Health Care Industry through "Single payer". He is also the only candidate addressing the election fraud in the US by DIebold and other DRE machines that have privatized our votes. The silence of Obama, Hillary and Edwards on this issue is deafening.

Edwards says he wants to deploy troops from Iraq to Kuwait using them as a threat against perceived "terror" activities. In this way he perpetuates the war mongering.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:21 PM

Yes, among the Democractic candidates Kucinich is the only one proposing real changes in policy as far as I can see. Funny how he's being shut out by the networks, isn't it? That shows pretty clearly what politics is really about in America...satisfying the most moneyed interests at the top of the "food chain", as it were. They will back any politician who doesn't threaten their established interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:34 PM

Lets get real here, folks...

Most of positions of the candidates, with the exception of Paul and Kuchinich's, at this point are poll driven... That is reality...

The dems, especially Obama, have to woof-woof just enough to keep the Repubs from Willie Kingin' them on national security...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM

Of course, now that Obama is singing the praises of Ronald Reagan, we'll see how it resonates with Democratic voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

Yes, the candidates positions are poll-driven...

And the results of the polls, to quite a large extent, are media-driven....because people's views are shaped by what they hear and see on radio and TV, and in the press to a lesser extent.

So it's mostly just a question of who can dispense propaganada most loudly, continuously, and effectively to the largest number of people.

And who can do that?

The ones who have the most funding.

And who gets the most funding?

He or she who does not threaten the corporate interests of the most powerful financial and commercial entities in the country...

And those entities also own the national media outlets, by the way.

So who really controls the agenda and whose will is really being represented in the final results of all this hoopla that is called "a presidential election" and is supposed to be an exercise of popular will?

I leave it up to you to draw the obvious conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

More Bill on Reagan (9+ / 0-)
Recommended by:Geenius at Wrok, badlands, GN1927, arielle, Elise, nobody at all, Crisitunity, beltane, cybrestrike
More Bill:

Barack Obama didn't "sing the praises of Reagan" but Hillary Clinton sure did- and recently at that:

Posted on Hillary Clinton's campaign website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674 is this quote from a New Hampshire newspaper endorsement 12/12/2007:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
-snip-

George H.W. Bush and Reagan !??!

-snip-

And Hillary's husband {former President} Bill Clinton is also on record for singing the former President Reagan's praises. Here's one example:

"Chris Black | The Boston Globe | 29 November 1992
President-elect Bill Clinton, still exploring the parameters of his new position, sought some personal pointers Friday from a man who mastered the magic of leadership. Former President Ronald Reagan obliged.

"It was a good visit," said Clinton after a meeting that lasted almost an hour in Reagan's 34th-floor office suite near the old back lot of Twentieth Century Fox.

Clinton has expressed admiration for Reagan's ability to get his agenda through Congress and to inspire a sense of optimism and hope."

quoted in this dailykos front page diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126
Party of Ideas
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM PST

**

Also, see this quote from another dailykos diary:

"Obama's assertion that Reagan changed the country in a profound way by moving it to the right is entirely value-neutral; he never says this was a "good" change, merely that it was a big change. This strikes me as inarguable. The majority Reagan created remains in control of the country to this day, including many people who considered themselves crossover voters, "Reagan Democrats."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/18220/4768
Hillary Clinton's Favorite Presidents: Reagan, George H.W. Bush
by G C
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM PST

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton has lost a large amount of support among African-Americans, with a majority of black Democrats now supporting Sen. Barack Obama, according to a new poll out Friday.


Sen. Barack Obama has the support of a majority of black Democrats, a poll found.
1 of 2

In a national survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., 59 percent of black Democrats backed Obama, an Illinois Democrat, for their party's presidential nomination, with 31 percent supporting Clinton, the senator from New York.

The 28 point lead for Obama is a major reversal from October, when Clinton held a 24 point lead among black Democrats.

"There's been a huge shift among African-American Democrats from Clinton to Obama. African-American Democrats used to be reluctant to support Obama because they didn't think a black man could be elected. Then Obama won Iowa and nearly won New Hampshire. Now they believe," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

Here's part of Obama's radio interview that mentions Republican President Ronald Reagan:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. "


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html?nav=rss_email/components

A video segment of that interview is included with that newspaper article.

-snip-

Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan's son in response to what Obama said:

"If I understand what he was saying I can't entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change," Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post, a liberal political site. "As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift right now."
-snip-

Of course, Bill Clinton [on behalf of his wife Hillary] and John Edwards are playing politics with Obama's words.

For instance, check out how Bill Clinton misinterpreted what Barack Obama said:

"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/18/589163.aspx
"Bill Also Hits Obama On GOP Ideas"


-snip-

Here's what Markos Moulitas, founder of dailykos wrote:

"Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were "all the good" ones.

In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of [kos's book] Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were "ideas"."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:37 AM

today HRC spoke about a president not being able to "wave a magic wand." Now, doesn't that tie in with fairy tales etc..just a subtle reminder...I don't think she says stuff accidentally. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM

You are right, mg... These statements are tested before control groups before unleasehed in the camapaign... Since Clinton doesn't really have anything on Obama her campaign is trying to portray him as some kinda joker who is not in touch with reality...

Well, I'd rather them take that tact then the one they were on last week in trying to convince US that Bill Clinton was the first black president... I don't know who thought that one up but it sho nuff didn't work...

What is interesting here is that Clinton is pulling out alot of tricks on Obama that the Repubs would have pulled and it's exposing just how alot of these tricks can backfire...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:38 PM

I'm wondering what Democrat the Republicans would feel most comfortable voting for, those who say they are appalled at the excesses of the Bush Administration and the consequent recession we are now in.

I would think John Edwards but some of our family's long-time Republicans surprised me by saying Obama. I would think that John Edwards would also be vulnerable to the "lack of experience" argument. Being a one-term U.S. Senator and a Vice-Presidential candidate doesn't really stack up as an impressive resume. Being a successful trial attorney demonstrates some dilligence and skill but still doesn't impress me very much.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:59 PM

Charlie-

One reason Republicans are more open to Obama than to Edwards is his willingness to have a "big tent"--to try to put behind us the constant clashing partisanship--in order to actually make progress in the US. Edwards' theme is definitely class warfare in the US--not as grating as Hillary--who is guaranteed to unify an extremely fractious Republican party against her--but still not inclusive, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 02:49 PM

Another irony in this irony-filled political season is that Obama's very inclusiveness--which makes him the strongest candidate in the general election-- makes it less likely he will get the Democratic nomination. His recent reference to Reagan in neutral terms, for instance, will hurt him now--and he'd best address that soon. I believe Reagan was a huge step backward for the US--but my view on it is nothing compared to the rabid feeling of many Democratic primary voters---whose votes Obama will need to get the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:50 PM

uperdelegate from S.C. endorses Obama
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. --A Democratic Party superdelegate from South Carolina on Friday endorsed presidential hopeful Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator appeals to independents and disillusioned Republicans.
Waring Howe, a Charleston attorney, holds a position with the Democratic National Committee that allows him to support anyone at the party's convention, regardless of what happens in the South Carolina primary Jan. 26.

"With him at the top of the ticket, Democrats will have a candidate they can run with, not run from," Howe said of Obama.

Howe also is the Charleston County Democratic Party chairman and a member of the state party's executive committee.

"Waring Howe is a valuable addition to our South Carolina team and we're excited to have his support," said Stacey Brayboy, state director for Obama's campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:21 PM

Repost from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/164336/475/779/439592


"Did you think this was going to be easy?
by Common Cents
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM PST

I see a lot of saddened folks around here. That is to be understood. It seems as if we have taken one more step to the same old shit in the Democratic Party. It looks like the party is deciding to shoot itself in the foot again with an establishment candidate arguing for a return to the past. But folks, Barack Obama is facing a party establishment that has been entrenched in power for three decades. The Clintons have ruled this party with an iron fist for 20 years. Did you think it was going to be easy? Did you think taking on that power structure would be a walkin the park? JFK won the presidency by a razor thin margin. RFK was in a hard fought battle. Abe Lincoln was third on the first ballot of his party's convention.

Change is never easy. Transformation always has resistance as well it should. You must be shaped by the fire to ever be ready to lead.

Obama has always been the underdog. Most historians think RFK never had a chance even without his murder. If assaulting the establishment and replacing the power structure was easy it would be done more often. Howard Dean launched an attack on it and was turned on and destroyed by the establishment. Barack Obama has more money and a larger base than Dean, but this was never going to be easy.

2-1. That is the count. As for delegates won? They are in a dead-heat. Conventional Wisdumb in the summer was that Hillary would be dominating. The fact is that she isn't. She lost Iowa, admittedly never her strongest chance. She eeked out a victory in New Hampshire and Nevada. Both states she dominated with entrenched interests. If you had told Hillary in the summer that she would go down to the wire against Obama in Nevada and New Hampshire her campaign would've laughed.

What is the significance? Howard Dean raised money and fought the establishment but never made any ground electorally. Barack Obama is already showing that there is an opportunity for change if only we seize it. The establishment is not able to trounce him in the polls. And come South Carolina he could even up this race heading into Feb. 5 with all the money he needs to compete.

Going against the machine is tough. Did you think the Clintons were going to roll over after Iowa? They've been here before. They will sling whatever mud and use whatever tactics to win. They have the majority of the experienced grizzled voters. And yet Obama is still gaining on her. He is still right with her on money and votes.

It is remarkable that Obama is doing as well as he has done. It is still a very tough road for Obama to defeat the establishment. But there is no cause for pause or need to be downtrodden. This thing is far from over and Obama is in the driver's seat in South Carolina. So no need to give up or get down. This is no time for "Woe is me". This is a time for working. You have to outwork the Clintons not just out-hope them.

Obama has the message. Obama tapped the real key word of this campaign. Everyone has ripped him off including the Clintons. Now he just has to keep doing what he is doing and working as hard as he can along with all of us who want to take this party back.

Let's just keep working."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:53 PM

Repost from:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881

"OBAMA WINS MOST NEVADA DELEGATES...Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said. "

-snip-

If my understanding of what happened is correct, the reason why Obama got more delegates than Clinton is because he won more rural caucases than she did.

Note: I also posted this on this Mudcat thread:
BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu thread.cfm?threadid=107800&messages=27

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:02 PM

MizziAzizi,

As a campaign worker in RFK's campaign, I strongly dieagree with Common Cents assertion that RFK didn't have a chance... He, IMO, was a shoe in... Havin' just taken California and with McCarthy's support going down and HHH's going down (mostly from the actions of LBJ) RFK was on his way...

Just wanted to clear that one up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

So who was Sir-Han Sir-Han working for? Did anybody ever figure that out? Did anybody try?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

"I believe Reagan was a huge step backward for the US--"


                Ron - We finally agree on something!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:26 PM

From my reading, it appears that Barack Obama got one more Nevada delegate than Hillary Clinton because of his very strong performance across the state other than Clark County.

Obama won Reno and many rural counties. However, he and Hillary split the delegates in Clark County [Las Vegas at large casinos].

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:44 PM

My exact point on another thread/s, Rigs.... Where's the motive??? Ain't none...

These folks, or their kids, are still around and so Obama better mind his p's and q's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM

I would like for Obama to speak out and say that Kucinich has been getting a raw deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:57 AM

Speaking of raw deals, how 'bout the way the Clintons have run a dishonest, divisive, unprincipled, race baiting campaign?

Folks here may be interested in listening to*-as I do-this conversation over at dailykos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/194727/333/630/439733
"some thoughts about Bill Clinton and Nevada"
by kid oakland
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM PST


[*"Listening to" means being a lurker and not an active participant in the conversation. Of course, some folks may be interested in joining in that conversation or have already joined in that conversation. I haven't since I prefer to be active in only one Internet community, and for me it's Mudcat]

Selective comments:

"IMO ... If it comes down to McCain as the Repub
nominee vs Hillary as ours we will not stand a chance in hell of winning the Whitehouse. We'll loose all the middle votes if that is the choice offered ... IMO.
-by Alizaryn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:55:04 PM PST

**

"And the blacks..... who have been shocked and dismayed by these turn of events and by Bill's antics. I should know as I am one. I support Obama but I have loved the Clinton's since I was a kid. I would have had no trouble voting for Hillary if Obama didn't get it. But then Clinton lost Iowa and all these things started with Bill. He was so angry and upset by Obama winning. He butted into the race, not as a husband of the candidate but using his clout as President to totally lie about Obama's record. His actions and his words about Obama have shocked me. Him going down to a caucus to influence voters to vote for his wife has shocked me and made me depressed.

This is not to say that I won't vote for Hillary if she got the nom, but I won't be enthused about it. Excited. I will merely be, once again, voting against someone instead of for them.

And that hurts. It really really does."
-by Niwind on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM PST

**

I feel you.
I have spoken with many family members and friends and what I get is this, "If she is the nominee, I won't vote for her." White folk need to understand this. If black folk get mad like this, and they are across the country, they will not show up to the polls. The Clintons KNOW THIS.
-icebergslim on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM PST

**

Honestly its not even about Obama, but it's all about the preception. AA thought that the Clinton's were their friends and that they would never do the things they are doing now. I still remember Michael Baisden telling Bill that it wasn't the fairytale remark that pissed the black community off, it was his tone. His angry tone about the fact that Hillary was beaten by Obama, almost like "Who does he think he is?" type of tone that pissed us off. And he's right.   

To have that betrayal is hard, especially if you've admired them for years. And that is what the AA community is reacting to.
-by Niwind on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM PST


**

"What is going on here???
We have moved this race to the 1 on 1 stage. We are either tied or beating her in delegates, we are headed into SC where he is 9 points up. Southern states comming up have large AA populations, he is challenging her even in NY. Want to know why Bill is talking about knocking on peoples door in SC and they are going to be holding hands in church in NY because they cannot close the deal without AA suppport. That is part of the calculation that they could do whatever and still win, please SC can hold the line, they know it and they will. The Clintons know they have galvanized the AA vote with their tactics. We cannot start folding our tent when we are still have a chance to win.

by jazzyjay on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM PST

**

"jazzy, no one is folding ANYTHING...
today was a WAKE UP CALL for both sides. this will be a slugfest to the damn end. but nothing wrong with talking scenarios. my first is President Obama, first foremost. but having a damaged Clinton at the top of the ticket is not news to many states ears. her challenge was winning today, but did she? no. she could not win NOTHING outside of clark county in nevada. where obama showed his prowness and won OUTSIDE of clark county and enough in clark county to win the delegate race, which is technically the caucus. she just showed how damaged she is in a 'swing state'.

that is how elections are won, with a coalition."
-by icebergslim on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:48:35 PM PST

**

"Same thing that I see and I am not black.

The topic came up more in MI because the powers that be that campaigned for Hillary here (gov and Senator) when asked if this move where voters had no choice, no voice would split the party they happily shrugged it off.

No, we'd all gather around the nominee and work hard for her. Would we?

We watch the campaigning. No, we really won't gather round. This isn't about our candidate of choice winning or not but the ways they are trying to beat him.

Their victory seems to matter more to them than the good of the people, the party or the country.

It is a betrayal."
-by joynow on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM PST

**

Clinton is seriously turn me off.
I am not AA, but I am a woman of color and the divise tactics that the Clintons have used has me incensed. I was completely open to her as the nominee. I thought she had the ability to be a good president, but since she has shown a willingness to throw good democrats under the bus to advance herself, I no longer think so. She is as selfish as her husband. I'll pobably vote in the general for her if she is the nominee but won't feel bad for her after the republicans get through with her. Karma is a witch afterall.
-by gatoazul on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM PST

**

All of this is why Clinton is toast in November
If she gets that far, she'll frankly be fortunate to get 40% of the vote. The Republicans appear poised to nominate the candidate their candidate that is most acceptable to swing voters, while Democrats are flirting with nominating a divisive, unelectable candidate that independents won't vote for.

Further, Clinton has angered some union members. She's also irritated the NRA members with her "I'm against illegal guns," comment because to them there are no illegal guns. She pissed off the peace crowd with the Iran vote. And she's pissed off the African Americans, who are breaking 5-1 for Obama only a month after it's been 50/50. If she gets the nomination, the Democratic coalition (blacks, women,anti-war activists, young voters, union members, etc) is in tatters.

Her only dim hope is to put Obama on the ticket with her. But she can't do that. Her entire primary campaign has been, "He's not ready to be President." So do you put somebody who is "not ready to be President," a heartbeat away from the Presidency? She can't. There is one other black statewide elected official--Gov. Patrick, and he is less experienced than Obama. Given that VP candidates usually have to be statewide officials, she's up the creek. The only possible out is Jim Clyburn for VP and I doubt she'd do that. If she picks someone like Bayh, she's given the Republicans a giant opening, which McCain will seize upon by choosing JC Watts as his running mate. Not only do blacks state home in this equation, many will even vote for McCain.

This is all why national polls show McCain 49 Clinton 38. It's conceivable that Hillary loses every state. Her nomination would also be disastrous in the swing house districts that the new majority was won in. If the party chooses to shoot itself in the foot again, it can. Nominating Hillary would be doing that. She may win the nomination with this, but in reality she's only ensuring that she'll lose with this b*llsh*t.
-by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM PST

**

I will vote for her, but that is the limit.

I can not work for somebody who has conducted a campaign designed to split the Democratic coalition.

Yeah, it worked.

We are split.

It will take work and agressive fence mending to get me to support anything she does.

I do not trust her any more than I trust Terry McAuliffe or Karl Rove.

Yeah, if she is the nominee, I will mark an "X" on election day. But I will do that with deep, deep regret and that is all I will do to help her campaign.

There was no reason to conduct such a negative race-based campaign and yet, that is what she choose to do.

I, for one, am disgusted.
-by dengre on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:05:35 PM PST


-snip-

Note:

Reflecting my own sensibilities, I edited that "b" word in that next to the last comment that I reposted.

Also, in this discussion, AA=African Americans

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:12 AM

Btw, Peace, I'm not disregarding or downplaying Kuchinich.

Kudos to him for spearheading [and funding] the audit in New Hampshire as well as other progressive positions that he has taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:27 AM

What, the Clintons playin' dirty pool?!?!?!?...

How could that be???

Well, MiziAzizi, I think the only difference between us here is that I won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination... I just won't vote for anyone for president seein' as there won't be a Green candidate on the Virginia ballot...

Just cast my votes for other offices... But not Hillary McCain, ahhhh, McClinton....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:16 AM

Azizi-

I'm not sure I'm any more comfortable forming opinions about political candidates based on chatrooms (even Mudcat!) than I am on opinion polls or the national media. They all make some impression but the decisive thing has to be what experience you as a voter or campaign volunteer bring to evaluating all these messages and what the candidates actually say and do.

I was very unimpressed when I first heard the Clintons at a Democratic special event in Maine, way back in 1991. But I certainly underestimated their campaign skills. I was favorably impressed with Bill Clinton's first term but perplexed how the Republicans outmaneuvered him in the second term. And I was amazed and disappointed at his willingness to get involved with a young intern, What stupidity. Bill Clinton may be a continuing liability, part of the package that comes along with trying to elect Hillary President. I do prefer it when both campaigns resolve to "make nice." But it's doubtful that their leadership in that effort will make much of an impression on their more ardent supporters, or the media looking for "breaking news."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:24 AM

I think there is a strong possibility the Republican partty will end up fronting McCain in November. He's the veteran, the steady-on guy, and he bristles with their favored militarist aroma.

Against him, the Clintons will have a brawl. IF we can force the Democratic NAtional Convention to field Obama, the whole contest changes. In my opinion we have a better chance of beating McCain with Obama than we do with HC.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:40 AM

Team Clinton is busily and efficiently alienating black voters. Again, one of the ironies in this irony-filled political season is that she can actually far more afford to be seen as pro-black than he can. And she's throwing this advantage, like so many others, away.

But it looks at this point like she's playing racial politics with an eye to capturing California (about 20% Hispanic to 6% black).   She's playing the delegate game--pure and simple--knowing that she already has the advantage there since she locked up so many "superdelegates" so early.

So on the way to the nomination she's destroying the Democratic coalition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

I agree, Amos...

The candidate that the Repubs are thirsting for is Hillary... They can have a field day with her... She will bring out the Repub base like no other Dem... She is a lightning rod...

The cnadidate the Repubs have no game plan for is Obama... He will frustrate them at every turn... There isn't one thing that they can come up with that he can't counter...

Even the drug use issue will backfire on them...

Obama/Warner or Obama/Richardson '08...

and...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

...600...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM

I looked up 600 on the internet, and discovered it was the "radio home" of Rush Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

Not '666'?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

Wow... Coincidence? I don't think so. Bobert, how do you plead?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:57 PM

Here's a dailykos diary for those who really are curious about Obama's positions on issues in comparison with Edwards.*

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/14339/3667/281/440090

Substance Matters. Hope Helps. Obama Has Both.
by RenaRF
Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM PST

Among the positions examined in chart format with comments are:

Repeal tax cuts for wealthy

Patriot Act

Abortion

US out of Iraq

Same-sex
domestic partnership
benefits

Teacher led prayer in school

Mandatory
3 strikes
sentencing laws

Death penalty

etc. etc. etc.


*Why Edwards? Perhaps because up till last week, more kossacks [members of the dailykos blog] favored Edwards than any other candidate. Judging from the last straw poll of members, Obama appears to be slightly leading Edwards among kossacks now and Clinton remains a distant third.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:54 AM

Keep up by reading Andrew Sullivan..

here is something..

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/sleaze-in-nevad.html#more

In this..or maybe another blog that day..caucus goers were told that there were not enough ballots..how is that?? doors were closed early..and Obama supporters were told they were on the "dark side of the party." Oh goodness..is that a racial slur perhaps?

I can not for the life of me understand how people can stomach the Clintons. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:56 AM

And I should say that people make these comments innocently all the time..oh the sky is getting black/dark whatever and there is no racial meaning at all although sometimes they are accused of it...but in a highly charged political situation, where they ahve been accused credibly of doing exactly this, again I doubt it is a slip of the tongue. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 02:42 AM

Dennis Kucinich speaks up for honest voting practices when it's Obama (really, Obama's supporters) who is/are being cheated. Obama needs to consider how his silence when Kucinich (Kucinich's supporters) is/are being cheated undermines his own position. If Obama isn't willing to stand up for the process when others are being wronged he can't expect the process to work properly for him either. It either works or it don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 03:08 AM

I think he is coming out swinging. He probably should have Edwards as a running mate just to try to keep up with all the dirty tricks and that is just from the Democrats so far...or better yet, say that Edwards will be his attorney general and first order of business will be to oversee elections. I do think that we need election observers from other countries here like we go to other places..a bunch of Iraquis, Nicaraguans, Kenyans, etc...from all over..

Don't they have oversite in these caucuses? Police even? Video cameras? I admit to my ignorance but how could doors be closed? How could they run out of ballots? It's paper for heaven's sakes. I think people should have to leave a fingerprint somewhere..not on the actual vote, but when they are let in to vote.

And regardless of who did what, I don't want to hear about unions forcing people to vote a certain way..they can encourage it, they can say the union leadership thinks this is the best candidate on all the issues we face..but there had better be no interference...

And I guess it was legal but they said people from other states were pouring into New Hampshire to vote because of a legality that said they could. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:00 AM

Some blogger says that some caucus worker said that some Obama supporter was told by someone (presumably a Clinton supporter) that he or she was on the "dark side of the party". Certainly sounds like a creditable reflection of Ms. Clinton's position to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 09:37 AM

First of all, I agree with CarolC... In my perfect world Obama would insist that Kucinich be not only included in debates but, ahhhhhh, asked the same number of questions... It is disappointing that isn't happening...

Alos disappointing are the Clinton "dirty tricks" with Bill shooting off his mouth, grabbing lots of attention and then Hillary following by expalining what Bill meant to say??? Bull... These two are like twiddle dee and twiddle dum... All this is being choreographed by the Clinton/s campaign... She knows fully what he's going to do and say... It's Karl Rove politics and its beginning to stink up the joint...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

The Miami Herald is running a story describing Obama as running around the Bible-Belt trying to convince voters that he is not Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:06 AM

The Miami Herald is also quite capable of running a story describing Obama as a "father raper; repeat the story enough and it will earn traction with some voters.

Edwards in my opinion would make a better Attorney General for Obama than a Vice-Presidential running mate. Edwards just doesn't have the international resume or executive experience that, say, Richardson would bring to the ticket.

I also think it naive at this point to assume the Republicans have not scoped out an attack campaign against an Obama Presidential run. I do agree that they would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton but Obama under closer scruntiny may have his own vulnerbilities.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:37 AM

One of the main factors in Obama's favor is the number of independents and moderate to liberal Republicans he will get. Of those, Hillary will get virtually none.

In fact picking her is the best possible way to unite the Republicans--against her.

Independents (and moderate to liberal Republicans) are exactly the type of people who will do their own research, and will not be swayed by stupid Swift-Boat style attacks, Limbaugh etc., meat-cleaver- subtle contributions, or Cheney-style panic propaganda.

And they are also exactly the type of people who most want an end to the vicious unproductive partisanship which has dominated US political life for a long time. Which Hillary embodies. And Obama breaks with.

There's absolutely no question who would be the stronger candidate in the general election.

For a host of reasons, it ain't Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

That's pretty close to admitting that Obama is closer to the Republicans, though....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM

Ron-

"Independents (and moderate to liberal Republicans) are exactly the type of people who will do their own research, and will not be swayed by stupid Swift-Boat style attacks, Limbaugh etc., meat-cleaver- subtle contributions, or Cheney-style panic propaganda."

I sure wish I had your confidence in such an assumption.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

Dang!

Here I am agreeing with both Bobert and Ron Davies in regards to Obama vs Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM

It comes down to whether you think independents and moderate to liberal Republicans--especially strongly antiwar people--who thus can vote for none of the Republican front-runners-- are intelligent or not.

If they are, they will do their own research, as I said.

And while Hillary is diligently alienating people all over the spectrum, Obama is doing the opposite.

For example, I will never vote for Hillary unless she admits she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. And since she never makes mistakes--and many of us are tired of that, having had 7 years of it---she will not admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM

And no, Richard, you are incorrect--I'm not surprised that you're a prisoner of adversarial politics, having read your postings for quite a while. It just means Obama wants to get something done--and knows he needs bipartisan co-operation to do it.   Perhaps you don't think that's important. Some Americans differ with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

And some might differ from me.

The problem I foresee is that if you have to make concessions to your enemies, in order to obtain power, what is it that you are going to get done?

The war will work itself out. What America needs, what millions of Americans (is it 57 million?) need right now is a national health service, a proper welfare state, rights for working people, and a government with the courage to apply the New Deal expenditure philosphy to your threatened recession (which in turn like the Republican candidates warmongering threatens the rest of the world, but unlike that will leave your economy owned by the Indians and Chinese and such profits as there might be exported).

It also needs the rule of law reinstated and an honest political process.

Over here we made the mistake of believing that Blair and Brown had paid lip-service to the post-Thatcherite middle ground simply to get elected, and that they would reveal true socialist colours in due course. How our hopes have been dashed.

If you elect someone who has bought in to (indeed is almost indentured to) large parts of the Republican middle ground, that's what you will have until at least the next election: the Republican middle ground. You will not get "change" for nothing concrete has been promised.

Learn from our mistakes. But on the other hand, Clinton is not all that different, albeit for her the enemy is everyone who is not her, as distinct from all those from other countries.

I realise that you find the expression "magic wand" laden with odd overtones, but Obama will not bring you one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:23 PM

"...concessions to your enemies"

"prisoner of adversarial politics"

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:32 PM

What we need over here, Richard, above everything else is "democracy"... We don't have it... The Founding Fathres gave US a framework and meathods to keep it modern but we have failed to do juts that so instead of our system of governemnt being one that limits the powers of the majority to vamp on the minority we have slowly developed into a nation where the minority has a death grip on power...

Consider this: 18% of the population contols 51% of the Senate??? And these 18% have, in essence, allowed the US to slip and slide further down toward ruin because this 18% thinks it deserves to call the shots and call the shots they do... And juts to make matters worse, the 18% are generallty less educated and informed about the real world...

That is the US's single largest problem and until and unless it gets solved, the US will continue on it's downward slide... But fixin' it will involves the 18% to go along with the changes and they aren't about to do that...

"The South will rise again" and it has....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:45 PM

As long as the Democratic and Republican party machines control your elections, Bobert, you won't have a real democracy, because they sold out long ago to the same backing interests.

They are the two false faces of OZ that you see in public, but you don't get to see the men behind the curtain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

Well, LH, that's only part of the problem... Fix democracy first that provided a framework where parties can represent a diffent menu of options... The broken governemntal structure is what keeps the parties having to play the same game...

Consider this: If it takes 60 votes to cut off a fillibuster and bring about an actual up-and-down vote then 11% of the population controls the other 89%...

And the Dems know this and the Repubs know this so they tailor their message to as little as 11% of the population!!! Not much room for error there and that is exactly why the Dems and Repubs are so similar...

Fix the broken democracy and the parties will follow...

Now to do that is anyone's guess 'cause we wold have to have a party step away from the minority and propose a fix that a minority that allready holds the power would surely reject... In other words...

...we are basicly screwed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 07:02 PM

Actually, Richard is completely right. After all, consider all the wonderful progress made by the Left in the UK during the period 1979-1997, when his prescription of constant confrontation was followed by Labour.

Truly a magnificent model for the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 09:06 PM

Ron, you seem to overlook that the Republicans ARE the enemies and oppressors of most Americans.

And while the Labour party might have been less conservative during the period cited than it is now, the suggestion that it was the Labour party that was confrontational during that period could only be made by someone who was not here.

As I said, learn from our mistakes (and indeed your own). The "trickle down" economics of Thatcher and Reagan have given the UK infant mortality and maternal mortality rates double those of Sweden (1 in 230, cf 1 in 350 and 1 in 800 cf 1 in 1800).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

Take a look at Dennis Kucinich's platform, Richard. He is offering the kind of policy proposals that the mainstream Democratic candidates never will...and that's why he doesn't get on the nationally televised debates.

Corporate America does not want his message to be heard at all, and they own the TV networks, so he doesn't get heard there.

Those who get heard are those who will continue doing "business as usual".

I watched the CNN debate tonight between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards...(Kucinich not there as usual, not even spoken of, as if he wasn't even in the campaign).

I have to say that Edwards came across the best of the three of them by a discernable margin. Hillary's and Obama's sniping back and forth at each other is doing neither of them any good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:30 PM

Whatever you say, Richard.

Tell us about all the progress made by the Left in the UK in the period 1979-1997--the period of confrontation and refusal to compromise. How many years in that period did the Left have control of the agenda?

Then when Mr. Blair came on the scene and compromise was no longer anathema, things changed.

Or do you deny that he was willing to compromise? And by the way, this interpretation is not mine, it comes from the Economist. Perhaps you've heard of this publication?

They consider Blair is a tragic figure--squandered all his promise on Bush's criminal war.

It seems reasonable that since you are not exactly shy in telling us exactly what is going on in US politics, I can venture a few words on UK politics.

I certainly hope it meets with your approval. I can't tell you how crushed I'll be if it doesn't. But somehow I'll survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:33 PM

And Richard, I certainly hope you get more sleep--don't feel the burning need to post on Mudcat at 2 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:09 AM

Yes I'd like more sleep too.

The idea that there was a refusal by the Labout party to compromise during your chosen period is simply wrong. I was there.

The Economist is of course irretrievably wedded to the the capitalist agenda and is inexorably partisan in political terms. It would love Tony Blair because he took the heart out of Labour and turned it into a paler set of conservativees. Indeed, on some issues the Labour Party is to the right of the conservative party (if the conservaties could be trusted to tell the truth rather than say anything at all in order to seek election).

Blair in fact refused to compromise with teh wish of the most of the british electorate to keep the national health service free and out of the hands of the profiteers. Likewise he refused to compromise with the wish of most of the british electorate not to enter two illegal wars. He refused to compromise on plans to introduce compulsory identification cards - "Haben sie ihren Pass?" Brown continues his march to the drum of capital, to the detriment of all others.

Ask yourself. How many are capitalists, and how many workers?

Ask yourself again as the US economy poises for its next great recession, does capitalism eventially collapse under its internal contradictions?



LH - yes, I have read all of Kucinich's website and he seems to me a man of principle and vision, a vision that could immeasurably improve the lot of the vast majority of Americans : if he was given freedom of speech. It goes, I fear, to prove that in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is not king, but regarded as a hallucinator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:04 PM

Richard Bridge, you seem to overlook that the Democrats ARE the enemies and oppressors of most Americans.

Or so just under half the population thinks.

About * same * number as would agree with YOUR opinion ( even if you did state it as fact).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM

Or so just under half the population thinks. How can you tell that? Only about half the adult population actually voted for either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

"Only about half the adult population actually voted for either side."

So, either those people do support the ones they voted for, OR they dislike the other side even more.

Mox nix.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

BB, the Democrats AND the Republicans are the oppressors of most Americans! They both eat at the same trough. They both work for the same corporate sponsors. They both are in the business of funding and expanding militarism and making war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:59 PM

LH,

I notice that you comment on MY post, but not the one that attacks Republicans. Be fair now- DID I SAY that either was NOT?

I merely point out that as many people believe that the Dems are as bad as what the Republicans are accused of.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

As do I.

Fair enough, BB. My only problem with your post was that it left the Republicans out. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

And my only problem with your post was that you ignored the one I was commenting on, but took exception to mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

I don't think I even saw the one you are referring too. I've been jumping around some between a variety of threads, and I simply happened to see what you posted last on this one. It wasn't that I ignored that other post, it was that I didn't happen to see it....or perhaps I didn't remember seeing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

This discussion really helps people to clarify their opinion of the various candidates?

Good thing we have lots of time to make up our minds.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

Barack Obama Speaks at Dr. King's Church {January 20, 2008}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

"On the day before the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Senator Barack Obama delivers a speech to the congregation of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:36 PM

Richard--

Unfortunately you don't seem to read very carefully. I never said the Economist loved Blair. What I clearly said is that they felt he blew the chance he had to make a difference in the UK--and the world-- by signing on to Bush's war, and thereby squandering the vast majority of his political capital--for an ill-advised and even worse- conducted war. The adjective "criminal" was mine, not theirs.


"The suggestion it was the Labour party that was confrontational could only be made by somebody who was not here".

Fine.

Whereas you, who as far as I know are not a US citizen and do not reside in the US--(correct me if I'm wrong--I'm sure you will)---are eminently qualified to tell us all about the current US political situation. ( I can't tell you how grateful we are for your objective reporting and incisive observations. I don't know how we'd figure out how our political system works, and how we should evaluate the candidates if you didn't share your unparalleled wisdom.)

So it's not a 2-way street. I wonder why.

I'll be glad to refrain from commenting on the UK political scene if you will do the same regarding the 2008 US presidential campaign. Why do I think the chances you will do so are not good ( to say the least?)

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the accomplishments of the Labour party in the period 1979-1997--that is, before compromise became an option, under Blair.

Perhaps you and your fellow ivory-tower dwellers would do well to reflect on a guiding principle for some over here: "Politics is the art of the possible".

Obama has realized this. It doesn't seem likely that you ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:02 AM

Ron, you are as usual registering about 10+ on the snide and vicious sarcastic verbal attack metre...as tends to happen whenever you disagree with anyone about poltics.

Even when I agree with you on politics (which I most often do, in fact) I find it embarrassing the way you carp and sneer at your opponents and the way you carry on these personal vendettas against people you don't agree with...gee whiz!!! You could give lessons in poison pen techniques to even Lady MacBeth, I bet.

Pray that you never end up having to share a house, a job, a marriage or anything else like that with someone else who adopts your particularly venomous method of disagreeing about things... (grin) ...or you will find out just how nasty it is. It's a lot less fun to receive that sort of thing than it is to dish out, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:08 AM

LH--

So sorry you don't approve. The fact remains--some people find it fine to comment on US politics but don't feel it reasonable when somebody else returns the compliment. And you obviously have not read Richard's recent contributions, particularly the thread he started, with the handy thumbnail evaluations of candidates.

Also, something tells me he can defend himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:10 AM

I could probably term my contribution to this thread as a sub-thread.
For those of us in Africa and Ghana to be specific, who follow the US politics via CNN, Al-jazera and BBC, the US election is of secondary importance because most Africans are struggling to understand the difference between Democracy and Autocracy. Talk about the Nigerian elections and just the recent one in Kenya.

So you switch on the TV and you see this lanky guy called Sen. Obama and who is referred to as a black/brown person in the US but considered white by the ordinary African on the street like our former president Jerry John Rawlings, and then you hear that he may end up being the first black of the US and you can't help but smile to yourselve. Because to us it is no news not when there are always invisible hands pulling the strings behind the scenes.

To most of us in Africa, it is just a US matter and after all if Democracy, with all due respect, is just about putting puppets on the presidential seat then who cares who wins an election. After "all" politicians and again with all due respect, are just opportunistic dinosaurs.

After all in South Africa now, all the ANC gurus are now multi-millionaires whiles the masses who died for the end of apartheid still wallow in abject poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:22 AM

Well said, Quarcoo. It is in fact just a big game, and it is not played with the public's interests in mind. It is played with the interests of giant corporations and giant banks in mind. I'm not a bit surprised that the ANC Gurus, as you call them, have betrayed the masses whom they claimed to represent.

It is autocracy indeed that rules both where you live, and in America.

Ron - Hey, man...it's just my ongoing effort to gentle you down some... ;-) I fear that your acid tongue may one day rebound on you, because I tend to believe in karma.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM

Regarding the imminent South Carolina Dem primary:

WSJ's Christopher Cooper reports from South Carolina on how Barack Obama has adjusted his strategy there, by putting a face on his campaign.
"...Candidates here rely on endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. It is a tradition that has evolved since the 1960s to garner support among poor blacks who look to their preachers for both spiritual and political guidance. And it is the way Mrs. Clinton, like countless Democratic politicians before her, is running her campaign in South Carolina.



Mr. Obama, in contrast, is trying something many observers say has never been done here: He is circumventing entrenched local leadership and building a political machine from scratch. His staff consists largely of community organizers -- many from out of state or with no political experience -- who are assembling an army of volunteers. It is a strategy often used by labor organizations and in neighborhood and town politics.

Some evidence suggests the strategy may be working. After lagging far behind Mrs. Clinton in state polls for much of last year, Mr. Obama has jumped ahead. According to an automated poll conducted Monday by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Obama leads Mrs. Clinton 44% to 28%, with about 12% of respondents undecided. As late as October, Mrs. Clinton had a 20-percentage-point lead in many surveys. Nationally, Mrs. Clinton remains in the lead.

"If he pulls this off -- and I think he will -- Barack Obama's organization will be studied and replicated in this state for many years to come," says Inez Tenenbaum, a former South Carolina superintendent of education who has run four statewide races in the past decade. She is one of the few prominent state Democrats backing Mr. Obama.

The strategy has risks. The endorsement system of politics evolved precisely because it was locals, not outsiders, who knew where voters here lived and how to get them to the polls.

Clinton campaign officials greet the Obama strategy with skepticism. Kelly Adams, state director for the Clinton campaign and a South Carolina native, says her staff does its share of grass-roots organizing, staging fish fries, rallies and what she calls "salon outreach" in the state's barbershops. But she says these activities aren't enough to win an election...".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

Well, Ron, two main differences would be (1) I'm still enquiring and learning about US politics, and in particular about the specific views of the candidates in this election and (2) the Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich whereas the Democrats in comparison would tend to take from the rich to give to the poor.

You want a major Labour government achievment (later dismantled)? Graduated State Pension. Barbara Castle's great scheme.

Or how about student grants?

Or (an earlier Labour Government that was definitely not going to compromise, at least on the main points) - the National Health Service.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

Good post, Quarcoo.

If the Black Box Voting people are correct about how votes are collected and counted in South Carolina, it won't really matter how effective Obama's methods are or how well he does in polls. The system in SC appears to be particularly vulnerable to manipulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:28 PM

Richard, you wrote: "the Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich whereas the Democrats in comparison would tend to take from the rich to give to the poor."

Not so! But they try to give that impression, of course, harkening way, way back to Roosevelt's New Deal (which really DID make genuine efforts to assist the poor...due to a major economic emergency that was crippling the nation).

BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Period. The Republicans are slightly worse when in office, I think, but they both work for the rich.

The Democrats pretend to be the friends of Black people, poor people, urban populations, and the "little guy". They pretend to be progressives defending social rights and freedoms. They lie!

The Republicans pretend to be the friends of patriots, military defenders of "freedom", conservative White rural Americans, and Evangelicals, and "the little guy". They pretend to be defenders of liberty and freedom. They lie!

They both work for the largest, most powerful financial interests in America and the rich elite that controls those interests. They both fight unjustified foreign wars and boost military spending. They both allow civil infrastructure to decay so they can build more cruise missiles and smart bombs. They both want power...at any price...and they will both do anything fraudulent to get it. They work for the same masters.

It's a closed shop.

When someone like Dennis Kucinich comes along, they simply shut him out of the national media. People don't vote for someone they barely ever even hear about.

It's a closed circle.

No one moves into the top echelons of that closed circle unless he is willing to do what they want him to do. And if so, he's lost all credibility by the time he gets there.

The only way that can be penetrated is by someone genuinely progressive who hides his true agenda...like a Trojan Horse...and then implements it after he is elected, taking the $ySStem by surprise. If someone did that, I believe they would have him assassinated.

So what can be done? A revolution? A slow unravelling of a fatally corrupt system? A gradual awakening of the public to what is really happening? A financial collapse? A catastrophic defeat in war?

I don't know, but something has to bring this oligarchy crashing down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

Little Hawk:

Please calm down.

All politicians lie up to a point.

But I think in general the Democratic ones tend to be more progressive toward the ideals of equity, justice, and improving life both high and low than the Republicans do, especially since the 'Pubs have swung over toward the Fascist end of the spectrum since 2000.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:55 PM

Little Hawk and Ron Davies-

Would you please cease your continuous bickering, or create your own thread to thrash it out.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:59 PM

Fox News, bless their weasely little hearts, reports:

"Barack Obama racked up two key newspaper endorsements this week — one from South Carolina's largest paper, the other from rival Hillary Clinton's backyard.

South Carolina's The State endorsed Obama for Saturday's Democratic primary Tuesday, calling the Illinois senator "a groundbreaking nominee" and the best candidate to unite the country and repair America's reputation around the world.

"Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum," The (Columbia) State said on its Web site.

Then on Wednesday The New York Observer backed Obama over Clinton, a New York senator.

"New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America," the paper wrote. "Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama's issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama's candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy."

Click here to read The New York Observer's endorsement.

The paper said Obama would be the most" formidable" Democrat in the general election, and that "It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

Charley, Ron's bickering with me is just a very minor side issue on the political threads. His main bickering lately is with Rinslinger and Richard Bridge. Indeed, the mutual love, caring, and respect that passes between me and Ron Davies is simply beyond question. ;-) You should instead focus on the acute negativity brought to these threads by the seething twin scandals of Rinslinger-Gate and RichardBridge-Gate, which are the primary targets of Ron's ire these days. ;-)

Amos - I do prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, no question about that. I would vote Democratic almost without question if I had to choose between them. (and so would at least 80% of the Canadian public) That doesn't mean, though, that I trust the Democratic Party machine any farther than I would trust Al Capone, Tammany Hall or Heinrich Himmler...

A "bit of a sticky wicket", I'd call it...when all one has is 2 lots of coporate-backed scoundrels to choose from.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM

LH - I'm going to stick my neck out and agree with you here, but I'm leary about what Ron will counter with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

I daresay...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

Hey don't knock Tamany Hall..I might be related to Big Bill Devery who gave corruption a whole new meaning. And if any genealogists out there could help me with this I would love to know..my grandmother was a Devery...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is enjoying a comfortable lead in the newest polls over rival Hillary Clinton as the South Carolina primary draws closer.
Palmetto State Democrats hold their primary on Saturday. In an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, Obama is pulling in 42.8% of voters while New York senator Clinton is getting 30.6%. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is trailing with 14.2%.
South Carolina will be one of the last dominoes to fall before Florida's Jan. 29 primary and the Feb. 5 "Super Tuesday," when the candidates compete for delegates from 21 states. The Feb. 5 contest could be a make-or-break day for White House hopefuls since it includes big states like California and New York."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM

I reviewed Dennis Kucinichs ballsy performance in the last all-Democratic-candidates debate he was in. The man has spit, fire and brains. He had the guts to call for impeachment in the middle of the debate. I love this guy. Not mention his gracious and charming spouse.
If he had half the shot Obama has at the White House hotseat I'd vote to send him in. Unfortunately he will probably not be on the ballot.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 07:52 PM

Makes the 'debates' (paid infomercials) with just the three candidates look pretty lame by comparison, doesn't it?

Even if you don't think he has a chance at getting elected, don't be afraid to get involved with the work he's doing if you'd like to see more of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:00 PM

Yeah, Amos, it's a great shame about Mr Kucinich's chances being so minimal, considering what he is offering. When a candidate is simply shut out by the mainstream media networks, all of them owned by huge corporate entities, I don't see how he or she really has any chance of being elected. Still, the work has to be done a bit at a time. It's a long range struggle for fundamental change, not just a fight to win one election.

It will be interesting to see if the voting results in the South Carolina Primary match the polling results. If they do, Obama is going to beat Hillary Clinton badly. If not...hmmm...

Well, we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM

LIsten if you can to Rush Limbaugh's broadcast today (I think it is available on his website)...he will explain the probable strategy of not just letting him win SC but hoping he does to incite racial problems further...I know many hate El Rushbo but finally finally some people are seeing what many of us saw decades ago and he has them pegged (The Clintons). mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:50 PM

I think Dennis Kucinch would mahe the best Secretary of State that the United States has ever had...

Would I like to see him president??? You bet... But that ain't gonn happen so the best we can hope for is that he gets an opportunioty to show his stuff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:58 PM

MG, I love you dearly, but there are some things I won't do, ansd one f them is going out of my way t listen to Rush. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:21 PM

Well, I have to admit to being a bit baffled by LH's rather apoplectic--thanks for giving me the excuse to use that word-- posting of 12:02 AM 23 Jan. We have had our disagreements on other threads. But I have had very little occasion to have friction with him on this thread, for the very good reason that I believe we're on the same page on Obama--, for a host of reasons ,his candidacy is the best thing that's happened to the US in decades--especially since, as the Democratic nominee, he stands an excellent chance of winning--far better than Hillary.

Admittedly, I am disappointed in the number of Mudcatters who fail to realize this. They must be waiting for the Second Coming--of Karl Marx.

Richard--

You're still "enquiring"? I'm afraid it did not seem so in the thread you started--with your cute little sketches of the candidates. Sounded like arch superiority, complete conviction on your part, and, in the grand tradition of the Red Queen--what was it? -- "Sentence first, trial later?"--for the candidates.    But perhaps I was mistaken.

Amos--

I completely agree --that WSJ article was fascinating. Perhaps the most riveting aspect of it was the detail as to how Obama is totally upending the old order in South Carolina. Hillary's state director was quoted as saying; "we have a political machine unmatched by any other in the state." So if Obama wins--and in a southern state-- it's a sea change in politics--and probably not just in South Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:41 PM

I wasn't feeling apoplectic at all, Ron, I had a bemused smile on my face. It simultaneously genuinely amuses me...and yet disturbs me...how downright vicious you can get with people when you disagree with them, that's all. And you do go on extended vendettas against certain people now and then just because you've had some disagreement with them over a political point, and it seems excessive to me, so I comment on that. (Even if I agree 100% with your opinions, as may be the case.)

****

Like you, I would be delighted to see Obama absolutely clobber the Clinton machine, and I hope he does.

I find it very disheartening that Dennis Kucinich's message is not getting through in the media, because his message contains far more progressive substance than the others...but in any case, I would be most happy to see either Obama or Edwards knock the Clinton organization right on their collective asses, because they are playing the dirtiest of dirty politics, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:45 PM

I hope he (Barack) sweeps through S. Carolina like crap through a goose and leaves Steven Colbert looking stunod!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM

LH--

You're a master at hiding your amusement, then.

But I am glad to hear you support Obama also. Even though, as a Canadian, your vote may not count for much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:50 PM

And now I feel somehow like I have the mark of the Beast on me--wonder how that happened? Must be an overdose of sarcasm. D'ye think?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:11 PM

Well, we all feel like that now and then, don't we? ;-)

Look, I wish to God I could vote in the USA elections, I really do. You know why? Because I'm a North American, born in this great land that we all share, and it's important to me what happens in the USA elections. Darned right it's important.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 04:22 PM

This was in Kathleen Parker's column today:


Fact: Obama put his hand on the Holy Bible, not the Koran, when Vice President Dick Cheney swore him into the U.S. Senate. Annenberg has the photo.

Fact: Obama pledges allegiance to the flag. Annenberg has the videos.

Fact: Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ, which declares itself "Unashamedly black and Unapologetically Christian." The church's magazine recently gave a lifetime achievement award to that beacon of racial harmony, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.


                   Wait until the swift boaters get a hold of that!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM

"The church's magazine recently gave a lifetime achievement award to that beacon of racial harmony, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan."

I was wondering who would be first with this old story. Depend on Kathleen Parker. I still wonder how true the story is.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:15 PM

Well, everything Louis Farrakhan had done isn't bad. He has done things to help people, so it wouldn't even be newsworthy in any other context.
          But imagine what people like Hannity and O'Reilly will try to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:50 PM

Here's a link to a dailykos diary that has YouTube videos of six great speeches given by Senator Barack Obama:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/22592/2166/76/443354
The Obama Six
by JustAngry
Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:07:14 PM PST


The 6 speeches are:

DNC 2004

2002 Anti-War Speech

Jefferson Jackson Dinner

Iowa Victory Speech: This Moment

New Hampshire: Yes We Can

and

Obama at MLK Jr's Church

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM

OK, Rig--

In the interest of public education-,

1) Who is Kathleen Parker?

2) What's the exact source for the Farrakhan connection?


And, as you may possibly be aware, even those who disagree with something a church does should not assume that all members agree with it.

Even assuming that your report is not, like many you have brought up, just a rumor off the shelf of one of your well-stocked Smears R Us stores.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnis for the Washington Post. You can look up her column for Friday 1/25/08 and get all the documentation she provides there. It could have been printed in the Post a day or two earlier, because I found it in a local paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:46 PM

Here's an excerpt from Media Matter that includes Senator Barack Obama's statement regarding Trumpet Magazine's award to the African American Muslim minister {and former calyspo singer} Louis Farrakhan:

"Ignoring Obama's statement on Trumpet award, Hannity suggested that Obama "associated" himself with Farrakhan

"During the January 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity discussed an award given to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan by Trumpet Newsmagazine -- a publication founded by Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is a parishioner. Hannity asked, "Now, if any Republican associated themselves with a anti-Semite racist, and if you replaced the word black with white and went to that type of church, wouldn't that be a huge deal in this campaign?" But in suggesting that Obama "associated" himself with Farrakhan, Hannity did not note that Obama issued a statement "condemn[ing]" Farrakhan's "anti-Semitic statements" and saying of the Trumpet award: "[I]t is not a decision with which I agree."

In his January 15 Washington Post column, Richard Cohen wrote: "Every year, [Trumpet] makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said 'truly epitomized greatness.' That man is Louis Farrakhan." A report posted that same day on washingtonpost.com's The Trail blog provided a statement from Obama criticizing Farrakhan and disagreeing with the magazine's decision to give him the award:

[T]his afternoon, the Obama campaign responded with an unequivocal statement on it from the candidate himself.

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

Also discussing Obama's church on January 17, Hannity stated that "Barack Obama's pastor ... talks about the Black Value System. Why not the Christian value system?" But as Media Matters documented, Trinity United Church of Christ refers to itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian," [emphasis added], while the "Black Value System" encourages parishioners to be "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180006

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM

Thanks, Azizi, for that clarification. As I suspected, another "bargain" from one of Rig's Smears R Us outlets.

Who knows why he never does any research before passing on the smear?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:14 PM

Is the right right on the Clintons?
Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.
January 26, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

"Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.

This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it's a delicious thought. The Wall Street Journal published a gloating editorial noting that liberals had suddenly learned "what everyone else already knows about the Clintons." (By "everyone," it means Republicans.)

It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the Clintons' essential nature?"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:31 PM

well of course they were right. I saw the sleaze in that man the second I laid eyes on him and over time I came to believe she was worse than him. Not just sleaze...evil. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Bill Clinton is not evil. He may be a tapdancer, but he is a good man at heart; he gets lured in combative manurers in political frays, but he did a decent job for the economy, and for our international repute overall, and has been slandered and swift-boated quite enough with wild-ass black PR machinations.

I do not want him to have a third term even as the President of Vice, and I doubt he will.

But ad hominem crap of this sort is unbecoming.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:39 PM

"(Jan. 22, 2008) In last night's presidential debate in South Carolina we got to see a dredging operation par excellence against Barack Obama, and a lot of deep river mud was hurled between podiums. But the mud slung by both Clinton and Edwards against Obama should not be permitted to go unchallenged by fair-minded observers in an age in which we all have the power to check the facts for ourselves, and weigh in.

As for myself, I cannot sit by and watch a brilliant, prepared and historic candidate like Barack Obama get tossed into the cotton gin of the Democratic party machine, which is fighting to preserve a Democratic Leadership Council status quo - especially given the possible positive sea change that can follow on an Obama administration, not only with respect to domestic policy but in foreign relations as well. So here goes."

I am inclined to agree. It would be a shame to see both Clintons go down in the mre of their own desperation, tangled up in hypocritical and underhanded character-smearing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:50 PM

Well, if they go down, I don't expect they'll stay down. It always seems to me that all of this stuff is forgotten the moment they move on to the next phase of the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

True enough. It is pretty safe to assume that whoever gets to be selected as candidate the other one will be campaigning for him or her, whatever they said about each other at this stage. That's how the political game goes. But the downside of that is that it's the very kind of thing that encourages people to recognise it as a dirty cynical game. Which it is, but in certain circumstances it becomes a game that we neglect at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:41 PM

I don't think he will campaign beyond a modest amount for her..she has deliberately opened up festering wounds in this country.and should be ashamed of herself but probably can not achieve that emotion...if he should win I suspect she will campaign for him out of what might be advantageous for her politically. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:24 PM

"Sen. Barack Obama, vying to become the nation's first black president, has won the South Carolina primary today, ABC News projects, boosted by record turnout of African-American voters in a state whose electorate appears polarized along racial lines.


While the race for second-place is too close to call, Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be leading former Sen. John Edwards in the race for second. This is the second win of the nomination battle for Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses earlier this month, but this is his first win in a state with a sizable African-American population."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:48 PM

He not only won SC -- he won it at around 54 to 27 (versus Hilly-Bill).

(Those are per centage points). This was a dramatic win.


My hat is off to Mister Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:35 PM

And this is an excerpt from my local daily paper that just arrived this afternoon:

    "Oregon schools have that atheist attitude with Christian holidays removed from their official calendars, which explains why the students were on "winter break" and having "winter concerts."

    Now, I look over the presidential candidates. I see a POW, an ex-actor, ex-governors, an ex-mayor, a former first lady who lost her memory when questioned by Congress, a lawyer, a Baptist, a Muslim and a Mormon to indicate the United States is ready to move past the Constitution and into multicultural politics. There is that candidate from Texas who does believe in the Constitution."


                                 I don't know how many people out there think this way, but there are some.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:25 PM

Caroline Kennedy endorses Senator Barack Obama for President:

"President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY
Published: January 27, 2008; New York Times

OVER the years, I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn't that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents' grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Caroline Kennedy is the author of "A Patriot's Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:50 PM

Excerpt from Senator Barack Obama's Victory Speech-South Carolina Democratic Primary


..."The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It's about the past versus the future.

It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here's what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don't tell us change isn't possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who's now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we've carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGxdg


This link also leads to a YouTube video of Barack Obama's speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:38 PM

Exit polls indicated that Bill Clinton's campaigning made a difference to about 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters. But of those voters, 47% went for Barack Obama, while only 38% went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent voted for John Edwards. The Obama campaign gleefully noted that in the mostly black precincts that Bill Clinton visted in Greenville, as much as 80% of the vote went to Obama.

If they can keep that up they stand a great chance of getting the nomination, imo.

Congrats to all involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:47 AM

"CONGRESSMAN XAVIER BECERRA ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA
Says Obama will unite Americans to tackle challenges facing nation

LOS ANGELES, CA – Congressman Xavier Becerra today endorsed Barack Obama for President, citing his ability to unite Americans to lead our country in a new direction. Becerra serves on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and as the Assistant to the Speaker of the House is the highest ranking Latino in the House.

"Senator Obama is the most qualified candidate to lead our country in a new direction," said Congressman Becerra. "Throughout his 20 years in public service, Barack Obama has united and inspired people from all walks of life and from all parties to bring change we can believe in. As war rages abroad and Americans worry about what the struggling economy means for their families, we need a leader who will tell us not what we want to hear but what we need to hear about the challenges we face. Barack Obama is our strongest candidate for president because of his great crossover appeal that spans parties and regions and his unique ability to rally the American people behind a common purpose."

"Congressman Becerra has spent his career taking on the special interests to put the American Dream back in reach for working families, and I'm grateful for his endorsement," said Senator Obama. "Xavier Becerra knows that to get things done, we must reach across the aisle and bring people of all parties together to find common ground. Xavier Becerra's inspiring story demonstrates what is possible in America, and he will be a great help in our effort to build a broad coalition to solve the complex challenges that lie ahead."

Congressman Becerra represents the 31st Congressional District of California in the city of Los Angeles. Becerra is the son of working-class immigrants and was the first in his family to graduate from college. On the Ways and Means Committee, Becerra has worked to restore fairness and balance to the economy and to strengthen Social Security for women and minorities. Becerra is a former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus."

http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-rep-xavier-becerra-endorsement/

-snip-

Barack Obama- Si Se Puede!

Yes We Can!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:50 AM

Excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

Kennedy to endorse Obama, officials say
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

MACON, Ga. - Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts will endorse Senate colleague Barack Obama for president, party officials confirmed Sunday.

The endorsement will be announced Monday in Washington, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially.

In a television interview Sunday, Obama would not answer questions about an endorsement from Kennedy.

"I'll let Ted Kennedy speak for himself. And nobody does it better," he said on ABC's "This Week." "But obviously, any of the Democratic candidates would love to have Ted Kennedy's support. And we have certainly actively sought it. And you know, I will let him make his announcement and his decision when he decides it's appropriate."

Kennedy's endorsement was highly sought after by all the Democratic candidates. Besides his status as a liberal icon and member of the Kennedy dynasty, Kennedy boasts a broad national fundraising and political network as well"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_el_pr/obama_kennedy

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM

Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama
By Susan Milligan
Globe staff

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support...

Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

"The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' said Representative Bill Delahunt, A Quincy Democrat who is also backing Obama. ``So having him pass on the torch [to Obama] is of incredible significance. It's historic.''...

While polls show Clinton ahead in some large states, including her home state of New York and delegate-rich California, the Kennedy endorsement gives Obama a stamp of approval among key constituencies in the Democratic party that could make Super Tuesday more competitive.

Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico"...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:03 AM

"OVER the years, I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn't that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960. ..."


----Caroline Kennedy, writing in the New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:35 PM

WASHINGTON — Senator Edward M. Kennedy implored Americans on Monday to "reject the counsels of doubt and calculation," as he extended his endorsement and placed the aura of his family's name around the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.

"It is time again for a new generation of leadership," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking over a crowd of cheering supporters here at American University. "It is time now for Barack Obama."

Mr. Kennedy promised to campaign aggressively for Mr. Obama, a strong endorsement from a veteran Democratic leader that might influence some in the party's liberal Democratic base torn between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"We, too, want a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American dream and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal and who can lift our spirits and make us believe again," Mr. Kennedy said. "I've found that candidate and I think you have, too."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 05:14 PM

I know everyone is saying it too but watch for ugliness..which is already out there from the Clinton team..about Latinos vs. Blacks..they are already reminding Latinos that they historically do not vote for Blacks, which I think is not true but since when did that matter.

Oh thank heavens for weeks if not months I have not heard people..usually women..saying the reason Sen. C. is unpopular is because people..or men in particular..just do not like strong women. I hope strong women rise up to defeat her and I am not saying this out of hatred for her..I don't disagree with her that much and I think she is competent in certain ways and probably does have people's interests at heart in terms of health care etc..but she scares the daylights out of me. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 05:29 PM

From an Iraq vet:

"Exactly four years ago today, I returned home from Iraq.Ê Nineteen of my fellow paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne werenÕt as lucky. ÊI witnessed George BushÕs failed strategy firsthand and was determined to do something about it and start bringing our troops home.Ê Now, as the first and only Iraq war veteran in Congress, I take seriously myÊresponsibility to call for a new foreign policy, and to making sure our nation fulfills its promise to my fellow veterans.
We need a President who has the vision, the judgment, and the courage to make this change become a reality. Barack Obama will be that President.
Ê
From the beginning, Barack had the foresight to speak out against the war and the Bush Administration's terrible mismanagement of it.
Ê
Barack Obama will put an end to BushÕs policy blunders and bring our troops home safely and responsibly. Barack and I introduced the Iraq De-escalation Act.Ê (You can view details of our plan at my website, www.murphy08.com.)Ê
Ê
Our bill calls for clear benchmarks, a clear timeline for redeployment and a strategic strike force to combat al Qaeda.Ê Most importantly, this redeployment from Iraq will give our military the personnel and equipment it needs to redouble its efforts at destroying al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.Ê We need Senator Obama's comprehensive approach to foreign policy and we need to make sure that we are fighting on the right battlefields.Ê Ê
Ê
Barack Obama will bring a new approach to foreign policy, one that understands the world as it really is.Ê He will restore our reputation around the globe and end the Bush vision of foreign policy as a political weapon. And when a Republican candidate tells us that weÕll be in Iraq for 100 years, we know that a change in foreign policy canÕt wait one more day.
Ê
Barack is also committed to getting our veterans proper treatment. He is the grandson of a World War II veteran and serves on the SenateÕs VeteranÕs Affairs Committee, which just passed the largest increase in veteransÕ benefits in the 77 year history of the Veterans Administration.Ê As President, he pledged to have a "zero tolerance" policy for homelessness among our veterans. On any given night, there are 200,000 veterans living on the streets in this country.Ê As President, Barack will end this injustice.
Ê
But to truly change our nation's direction, we need more than just new policies. We need you.Ê A few weeks ago, I was up in New Hampshire door-knocking and talked with a 20-year old woman named Julie.Ê She and her brother were supporting Senator Obama.Ê She said, "My brother is a Marine who just left for his fourth deployment in Iraq.Ê We feel that if Obama is our next Commander-in-Chief, he wonÕt have to go back for a fifth deployment."
Ê
That is what this election is about.Ê I know Senator Obama has a rare ability to lead that doesn't come along very often. We need a fundamental change both at home and abroad, and I believe Barack Obama will bring about that change if we give him a chance.
Ê
Ê
Thank you,
Ê
Patrick Murphy
U.S. Representative, (D) PA-08"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

Is there anything to read into the reality that they re-arrested Tony Rezko on the same day the Senator Kennedy announced his endorsement?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:57 PM

Motel Video made to smear Barak.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 07:18 PM

700 and...

Obama/Richardson '08...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 07:37 PM

Donuel - Who did that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:10 PM

Rig-

Still collecting smears for Smears R Us? Need to freshen up your merchandise?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:27 PM

Since Ted Haggart's masseuse was busy...

I guess a die hard fundamentalist military contractor connected Republican and personal friend of Karl Rove had $50 to make a you tube video.

A good SNL skit would be to use the same guy to read the same script over and over but change the politician's name each time lol

take 55:
I had coke and gay sex with Akaka, Daniel K.- Alexander, Lamar-Allard, Wayne- Barrasso, John , Baucus, Max....(300 takes later) "I also had a threesome with Strom Thurmon and Chelsea Clinton...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:42 PM

"Rig - Still collecting smears for Smears R Us? Need to freshen up your merchandise?"


                Ron - Check the log. It wasn't my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:25 AM

I read in several sources that Hillary is counting on Hispanic voters to play a decisive role in several states, including California, Arizona, New York and Arizona. To that end, her spokesmen are reminding Hispanics that they seldom support black candidates. More of the old cynical tired divisive campaigning we've grown accustomed to from her.

I wonder if these voters are aware that, like Obama, she voted in favor of the proposed 700-mile wall between the US and Mexico.

And consider her pathetic waffling on the question of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--read, primarily Hispanic. It seems obvious to me that you want as all drivers to have licenses --among other things, to give them powerful incentive to get insurance. But she was all over the lot on this issue--and obviously very relieved when Gov. Spitzer was forced to back off on his plan for licenses for illegal immigrants.

As I recall, Obama came down in favor of public safety--that is, in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

So for Hispanic voters, there's virtually no difference between Hillary and Obama--if anything, the edge goes to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:30 AM

Divide and conquer is a game that unscrupulous politicians have been playing since time immemorial. Watch out for anyone who does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 08:52 AM

"Tony Rezko?" Reputed Chicago slumlord whose partners were represented 6 hours by Obama as a young attorney? Oh, I'm sure we'll hear a lot more than 6 hours of ad time about him!

I understand that Rezko did make substantial contributions to the Obama campaign but the contributions were subsequently donated to charities.

Evidently the Bill Clinton Presidential Library didn't receive such a donation and is bitter (sarcastic comment in case anyone can't figure that out).

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM

Barak Obama is a West Ham Football Team (soccer) supporter... there is no hope for you!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:20 PM

The New Yorker offers an interesting, thoughtful and articulate study of Obama Barack and how he combines smarts with his actual nature.

Recommended reading!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:08 AM

Obama has come out strongly in favor of reproductive freedom He supports Roe v Wade, has voted "no" on notifying parents of minors who get out of state abortions, and is rated O% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a very strong pro-choice stance. When South Dakota passed a law barring all abortions, in a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, he spoke out vigorously against that law.

Yet when Ted Kennedy yesterday declared his support for Obama, the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women reacted by saying that this move by Kennedy is "the ultimate betrayal".

Why would Ted Kennedy's support of Obama be "the ultimate betrayal"? Why is support for Obama, whose support for women's rights is easily comparable to that of Hillary, "the ultimate betrayal"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:10 AM

"freedom. He..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:39 AM

I'd imagine it's something to do with the idea that having the wife of a former president become president would be a great step forward for women. (As with Peron's widow in Argentina decades ago...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:28 AM

Or the Argentina wife now--can't reall the name--
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner,


                     Kennedy was obviously betraying women.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM

That is complete horsepuckey, IMHO -- it is not a betrayal of someone, and even less so of that someone's class or group, not to make them President of the United States. Kennedy is not a member of the class, "women", and has, as far as I know, taken no vow of loyalty to that class' interests (outside of general humanity and its needs). What oath has he broken, or fealty denied? Clearly, none.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:41 AM

So who does the New York Chapter of NOW want??? Billary??? Why???

(Becuase she is a she, that's why, Bobert...)

But "betrayal" for endorsing a man??? Isn't that gender discrimination???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:44 AM

I don't understand that "betrayal" thing. Maybe someone closer to the stump can explain. But I got only about halfway through the New Yorker article before deciding that three things about it bothered me.

1. Again, it's all about personality not policy, and that is not the way (IMHO) to decide who should be president.
2. It continues to diminish discussion of policy (the thing that actually matters) by using the insulting-sounding term "wonk" in the same way that intelligence in school or university is denigrated by the use of the insulting term "nerd".
3. It really is not possible to give any serious consideration to a discussion of a presidential candidate that tries not only to assess whether he is "goofy" or not but also how that affects his worthiness as a candidate.

Bah!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:21 PM

Just as we do not want this election to be about black candidates and white candidates, we also don't want it to be about men candidates and women candidates. The thing that gives us hope is that it is finally about who is the best candidate without regard to ethnic background, skin color, religion, or gender. The wondrous thing about this all is that it appears we are finally on the way to stopping the waste of half or more of our braintrust. NOW's reaction, if it is accurate, is unfortunate and shortsighted. Kennedy, with an unsurpassed record on womens issues, simply chose whom he thought was the best candidate.

Here are my concerns with Obama, from another thread. The context is simply looking at it from the perspective of a political organizer with experience at running a Presidential campaign at a large State level:

I like Obama, but he had better get his head out of his arse or he is going to be in the "It was a good fight, pa, but I lost..." category. Remembering that the first law of politics is, "It isn't what is real that counts, it's whats perceived to be real that counts", one can already see the seeds of doubt that are being sown. Folks say things like "I think he's great, but I am not sure what he stands for...." and such. If he doesn't get out front in some dramatic ways to change that perception among the older voters, he will have a series of close seconds and end up losing the nomination. The nastiness, as this starts to occur, will increase, damaging the Democratic nominee in the general election. McCain, presuming he gets the nomination, will be an incredibly formidable foe.

Obama needs to be seen as the charismatic leader to get the young voters. But they never carry an election, as they are not consistent likely voters. Obama must start to grab more and more endorsements from politicians that are seen as strong in the areas he needs. He needs to be seen as screening strong candidates for cabinet posts that will encourage the likely voters that he is strengthening his weak areas. Then he can continue with his strong message of hope and change.

Just my opinion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:40 PM

Call it sour grapes if you want, but I feel the results of the Florida Democratic Primary (50% for Clinton, 33% for Obama) are deeply skewed. The fact that the national Democratic Party chose to penalize Florida for moving its presidential primary forward in the year by stripping the state of its convention delegates, essentially making voting meaningless, guaranteed that many Democratic voters would stay home. The only other issue on most ballots was a property tax proposal doubling the amount of the homestead exemption given to homeowners. The majority of Democratic voters who went to the polls probably did so to vote on the property tax issue, not to cast a meaningless vote for a presidential candidate. And what type of voters did the property tax issue attract? Homeowners. And homeowners tend to be white, middle-class, and older. Minorities, the poor, and the young, groups among whom Obama has greater support, had no real reason to vote since they tend to be renters, not homeowners.

It would be a moot issue if we knew that the Democratic Party's decision to not seat the Florida delegation was going to stick, but it probably won't. Someone at the convention will move to have the Florida delegation seated, and it will happen, and the results of the skewed Florida Primary will stand.

I can't help but wonder how different the numbers would have been if the primary had occurred under normal circumstances with all ages, classes, and ethnicities fairly represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

"Someone at the convention will move to have the Florida delegation seated, and it will happen, and the results of the skewed Florida Primary will stand."

Ha! Well, wouldn't that be a marvelous example of clever political planning and trickery? Let's wait and see if it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:54 PM

Agreed, BWL. I don't see how they can claim that Clinton's "victory" is legitimate. The Party tainted the outcome, and I believe it will have dramatic ramifications that will dovetail into the argument I outlined above. If I am Obama, and within striking distance, how could I not challenge seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates? What possible justification could the National Party have for suggesting that these primaries are legitimate, once they skewed them by naming them illegitimate? The whole mess was so avoidable. As I said a month or so ago, behold the Democratic Party which has the uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on an unprecedented scale.

Hopefully, and I am sure it is true, someone is working on how to deal with this. As a lifelong Dem, I find myself asking, how the hell do we manage to do this? Here we are with a whole batch of good candidates, an opposition party in disarray, and we have allowed ourselves to be in peril of losing. Fortunately there is time to recover, but that has to begin with the voters getting out and starting to centralize on a candidate. Hopefully that will be Obama.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM

I am surprised, Richard, and it seems to me you may have read the article with some prejudgement.

His method of negotiating and bringing about unification from diverse sides IS an operating policy. And it should be clear from the article that for Obama to draw a hard line on this issue or that issue as his token posture is not what would show people what he stood for.

It is abuindantly clear to me that his combination of integrity and cohesive, rational discourse is exactly what the last eight years of Bush, and his father, and the Regan years, have been missing.

The question of personality IS the issue for sometghing as rapidly changing as the world itno which we are heading. The short version is this: do you entrust your power to a man who knows what you want to hear about a specific issue? Or do you entrust it to a man whose integrity and intelligence and principles you trust?

The latter is far, far the more important of the two criteria. There's really no comparison. A man of intelligence and integrity, committed to unification, will carry through no matter how overwhelming new developments are.

George Bush, unburdened by intelligence and free of integrity, came in with policies and promises, and walked away from them in the first sixty days. And when something unexpected came along, he stood there looking like a frozen nanny goat.

A
A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM

What politicians say about specific policies while they are trying to be elected, doesn't actually mean too much. That is even more true while they are trying to get selected as candidate.

In an elective monarchy like the United States the better basis for choosing - and it's not a particularly reliable basis - is subjective. As Amos put it "do you entrust it to a man (or woman) whose integrity and intelligence and principles you trust."

Plus, in the case of Obama, could the process of selecting and electing him significantly improve the way America feels about issues of "race". (It is pretty clear that if he were elected it could dramatically change for the better the way the rest of the world sees America when it comes to those issues.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM

Perhaps, Kevin, you could be so kind as to enlighten us colonials as to what the hell an "elective monarchy" is?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 04:20 PM

I haven't heard others mention it..but to put the notion of a gang rape by a Black man into the minds of voters..such as the New York Now piece did..is nothing short of a hate crime I truly believe..even though she included Edwards in it..Obama is the front-runner....

It's one thing to cry sisterhood, and rightly so..and vote for a woman if that is your preference..(Preferably not this one..see below..ore about Bill but who enables him?? http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59919) but talk about race baiting of the very most hideous nature... it is beyond sick...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:04 PM

An "elective monarchy" is actually a kind of interesting way to describe the US system, I think.

The presidency as it is set up in the USA is an extremely powerful executive position...moreso than is the case with most prime ministers in other western parliamentary systems. Thus it is seen in many other societies as being a rather imperial office in its nature...but one that is limited to only 4 years...then subject to re-election...then limited to only 4 more years. In that respect it is like a parliamentary monarchy which is subject to renewal by election at given intervals.

Remember, monarchs are not necessarily absolute rulers, not by any means. The British monarchy, for instance, began having its powers limited from the time of the Magna Carta on...and this necessitated negotiation on the part of the monarch with what became the British parliament.

In the Hundred Years War, for example, the British kings of that era had to go to Parliament to secure funding and approval for their foreign military adventures. Sometimes they got it. Sometimes they didn't. They were not absolute rulers.

And that was way back in the 13 and 1400s!

The American revolutionaries of 1776 were not rebelling against an absolute monarchy, they were rebelling against a distant colonial regime run (inefficiently) by a parliamentary system with a monarch as the titular head of state...and the problem was that that parliamentary system and the monarch were out of touch with some of the fundamental aspirations OF the American colonists to the extent that they screwed up their administration of those colonies and lost the loyalty of a fairly narrow majority of the colonials in the process.

The presidential system that the Americans installed after their successful revolution had been achieved was built around a chief executive that had rather king-like powers in a number of ways, and it's hardly surprising that a lot of people wanted to crown George Washington the first king of the new country upon achieving independence from Great Britain! (Washington rejected that idea, however, much to his credit.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:47 PM

I wasn't using the term as a put down - if you are going to have a head of state with real power, it is better for them to be elected than get that job some other way.

The term, "hereditary monarchy", which is often used, implies that it is possible to have monarchies which are not hereditary. Using the term to refer to the American system seems fair enough - and I think it it useful to recognize that the powers of American presidents are comparable to those of European monarchs at the time of the Founding Fathers. As Little Hawk said, not absolute powers, but very substantial.

The special feature of the American system has been that the head of state is elected by popular vote (or rather by a body of electors elected by popular vote), with a time limited period in power. And it's not meant to be hereditary within ruling families either, though it has seemed to be drifting that way at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:05 PM

A page reprinting those statements by the president of New York NOW that mg was talking about there. Would it be naive to think that kind of support would be seen as damaging by Hillary Clinton, and that she might even wish to distance herself from it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:24 AM

Precisely my point, Kevin. That's why I brought up that quote about "the ultimate betrayal"--I could hardly believe it--but, as you note, it fits with other statements she has made. Note that she says electing Hillary will "send a signal to young girls everywhere". Certainly true--but the signal it sends is that if you engage in vicious divisive campaigning, you will win--and that if you do, it's fine, since you are female.

Nobody argues that a woman should not be president. And it will definitely happen--probably sooner than later, especially since women are a huge percentage on college campuses--I believe perhaps a majority. And they are rising in all fields. Why should have the population--or even over half the population--be shut out of leadership positions--including the top position--which has for the past 7 years been filled by the most pathetic excuse for a leader imaginable?.

But Hillary is the worst possible choice for a female candidate now on the horizon.

And consider the other signal sent by Hillary's campaigning--and the lesson the Democratic party establishment must draw--and soon--or face disaster at the polls, and a long-term setback for the Democratic party.

The deep cynicism of Guest-Guest and some others here--and the cheap nasty denigration of Obama is not at all helpful in defeating McCain, which has to be the goal of every liberal.

As I said earlier, Jackson in his campaigns in the 1980's marginalized himself by his radical positions on issues like the nuclear freeze and reparations for slavery. GG obviously was burned severely by her experience working on that campaign--by the obvious hostility of the Democratic establishment to Jackson. She is certainly right in stating that that establishment did not support Jackson in the least, nor any other black candidates who were perceived as making overt appeal to black separatism--Jackson's "rainbow coalition" was seen as a coalition of radicals of various ethnic groups--and primarily black.

However, Obama is the opposite of earlier black political figures. He appeals on a distinctly non-racial basis. The only possible racial appeal he makes is completely positive--by his presence and his history he tells them--yes, you can make it in the white man's world--all the way to the top--by educational accomplishment and appealing to all people as people, not broken down by ethnic groups.

So he is the great model for black children that Hillary will never be for women.

The Democratic establishment has punished earlier black candidates for being racially divisive, saying in effect you need to be addressing the needs of all Democrats--and in fact all Americans-- on a non-ethnic basis.

Obama is doing precisely this. Therefore if the Democratic establishment will rather support a despicable campaigner who is forever making ethnically divisive appeals--sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly--and trying to typecast Obama as what they said is unacceptable--an specifically black candidate--which is precisely what he is not--huge portions of the black community--if not the whole community--will conclude, reasonably, that there is no way to satisfy the white power structure. This is becoming more and more obvious--consider the evidence Azizi has provided from her examples from various blogs. (Blogs, I believe, though unreliable for facts, can definitely provide a gauge of sentiment.).

The black community could very justifiably look at Obama's treatment by Hillary, sanctioned by the Democratic establishment by their support of Hillary, as the true "ultimate betrayal". And they would be right.

As I've said several times before, Hillary has poisoned the well she intends to drink from in the fall. Anybody who thinks that after her treatment of Obama, the black community will still in the end rally to her side to vote for her is totally, dangerously naive. Her treatment of Obama and its sanction by the Democratic establishment will make the black community --and also, in passing, huge numbers of young people--more deeply cynical than anything since the 1960's.

This is why the Democratic establishment must support Obama--or see not only President McCain--who will be swept in by solid Republican loathing for Hillary-- but also long-term alienation of their most loyal supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:28 AM

"Why should half the population..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:08 AM

The other "signal to young girls everywhere" is surely that if they want a chance of being President the thing to do is to marry a man who is going to be President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:20 AM

"This is why the Democratic establishment must support Obama--"


                  Ron - As a previously confessed Republican, it looks like you're doing all you can to assure the country has yet another Republican president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM

Rig:

Are you being snide? Other wise your remark makes vvery little sense.

I --like several others in this community -- am convinced that Obama is far and away the best viable candidate in the field. I believe Hillary's deep exposure to calculating, adversarial politics has left her compromised, despite her obvious intelligence. THis doe snot mean she cannot be an effective poitical operative, but it does mean that if she becomes the leader of the country we will not be showing the owrld any intention to change our ways fundamentally, to re-establish the AMerican idealism which has supplied hope and motive to so many over the last two centuries, and will be declining the opportunity to clean up after the elephants and show the best side of our national character again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:36 AM

Former President Jimmy Carter lavished praise on Illinois Sen. Barack Obama during an interview at his home on Monday, though he won't formally endorse any candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family," Mr. Carter said. The 83-year-old former president, who left the White House in 1981, compared Mr. Obama's speeches to those of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and said he believed the candidate could carry some southern states if he becomes the Democratic nominee.


In an interview with WSJ's Doug Blackmon, former President Jimmy Carter says Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has been extraordinary and titillating.
Mr. Carter also said he talked by telephone at length on Monday with former President Bill Clinton, who was "trying to explain that he was not raising the race issue" on the campaign trail. Mr. Carter said the phone call was to finalize speaking arrangements for Mr. Clinton's appearance at a meeting organized by Mr. Carter of moderate Baptists in Atlanta beginning today. But much of the conversation centered on the presidential campaign, Mr. Carter said.

Mr. Clinton "has said a few things that I think he wishes he hadn't said," Mr. Carter said. "He doesn't call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it's troublesome to them, the adverse reaction."

"I told him I hoped it would die down...the charged atmosphere concerning the race issue," Mr. Carter said. "And I think it will."

The Clinton campaign didn't immediately comment regarding the conversation or on Mr. Carter's remarks about Mr. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:50 AM

When Kennedys endorse candidates, they pull out all the stops. Caroline Kennedy penned an op-ed published in Sunday's New York Times endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, and appeared with him Monday at a campaign rally in Washington, D.C. Now, she's being featured in an ad touting his candidacy.

"Once we had a president who made people feel hopeful about America and brought us together to do great things," she says in the ad, as images of her father, former President John F. Kennedy, appear on the screen. "Today Barack Obama gives us that same chance."

(Wall St. Jrnl)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

I'll I can say is, if he gets the nomination, we'll see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

No, doh, Rig!!! :D If he doesn't....we'll still see what happens.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:02 PM

The January surge in fundraising positions the Illinois senator for the Feb. 5 Democratic primaries and caucuses in 22 states. He and Clinton face off in L.A. tonight.

By Dan Morain and Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
11:20 AM PST, January 31, 2008

Money, the fuel for the national presidential nominating sweepstakes, took center stage as the leading Democratic candidates braced for their first one-on-one debate in Los Angeles tonight.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign reported this morning that in January it had raised $32 million that can be used for the primary battle against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. That one-month take was more than Obama raised in any three-month period in 2007, campaign aides said this morning.

Clinton and Obama are set to face off this evening at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood after former Sen. John Edwards left the field Wednesday. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 05:20 PM

Whatever happens we'll see what happens. And then argue about why it happened...

That's a fair prediction about anything and everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM

I'm not so sure about that. With the election of George W. Bush we didn't get to see what happened either time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:28 PM

Ah, Rig. Still your own charming self. Sounds like Smears R Us is still going strong. At least you've found your calling.

And how's the campaign to draft Lou Dobbs coming? Time's a-wastin'. You'd best get that into high gear soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:33 PM

What about "Personal Attacks R Us", Ron? That's the organization which I feel is causing the most trouble on these threads lately. It's very similar to what's been happening on the national stage lately, only it's confined to the membership of this forum. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:15 AM

"And how's the campaign to draft Lou Dobbs coming?"


                It seems like everyone wants Lou Dobbs to run for president except Lou Dobbs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on George Costanza
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:27 AM

As long as Obama does the exact opposite of Bush he will leave the world a better place than he found it.

Remember George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode when George decided to just do the opposite of what he might normally do? He had great success.


For example if Obama did the opposite of Bush on this one issue here...

by Greg Palast

Here's your question, class:

In his State of the Union, the President asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner city. As there are, officially, 15 million children in America living in poverty, how much is that per child? Correct! $20.

Here's your second question. The President also demanded that Congress extend his tax cuts. The cost: $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are millionaires. And the number of millionaires happens, not coincidentally, to equal the number of poor kids, roughly 15 million of them. OK class: what is the cost of the tax cut per millionaire? That's right, Richie, $287,000 apiece.

Mr. Bush said, "In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them."

So how much educational dreaming will $20 buy?

-George Bush's alma mater, Phillips Andover Academy, tells us their annual tuition is $37,200. The $20 "Pell Grant for Kids," as the White House calls it, will buy a poor kid about 35 minutes of this educational dream. So they'll have to wake up quickly.

-$20 won't cover the cost of the final book in the Harry Potter series.

If you can't buy a book nor pay tuition with a sawbuck, what exactly can a poor kid buy with $20 in urban America? The Palast Investigative Team donned baseball caps and big pants and discovered we could obtain what local citizens call a "rock" of crack cocaine. For $20, we were guaranteed we could fulfill any kid's dream for at least 15 minutes.

Now we could see the incontrovertible logic in what appeared to be quixotic ravings by the President about free trade with Colombia, Pell Grant for Kids and the surge in Iraq. In Iraq, General Petraeus tells us we must continue to feed in troops for another ten years. There is no way the military can recruit these freedom fighters unless our lower income youth are high, hooked and desperate. Don't say, 'crack vials,' they're, 'Democracy Rocks'!

The plan would have been clearer if Mr. Bush had kept in his speech the line from his original draft which read, "I have ordered 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year – and I am proud to say my military-age kids are not among them."

Of course, there's an effective alternative to Mr. Bush's plan – which won't cost a penny more. Simply turn it upside down. Let's give each millionaire in America a $20 bill, and every poor child $287,000.

And, there's an added benefit to this alternative. Had we turned Mr. Bush and his plan upside down, he could have spoken to Congress from his heart.

-For more on Bush and education read "No Child's Behind Left" in Armed Madhouse excerpted here.
-Also read Palast's take on the 2007 State of the Union here.

*************
Greg Palast is the author of the NY Times best-sellers, Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

"Of course, there's an effective alternative to Mr. Bush's plan – which won't cost a penny more. Simply turn it upside down. Let's give each millionaire in America a $20 bill, and every poor child $287,000."

Oh, I love that! Man! You know what would happen to a president who did something like that? A select few among those American billionaires would hire some well-paid professionals to kill him.

The alternative to Bush's plan of rewarding the rich and doling out crumbs to the poor would be a lot like what Castro did in Cuba (he gave land, education, and work to the island's poorest people for the FIRST time in Cuba's history)...and they've been trying to kill Castro for doing that for the last 48 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:29 PM

I love Greg Palast's biting sense of humor and his keen eye for bullshit. Long may he prosper.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:55 PM

He may have to prosper and stay in the UK.
His life might be in jeopardy in his homeland USA.

Too many (three) unofficial biographers of the Bush family living in the USA have ended up with suicide as the cause of death on their death certificate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:37 PM

"Updated LOS ANGELES – Senator Barack Obama has won the endorsement today from the membership of MoveOn.
In a vote of the group's members, Mr. Obama outpaced Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent. The political action committee of MoveOn.org has 3.2 million members across the country, including 1.7 million members who live in the 22 states with Democratic primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.
"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn. He added, "The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington."
With John Edwards out of the race, and Super Tuesday quickly approaching, members of the grassroots group polled their membership on Thursday and Friday and they decided to endorse Mr. Obama. It is the first time the group has offered an endorsement in a Democratic presidential primary.

So what does this endorsement mean? It ...suggests that many liberals are galvanizing behind Mr. Obama's candidacy. Mrs. Clinton has never been a favorite of MoveOn and was particularly criticized for her Iraq war stance, yet she still won 30 percent of the vote.
It was unclear how many people took part in the on-line endorsement proceedings." (NYTimes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:47 PM

A dick morris (OK I know some can't stand him but the man is astute)
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/clinton_politics/2008/01/29/68279.html

As to why we should thank all that is holy that the Clinton stranglehold might be weakening ..is weakening but enough?

And I am not just fanatically against her..I really to like Obama..domestically I think he would be as good as it gets...internationally I have serious doubts as I believe in a strong strong defenese and I am not convinced he sees that..although I think he would strengthen the military...and I think he is a little naive thinking just lowering the cost of insurance would mean everyone would flock to get it..huge numbers of people..particualrly single..would gamble that they wouldn't need it or that someone would pick up the bill somehow..so I am for a mandate..sliding scale, free of course for the poverty-stricken..sliding scale for working poor, middle class etc..with enough copay to sting a little but not ruin people and good catastrophic coverage. No fertility treatments at all. No purely cosmetic surgery etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 07:31 PM

Add the three living members of the Grateful Dead band to those persons and groups who are endorsing Barack Obama's Presidential candidacy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1/18318/70506/569/447938

3 Living Members of Grateful Dead Endorse Obama, Concert in SF
by howardpark
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM PST

"3 living Members of The Grateful Dead, Phil Lesh, Bob Weir & Mickey Hart will play at a "Deadheads for Obama" concert Monday at the Warfield in San Francisco.

Weir & Hart, especially, are longtime environmental activists. Lesh was an opponent of the Iraq War and signed the "Not in Our Name" statement before the war started"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 07:50 PM

Well whoever gets elected, there is a still a major problem with any US presidential race - it's only open to the super rich or excellently connected. You need at least 30 million dollars to even get a look-in. If you don't have it in your bank or pocket, you'll need sponsorship from the mega-rich (and perhaps corporations). So I doubt there will ever be a president who really sees things from the little guys' perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM

You don't want a President who sees te world that way -- just one who can understand what it IS to see the world that way. Edwards was the closest, but Obama on balance is a big improvement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:30 AM

La Opinión, Los Angeles's Spanish language newspaper endorses Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President!

Here's excerpts from their English language edition:

"The Democratic Party arrives at the California primary with a historic choice between two extraordinary candidates. We believe that of the two, Senator Barack Obama represents fundamental change in a campaign in which "change" has become a central theme. Obama's approach to immigration and his inspiring vision are what the country need to break through the current feeling of political malaise."

-snip-

That editorial noted that Obama's and Clinton's positions on many issues were nearly identical. However, they placed a great deal of emphasis on the differences between these two candidates' position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants:

"As well, we were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama. We understand that this is an extremely controversial issue but we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the senator from Illinois. And, while both senators support comprehensive immigration reform, only Obama has committed to bringing forward new legislation during his first year in office.

It is this commitment to the immigration issue which drove Obama to condemn the malicious lies made during the immigration debate, to understand the need for driver's licenses, and to defend the rights of undocumented students by co-authoring the DREAM Act."...

-snip-

More information and commentary can be found by reading:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/31555/88580/323/448168

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 08:58 AM

Note: This comment is also posted on Mudcat's Political Chants Wanted {Maybe}thread thread.cfm?threadid=108209&messages=25


Here's a link to a powerful, creative video of Barack Obama's victory speech after winning the South Carolina Democratic primary 1/26/08.

http://www.dipdive.com/

-snip-

I found out about this video by reading http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/2/25117/88939/346/448161 Incredible video: Obama set to music featuring who's who of the industry
by RangerKeeper
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:56:25 PM PST

**

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/04722/24305/353/448138 is another dailykos diary about this remarkable video.

Here's a quote that was included in that last diary:
"The music video "Yes We Can" premiered on ABCNewsNow's "What's the Buzz" on Friday. It was inspired, will.i.am told ABC's Alisha Davis, by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and in particular by the speech he has gave after the New Hampshire primary. *

"It made me reflect on the freedoms I have, going to school where I went to school, and the people that came before Obama like Martin Luther King, presidents like Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for me to be sitting here on ABCNews and making a song from Obama's speech," will.i.am said.

"The speech was inspiring about making change in America and I believe what it says and I hope everybody votes," Dylan said.

The music video includes excerpts from the Obama speech and appearances from a range of celebrities including: Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Amber Valetta and Nick Cannon."

-snip-

In addition to will.i.am, other celebrities featured in this video are:

Common
Jesse Dylan
Yael Naim

[There may be more, but these are the names that I found in those diaries]

Here's some information about will.i.am:
"William James Adams, Jr. (born March 15, 1975 in Toronto), better known by his stage name will.i.am, is an American hip hop musician, songwriter and founding member and frontman of Black Eyed Peas. He also has his own label called will.i.am music group. He is of Jamaican descent".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will.i.am

-snip-

Apparently this video was done with no coordination with the Obama campaign.

In this speech the crowd of Obama supporters chant "Yes We Can!", "We Want Change!", and "Race Doesn't Matter."

* As per that quote above, the video was inspired by Barack Obama's New Hampshire speech [click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms
to see a video of that speech]. However, the Yes We Can music video features Obama's South Carolina speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ]


If you can watch online videos, dipdive's "Yes We Can" music video is one you won't want to miss!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:59 AM

Susan Eisenhower, author, and granddaughter of Republican President Eisenhower endorses Barack Obama.

"Why I'm Backing Obama

Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008; Page A15


"...The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM

An uplifting letter from a grand old tradition.


Thanks, Zeez!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:56 AM

Why Republicans Like Obama

By Peter Wehner (WaPo)
Sunday, February 3, 2008; Page B07
Barack Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he's also an appealing figure to many Republicans. Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech -- with most of them coming from Republicans. William Bennett, an influential conservative intellectual, has said favorable things about Obama. So have Rich Lowry of National Review and Peggy Noonan. And so have I.

A number of prominent Republicans I know, who would wage a pitched battle against Hillary Clinton, like Obama and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.

What is at the core of Obama's appeal?

Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. He seems to be a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. "You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in "The Fall," "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats. ...

---

Ted Kennedy's nephew Rory, son of Ethel, opines:

"Rory Kennedy: Two fine choices, one clear decision - Obama
Rory Kennedy
Saturday, February 2, 2008


"...I have no doubt of Senator Clinton's commitment to these issues. And still, that is not enough of a reason for me to vote for her.
Times are far too dark, the price of failure too steep and the road ahead too perilous for us to vote on identity politics. I would love to see a woman be president. I would love to see an African American be president. But right now, what I would love most is to elect the best person for the job.

I believe that person is Sen. Barack Obama. As a leader, he has inspired generations of Americans to look beyond reductive categories like gender or race. Instead, he calls on us to think past our own individual interests, to envision a world that is better for every person in it.

Like Senator Clinton, I have no doubt of Senator Obama's commitment to the issues I care about. But, his unique ability to unify this country and transcend partisan gridlock means that we can finally get something done.

In my years making documentaries, I have traveled to remote regions, from small villages in South America, to townships in South Africa, to the hollows of Appalachia. Every trip, every film, I meet people who still keep photographs of my family on their walls. They cry when they meet me, simply because they were touched by my father, Robert Kennedy. In part, this is because my father supported policies and legislation that helped the disenfranchised. But it is also, and perhaps more importantly, because they felt that my father understood their pain. Senator Obama has that quality too. He has an open heart and an energizing spirit.

Recently, my mother, Ethel Kennedy, said of Obama: "I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did. He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him."
I agree. Obama is a genuine leader. We Americans - women included - desperately need that kind of leader now. Not a president of a particular gender or a specific race, but a president with a different vision, one who inspires a sense of hope...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

I have said for quite a long time that the thing that I bemoan in this political system, the partisanship, has evolved in a very unhealthy way. When I first started in political activism, in 1975, we all, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, were trying to accomplish the same thing. We were all trying to keep America progressing towards a better society. We just had different ideas as to how to get there. By and large, there was a least a respect for one another, and everyone understood that arriving at consensus was how we would get to where we had to go. A certain respect was there. But beginning with the Reagan Revolution, and the Gingrich years, the respect disappeared. The right began to demonize progressives as "liberals" turning that word into a perjorative. The left responded by characterizing everyone to the right of center as some kind of neanderthals. The result, all these elections later, is what Susan Eisenhower so accurately describes.

I am not unmindful of the excesses of the left from the late '60's forward. Nor am I ignoring what was wrong with the system, and the abuses of it, in those days. Admittedly my description is over simplified. But the important piece that Susan Eisenhower, and Caroline Kennedy before her, are hitting is that we are killing the most important part of the American Dream ......... and that is hope. That is being inspired. That is young people wanting to pursue something greater and more noble than self interest. My generation, the generation that wanted to change the world, has missed the mark and slid back into a hedonistic mire that has brought us to the edge of environmental, social, and economic collapse. But out of that mire has come a young man, filled with the message of inspiration, tempered in the fires of community organizing, and ready to blaze the trail towards possibilities.

I sincerely wanted John Edwards to be the candidate, and I feel his presence in this campaign. But the more I listen to this wonderful young man, the more I let his rhetoric and zeal filter into my being, I find myself remembering the last man that made me feel this way. His name was Bobby Kennedy. It was during a time that saw the people I most admired murdered.... JFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X..... it was a time that saw us in the mire of Vietnam . Imagine growing up during this time. One minute you are a kid in the 1950's, when all things seemed possible. Then the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, student riots, Vietnam, ....... it was like having your world come apart in front of you. Then emerges this young man, brother of a slain President ... and you have hope. You can see the care for all people, you can see the possibilities, you begin to aspire to noble ideals ...... then ..... in a horrid moment in a kitchen in L.A..... the final nail was driven in the coffin of hope and idealism. My generation began the long, slow decline into materialism and hedonism that has led us to this moment, when the fire has died to the last few embers in the ash.

Wow .... what a rambling diatribe, and I apologize for it, but writing it has made me realize what we have here. I want my generation to realize that we have an opportunity. We have the chance to resurrect, in a new generation, a more savvy generation, the hope we all felt in that time long ago. We have a chance to restore the necessary balance in the political process, and have it gel around a charismatic leader with a vision of "dreams that never were, and ask why not".

Thanks Susan, thanks Caroline. See you at the polls.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:06 PM

Get 'er done, Big Mick!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:59 PM

Native Times endorses Obama for President
2/1/2008

"US Senator Barack Obama is the choice of the Native American Times to become the next president of the United States. This choice made before the all important super Tuesday election to get as many Native Americans to the polls as possible to push Obama to victory. This is not an anti-Hillary vote but a decision based on what is best for Native Americans.

Alaska will be caucusing; Colorado with the Ute Nation and large Native urban populations will have a primary; the Nez Perce will be voting in the all Democratic caucuses; The Kickapoo, and Prairie Band Potawatomi will be voting in the Kansas Caucuses; The Dakota and Ojibwa people will be voting in Minnesota's Primaries; Republican Crows, Northern Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Cree and others will be voting in Montana's caucuses; the Pueblos, Navajos, and Apaches will be voting in New Mexico Primaries; the Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga and other tribes will voting in New York's primaries; In North Dakota the three Affiliated tribes, Devil's Lake Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux and Turtle Mountain Chippewa will be voting in their caucuses; Oklahoma with their over 300,000 Indians and over 30 federally recognized tribes will be heading to the polls for their primary; in Utah the Navajo, Ute's, Shoshone, Paiutes and Goshute tribes will vote in their primaries. Over 1 million Indians will be voting on Super Tuesday and they can have a deciding say in who is the next president of the United States. And one man seems to know and care about that fact.

Obama has started to aggressively reach out to Native Americans in word and deed. In his words he has put together a policy which truly addresses Native problems. In his deeds he has actually gone to Indian reservations to seek our votes. He is also the co-sponsor of the all important Indian Health Care Improvement Act. And he continues to seek the Native vote"...

-snip-

Click http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=9295 for the complete article.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM

"Poll: Obama, McCain Lead in Illinois
By The Associated Press Ð 1 hour ago
THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats and Republicans in Illinois.
___
THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama, 55 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 24 percent
Undecided, 20 percent
___
THE NUMBERS - REPUBLICANS
John McCain, 43 percent
Mitt Romney, 20 percent
Mike Huckabee, 15 percent
Undecided, 17 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
In the Democratic race, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois led Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York better than 2-1 in the poll done for the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV. And 48 percent said Obama has the best chance of winning the general election, compare to 23 percent for Clinton Ñ a dramatic shift from a similar poll done Dec. 9-13 that gave Clinton 39 percent and Obama 37 percent. The December poll also ranked McCain fourth, behind Rudy Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney."
___

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:44 AM

Beautiful piece, Mick, and my sentiments exactly.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 09:40 AM

State poll shows huge gains by Obama, McCain
John Wildermuth,Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writers
Sunday, February 3, 2008


A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California's Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows.

Arizona Sen. John McCain lengthened his lead in the state Republican primary, grabbing a 32 to 24 percent edge among likely voters over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was at 13 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 10 percent.

But the Democratic numbers are the shocker. Clinton, a longtime California favorite, saw her once-commanding lead slip to two percentage points, 36 to 34 percent, in the new survey. That's down from the New York senator's 12 percentage point lead in mid-January and a 25 percentage point margin over Obama in October.

But with 18 percent of Democratic voters still undecided just days before Tuesday's primary, the election is still up for grabs, said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 09:55 AM

"Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime. " Peter Wehrner, formerly deputy assistant to President Bush, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in an article entitled Why Republicans Like Obama in the Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 12:10 PM

Obama had a rally in Boise last night and attracted 14 supporters. Wait, that was supposed to be 14,000 supporters. In Idaho.

The reddest of the red states.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 03:49 PM

He just finished speaking in St Louis MO; the crowd was in tears. He offered poetry, excitement, courage, vision AND particular platforms and programs which hit them where they lived and sounded possible. This man is the most impressive speaker I have ever seen, possibly including JFK, but he is also a hard-nosed manager who, I think, will prove effective and efficient as well as inspiring.

Put him in, boys, and let him run.

I think he has what we need.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the San Francisco Chronicle are endorsing Barack Obama in the upcoming Feb. 5 Democratic presidential primary.

The Obama campaign announced the Post-Dispatch endorsement Saturday. The Post-Dispatch, which is the largest paper in Missouri, also circulates in Southern Illinois. Voters in both states head to the polls on Feb. 5.

California voters also go to the polls on Feb. 5.

The Post-Dispatch writes that:

We disagree with the details of some of Mr. Obama's legislative proposals, particularly his heavy reliance on insurance companies as part of an overhaul of national health policy. But we are comforted by his legislative career in Springfield and in Washington, where he worked diligently across party lines, seeking common ground and, often, finding it. He offers a welcome return to civility and cooperation.
We're afraid that wouldn't be the case with his principal opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. She has been a diligent senator since her election in 2001, but she is a lightning rod. There is a difference, too, between seeking consensus and "triangulating" core principles into positions palatable to campaign donors.

And we confess to a certain "Clinton fatigue." The emergence of the former president as the Luca Brasi of the campaign trail reminds us of the worst of the Clinton years: the divisiveness and the bickering; the too-casual, if artful, blend of truth and half-truth. We're not eager for the replay. As to John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, he is the right man at the wrong time, a star whose light is eclipsed by the tail of a comet.

Comets don't come around that often. In January of 1961, Ann Dunham Obama was six weeks pregnant with Barack Obama Sr.'s child when President Kennedy said at his inauguration that "the torch has been passed to a new generation." It's that time again.

The full endorsement will be posted on the Post-Dispatch Web site, stltoday.com

The Chronicle writes that:

The American political system needs a period of reprieve and renewal.
It needs a reprieve from a White House that draws power from fear, sneers at any science that gets in the way of corporate or theocratic missions and stubbornly adheres to policies that leave the nation sinking in debt and mired in war. It craves a reprieve from the politics of bloodsport that prize clever calculation over courage, winning over principle, party label over national interest.

The renewal must come from a president who can lead by inspiration, who can set partisanship aside to define and achieve common goals, who can persuade a new generation of Americans that there is something noble and something important about public service.

There is no doubt about the Democrat with the vision and skills to bring that period of reprieve and renewal. It is Sen. Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 09:41 PM

WILMINGTON, Del. -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama flew from St. Louis to Delaware for a rally in Wilmington before returning to Chicago to watch the Super Bowl in the comfort of home with his family (and maybe some of his Secret Service agents, whom he said he'd invite in if they wanted to join him).

An estimated 20,000 turned out for the rally at a downtown square in Wilmington, according to the fire department, with thousands who couldn't fit inside the square squeezing up against the perimeter fence and spreading onto the steps of surrounding buildings. It was the largest Wilmington rally city officials could remember.

Obama expanded on his customary stump speech by including a new section arguing that he would make a stronger opponent against Sen. John McCain in the general election because he had opposed the war in Iraq from the start and would thus be less conflicted than Clinton in debating that issue with McCain.

"If John McCain is the nominee, then the Democratic Party has to ask itself, do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq, or someone who can offer a stark contrast?" Obama said. "When I'm the nominee McCain won't be able to say, 'You were for this war in Iraq,' because I wasn'’t....I can offer a clear and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush....We need clarity in this campaign, and that’s what I offer."

It was just the latest enormous rally for Obama. The past week has seen him draw audiences of 18,000 in Denver, 20,000 in St. Louis, and more than 13,000 in Boise, Idaho. The size of the crowds has astonished those attending and persuaded some of them that Obama was on the way to winning their states, even if polls showed him closing the gap but still trailing.

"It's a snowball running down a steep hill. It's picking up all along," said Kevin Worden, the director of Habitat for Humanity in Rochester, Minn., and one of the 18,000 who turned out to see Obama in Minneapolis on Saturday.

"Look at these numbers!" said Helen Douglas-Taylor, a St. Louis teacher, as she looked out at the full floor of the St. Louis Rams football stadium on Saturday night. "We're going to change this nation. We're just ready as a nation for something fresh. And he is fresh."

To be sure, plenty of those attending Obama rallies are still undecided, coming to see him to help make up their mind, or simply to catch a glimpse of a public sensation. In Wilmington, Debbie Demeter, a teacher, said she was still trying to decide between Obama and Clinton. "He's a very elegant speaker, and a sign of hope and change for the future. He's young, and he can bring forth some new ideas," she said. But, she added, "I would love to see the first woman president."

But there is an unmistakable sense on the trail that, heading into Super Tuesday, Obama has succeeded in reclaiming his momentum. Voters turning out for the rallies say the reason for his resurgence is quite simple: he embodies change in a way that Clinton simply cannot and is offering a sort of communal inspiration and excitement that is hard to resist.

---

If you get a chance to view a replay of this St Louis Feb 2 event, don't miss it. It is a spectacular event, and a very real speech at the same time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM

Correction:

The "Yes We Can" music video whose link I included in my 02 Feb 08 - 08:58 AM post to this thread is based on Barack Obama's New Hampshire primary concession speech and not his South Carolina primary victory speech.


**

Here's some more endorsement news-Maria Shriver, wife of the [Republican] governor of California, Arnold Schwartzenegger [sp?] publicly endorsed Barack Obama at the UCLA rally held today that featured Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy [her married name?], and Oprah Winfrey.

This was a surprise endorsement. It's bound to get huge coverage throughout the California [and national] news media, and probably will have some effect on the already tight primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

**

Stevie Wonder was also at that abovementioned UCLA rally. He also endorsed Barack Obama.

**

Joan Baez also endorsed Barack Obama through a letter she sent to a San Francisco newspaper. Baez wrote that, though she had been asked to do so many times, she had never endorsed any other political candidate. Yet, she did so because she believed in Barack Obama's candidacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

"Stevie Wonder was also at that abovementioned UCLA rally. He also endorsed Barack Obama."

. . . he's for-sure colour blind.



Obama will be next President of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:54 PM

Hmmm. That's quite interesting that Joan (Baez) decided to endorse him. Most unusual that she would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:06 PM

It makes perfect sense that she would do that. In a lot of ways, Obama's candidacy--especially if he wins--says more clearly than anything else could that what Joan Baez--and so many others--stood for in the early 1960's--was worth it--and has come to fruition.

And it's the rejection of the politics of cynicism--finally--for the politics of hope, and the rejection of the politics of division for that of unity. Why would she not endorse him?

As anybody else who has rejected cynicism and divisive politics would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:13 PM

I say that it's unusual simply because she has (as far as I know) never before chosen to endorse a presidential candidate, and I say it for no other reason whatsoever. That makes it unusual, correct?

I also like the fact that Obama does not play the politics of division. I like it a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:17 PM

Here's Joan Baez's letter of endorsement of Barack Obama:

Leader on a new journey

Editor - I have attempted throughout my life to give a voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless, encouragement to the discouraged, and options to the cynical and complacent. From Northern Ireland to Sarajevo to Latin America, I have sung and marched, engaged in civil disobedience, visited war zones, and broken bread with those who had little bread to break.

Through all those years, I chose not to engage in party politics. Though I was asked many times to endorse candidates at every level, I was never comfortable doing so. At this time, however, changing that posture feels like the responsible thing to do. If anyone can navigate the contaminated waters of Washington, lift up the poor, and appeal to the rich to share their wealth, it is Sen. Barack Obama. If anyone can bring light to the darkened corners of this nation and restore our positive influence in world affairs, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can begin the process of healing and bring unity to a country that has been divided for too long, it is Barack Obama. It is time to begin a new journey.

JOAN BAEZ
Menlo Park

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/ED50UO8QM.DTL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:18 PM

Sorry, I thought you were honestly puzzled. Glad you understand the reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:37 PM

Here's an article about Maria's Shriver's endorsement of Barack Obama:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9S1GoNUsKhPMU8fu-tBFidEK-UQ

Here's the quote that is getting the most attention from Shriver's impromptu speech:

"The more I thought about it, I thought, you know, if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California.

"I mean, think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader!"

-snip-

And here's the link to the video of Maria Shriver's endorsement of Obama:

That link also includes the video of Oprah Winfrey's speech at that UCLA rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/watch-maria-shrivers-su_n_84711.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:56 PM

Oprah, Stevie Wonder, Maria Shriver pitch Obama
By Michael Martinez

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/oprah_stevie_wonder_maria_shri.html

2/3/2008

LOS ANGELES -- Oprah Winfrey was greeted with a rousing ovation that seemed largely composed of women, especially when they responded to Oprah's remarks about women.

Also attending the rally was Michelle Obama, who escorted Stevie Wonder on stage, though both stumbled up the stairs. Wonder later joked: "By the way, I was so busy looking at the next first lady that I lost my way."

Wonder even sang a little dittie, with a harmonica, that was sung as if he were reciting the musical scales in ascending and descending order to the name of "Ba-rack O-ba-ma."

-snip-

[my addition of italics]

I haven't been able to find a video of this yet. If I do, I'll post a link. If someone else does, please post.

**

Btw, one quotable quote from Oprah's speech at that event was when she refuted the idea that she's a traitor to her gender because she didn't support Hillary Clinton [as some "fans" of her show have said] and on the idea that she's only supporting Obama "because he's Black." Oprah said something like "I'm not supporting Barack Obama because he's Black, I'm supporting him because he's brilliant!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:59 PM

Keep it moving on -- put him in and let him roll, godammit.


And he is brilliant.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:06 AM

Amos, and others, if you've never seen an Al Rodgers photo diary, click on this hyperlink:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/23238/48095/261/449255

ROLL TIDE, ROLL
by Al Rodgers
Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM PST

**

Al Rodgers is absolutely masterful in the way he embeds photos in his diaries [diaries are like Mudcat threads only there is a beginning comment-or in this case-photo journal-followed by other members' comments and/or post of videos, photos, hyperlinks].

The photos in this diary-provided in a slide show like format-are of Obama rallies in Delaware, San Francisco, St. Louis, NYC, and Los Angeles.

Check it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 08:12 AM

...if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California

I'm not sure I'd be too happy with that round my neck if I were Obama...
...............................

Interesting piece by Gary Younge in today's Guardian. In this great meritocracy, only one thing matters: who is your daddy?:   

Making the point that one strong point form Obama is that he isn't part of one of America's royal families. "To change the political sclerosis gripping their country, Americans need a president distinguished by his lack of pedigree."

But that even so, the dynastic character of the current system is demonstrated in the fact that backing from the Kennedies, and now from an Eisenhower, is seen as so significant for Obama's chances.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

Azizi!! THANK you so much for those pictures.

They restore my trust in the American spirit.

AFter the last eight years -- especially the last two elections -- I was beginning to feel jaded, cynical, and highly critical of my co-citizens.

This guy is just what the doctor ordered.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:15 AM

But doesn't he look vulnerable. Especially with all the "new Kennedy" allusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:21 AM

He has a certain emotional coherence which is capable of feeling, but showing the strength of a person unafraid of his own feelings. Sensitive, but I would not say "vulnerable". That's on a personality level.

As far as his political vulnerability, he is building enough grass roots enthusiasm that anyone who wanted tor un a Swift Boat campaign on him would have to do it very cleverly or end up looking like an idiot and a frothing reactionary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:28 PM

God help us all when the day comes we need a swift boat...as they came foreward to help in Katrina for example..and they say screw it..they have slandered us too much. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM

Obama has won another celebrity endorsement, this time from Maria Shriver.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:39 PM

WARNING: THIS POST IS SATIRE,PARODY,AND HUMOR NOT INTENDED FOR MASS PUBLIC CREDENCE
************************************************************

Chelsea Sneaks Out, Declares for Barack

Chelsea Clinton, former First Daughter, held an unexpected press conference at 1:00 on the morning of February 2d, and announced she was throwing her support whole-heartedly behind Barack Obama's candidacy.

"I love my mother, don't get me wrong," she told reporters at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport's confernece room, which she rented using her father's Master Card. "But she's like, so, like...I mean, she's such a 'rent!! The only thing hip about her is her waistline. I know she thinks she deserves to be President, but I am so like, "Whatever, Mom!". But I am crazy about Barack. He makes my heart flutter. And I think he would be a really, really awesome President for our country."

Reporters were unable to get the details of Chelsea's household rebellion from her, but apparently she shinnied down a nearby pine tree from her second-story bed-room and rode her bike to the neareast Avis office, where she rented a car and drove to Kennedy airport, making calls on her cellphone to reserve last minute tickets, call the press conference, and reserve the conference room in DFW's huge airport. As far as can be determined, all these expenses are being paid for by her parents' credit card and Verizon accounts.

Contacted by phone, her mother was irate at being raised from sleep at 5 in the morning. "Do you know what TIME it is?", she snarled at this reporter. "My daughter is upstairs in her bed, sleeping, as far as I know." This reporter had no further opportunity to offer the candidate an update on recent events.

Oprah Winfrey told the press shortly after Chelsea's conference that she was "incredibly proud of this independent and strong minded young American woman." Chelsea's father had no comment when contact at his wife's campaign headquarters later this nmorning.

***********************************************************************

WARNING: THE FOREGOING NEWS ARTICLE WAS FICTITIOUS. ANY RESEMBLANCE TO REAL INDIVIDUALS ALIVE OR DEAD IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:03 PM

Well, I like Sen. Obama a lot, and don't like Sen. Clinton. On the other hand, I think she has more substance than he does. On the third hand, I didn't like President Clinton (and like him less now), but I thought he did a good job in the office. I guess I have about 24 hours to decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM

Art:

Put your back behind Barack; I am positive you will not regret it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:42 PM

I didn't mean politically vulnerable....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:48 PM

MG:

The slandering of a small number of swift-boat crew was incurred by the individuals themselves, because they chose to sell their integrity and their honesty to the highest bidder. in order to undermine John Kerry's character.


It is unfortunate that the term came to be used for "any defamatory campaign involving false stories", but that accident of history can also be laid at the feet of those who decided the truth was less important than the ends.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM

In this interesting display the NY Times shows individuals and newspapers who have endorsed candidates. Hillary has two more celebs of various kinds than Obama does endorsing her. But Obama has ten more newspapers endorsing him -- a much, much larger percentage lead in papers than she has in individual opinion-makers.

It is certainly and interesting battle, isn't it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:04 PM

Here is a good editorial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM

mg's link:

Obama vs. the Phobocracy

By Michael Chabon
Monday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM

There are many reasons not to support Barack Obama's candidacy for president, but every one of them is bad for the same reason.

Because I have come out publicly for the senator from Illinois, I am often called upon to listen as people offer up -- with wistfulness and regret, or with a pundit's show of certainty, or with a well-earned but useless skepticism -- their bad reasons for not giving Obama their support. For a long time now, I have listened to these people with forbearance and with a sense of duty -- not to some principle of open debate or of the inherent merit in the free exchange of even meritless ideas, but rather out of obligation to the candidate whose cause I champion.

Because Obama appears to be a patient, forbearing man with a gift for listening, I figured I owed it to him to play the thing his way. So I have nodded and looked into their eyes and hummed sympathetically as people gave their reasons and made their excuses and generally offered up, as if they were golden ingots of profound wisdom, the handful of two-penny nails with which they plan to board up the windows of their hopes for themselves, their families, their country and the world.

But now, with everything seeming to come down, at last, to the first Tuesday in February, and in the wake of an all-out, months-long push by the cynicism industry to cook up an entire line of bad reasons ready to heat and serve, I admit that I'm getting tired of listening to rationales from people who know that Obama is a remarkable, even an extraordinary politician, the kind who comes along, in this era of snakes and empty smiles, no more than once a generation. ...

(See rest of article at above link).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:39 PM

Obama ...and DeNiro
by John McCormick

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. With the team's home stadium nearby, Sen. Barack Obama today compared himself to the New York Giants in last night's Super Bowl.

"Sometimes the underdog pulls it out. You can't always believe the pundits and prognosticators," Obama told those inside the IZOD Center at the Meadowlands during what was one of his flatter recent appearances.

It was a line Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, had already tried out on a few reporters early this morning before the campaign plane took off from Chicago's Midway Airport.

In the audience here were former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, who has endorsed Obama, and movie star Robert De Niro, a new endorser and someone the candidate said was of special interest to his Secret Service entourage.

"Those guys never smile. They're always cool," Obama told a crowd his campaign said totaled about 4,500. "But I noticed when De Niro walks in, they're all like elbowing each other…They were excited."

Speaking to the audience before Obama entered the room, De Niro said he is not used to giving political speeches.

"I've never made a speech like this at a political event before," he said, interrupted by applause. "So, what am I doing here? I'm here because finally one person has inspired me. One person has given me hope. One person has made me believe that we can make a change."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 04:15 PM

From the Huffington Post:

Obama's a Mac, Clinton's a PC

Posted February 1, 2008 | 01:36 PM (EST)



With John Edwards out of the race, Democratic voters must squarely confront a choice this election season every bit as stark as that facing millions of Americans each year as they replace their outdated computers: Mac or PC.

We have all seen the ads, we know the right thing to do is to buy a Macintosh, but we hesitate. Will I be able to open all my PC files? Will it be able to run Outlook? Am I really going to make those photo albums and movies anyway? Am I cool enough for a Mac?

Obama, like the Mac, seems almost too good to be true. He's young, hip, inspiring, and promising to do for Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for Republicans, assemble and maintain the working majority in Washington desperately needed to enact changes in foreign policy, health care and energy security. And in soaring moments at the podium -- at the Democratic Convention in 2004, in Iowa at the Jefferson/Jackson dinner, at Ebenezer Baptist over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend -- Obama appears ready and able to make good on these grand promises.

But Democrats are still deeply divided. Having been in the political wilderness for much of the last 30 years, we are, understandably, a risk adverse bunch. We cling to Hillary like that old-reliable PC that we keep on our desks. We respond to her message: she's tested, able to handle every dirty trick Republicans will throw at her, ready on day one.

All true, but there's also the darker side of the story. As the hipster in the Mac commercial loves to point out, a PC isn't actually all that reliable: reboot, reboot. We all experienced the rollercoaster ride that was the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency: we should be confident in voting for Hillary only to expect the unexpected. And PC owners just try to forget about the whole "blue screen of death," melted hard drive thing, just like Democrats put Monica, impeachment and disbarment as far from their minds as possible as they contemplate pulling another voting lever for a presidential candidate named Clinton.

Still, what if the alternative is worse? We think we know what we'll get with Hillary -- more of that '90s show -- and right now that doesn't seem bad. Plus no one is better at bare knuckles politics than the Clintons, and that may still be required to win the White House. What if Obama loses a foreign policy fight with John McCain, then where will we be. What if he can't navigate the slings and arrows of Washington, and ends up slinking back to Chicago in 2013 the way Jimmy Carter slunk back to Plains in 1981. No Democrat can afford that.

But we can't afford another four years of Washington infighting where nothing gets done either. For me, Macintosh sealed the deal last week when they introduced that new paper-thin, feather-light laptop. After clunking around my 10 pound, 2 inch-thick Windows job for the last 8 years, enough is enough. Perhaps for Democrats, seeing Obama trounce Clinton in South Carolina -- after taking everything the Clintons' could throw his way -- will have a similar effect.

---

The important difference, of course, is that even some very smart people use PCs, for various reasons.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM

mg, I think the world of you and I really appreciate your stands for those of us who have served. But I must tell you, I was completely ashamed of those who, in their zeal to support a conservative, cast aspersions on an honorable man's honorable and heroic service. I cannot remember a time I was more disgusted at the lengths that some will go to for political gain. You did not have to like Kerry, I respect that. But to denigrate his service was reprehensible and without merit. It was one of the most dishonorable acts I have ever seen.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM

I like Kerry well enough. I think the zeal came from true concern and true outrage that they had been painted, in testimony to congress, as committers of atrocities. There is more. I doubt it was for political gain origianlly, alhtough I intentially did not follow this as I was not there. I do not know what happened. I can only presume that everyone is telling the truth as he saw it. Lots happens in war. But to think they were all just doing this for political reasons or their comments were bought strikes me as delerious. They put their reputations on the line there and did it to prevent a man they had intimate knowledge of, at least some of them, from becoming president. There is something there but I am not going to delve into it. I will defend Kerry as much as I will defend them. I can't sort it out, simple as it seems to many people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 09:48 PM

What I am trying to say is the zeal is not the zeal to support a conservative candidate but to prevent one, whom they deemed unworthy in their eyes for reasons of their own, from taking office. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:04 PM

mg - It's possible, I suppose. (what you said)

Some Vietnam veterans, despite giving very honorable service in combat, ended up bitterly opposing that war.....and they were naturally then at extreme odds with many other veterans who supported the war (as well as with the government and the high command). They probably all had what they felt were honorable intentions...but when people disagree on something like that then the falling out between them can become very bitter. And that leads to accusations and counter-accusations. It gets very nasty very fast...because EVERYONE involved feels so righteous in their position.

There were definitely cases of American troops who tortured and summarily executed prisoners in Vietnam, violating the Geneva Accords...as has happened in some various wars too. Such things often can happen in a war, but if someone like John Kerry points out that it happened, then he will inevitably get attacked in turn by other service personnel who didn't see it happen and who think he is attacking the entire service, and by extension attacking them...rather than the actions of certain other individuals in the service who got out of control. They take it personally, in other words, when it wasn't aimed at them.

We have had cases in Iraq also of US personnel who tortured and executed prisoners and committed atrocities, and there's no doubt about it. Some of them were charged. That doesn't mean that all US personnel in Iraq are thereby guilty by association. There's always a danger of such things happening, because an army is made of up many individuals, and when they are under great stress then some of them may break the rules. To expose it is not to attack the entire service, and I don't think that Kerry meant to attack the entire service, but some servicemen may have felt that he did just that.

They would see him as a traitor...but someone who tells what he honestly believes is true is no traitor. He's a whistleblower. And an army and nation need people to blow the whistle when things get way out of hand.

Otherwise, how can proper discipline and proper military conduct be maintained?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:38 AM

:No. Read my lips. They served with him and rightly or wrongly felt he was talking about them when he talked about atrocities he had witnessed.. Has nothing to do with the entire service, or what was going on in other parts of the country. They felt he was telling the world that they had committed atrocities. Them, not others. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:00 AM

Here's another Al Rodgers' photo essay of Obama rallies throughout the USA:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/01338/40451/512/450013
WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION ( 2x Update)
by Al Rodgers
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM PST

-snip-

It's not just that the technique of having multiple slide shows in a text format is so remarkable.

It's also that the photos in the slide show are so interesting and are of such good quality.

I'm not sure whether Al Rodgers took any or all of the photographers. But kudos to the him and/or to whoever the photographer/s is or are!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:55 AM

Here's the link to a brief video clip of Stevie Wonder at the Obama UCLA rally. In this video, Stevie Wonder led the audience in chanting Barack Obama's name:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWL1G8iu32g

"Stevie Wonder appeared with Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama and Marie Shriver just before the California Primary." Feb 3, 2008

-snip-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:39 AM

Celebrity endorsements? Oh yeah, that SO matters to me.

PC vs Mac?

Oh please. Amos, syllogistically that makes as much sense as Conan made Huckabee.

The anti-feminist bent of the Obamarama show has me completely turned off. Let's keep telling the trophy wife lies about being home every night and weekend with the kids, and SO much more sexy than Hilary because she can keep her man at home too.

No thanks. Makes me want to retch.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:54 AM

BTW Amos, I use BOTH PCs and Macs daily, and run Linux on my machines too.

So what does that make me, in terms of that silly syllogistic logic of yours?

Let's see if you can come up with a clever retort that addresses the issue of YOUR badly flawed logic, rather than your usual ad hominems against anyone who dares disagree with you.

To claim that there is no logical reason to support a candidate other than Obama, because your flawed logic says so & here are more cut and paste articles that agree with me & my logic...

Really? So, your way or the highway, right Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:18 AM

Guest:

I don't know why you're taking that silly syllogism so seriously.

I am not. It was posted as humor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:25 AM

Hillary seems to have gotten the momentum back!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:21 PM

Is this always the same GUEST who posts as GUEST,Guest Only some of the posts in that non-name read if they come from different people, with rather different attitudes. Why not join as a member, and that won't be able to happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:58 PM

Yes, let the real Guest-Guest stand tall and be recognized.

Some are really more coherent than others.

Some just appear to want attention.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:35 PM

I notice that Barack Obama seems to be much braver, to stand taller, to stay calmer, and to speak more intelligently, than those who jump in as his detractors. Why is this?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:56 PM

Just dig this, buckaroos and buckarettes. Just truly get down and dig what is happening in there. Just grok that one flick. Please and thank you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:20 PM

This Yes We Can clip has the printed words as well. (Click on "more" under "About this Video" on the right of the screen.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:38 PM

HEy -- if you ain't dug it, you're left like two Ls, man....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM

Okay, mg, I read your lips....but was Kerry talking about them? That's the question. Who exactly was he talking about? How many individuals, when, and where? In which unit(s)? On what occasions? What did he witness? Why would he make such allegations if he didn't believe them? He IS an American, after all, he's not a combatant from some opposing nation's army. I'm sure he loves America just as much as other Americans do.

There were some individuals in American uniforms who committed war crimes during that war, correct? There are almost always some such individuals in wars, specially in lengthy wars that involve bitter guerilla warfare. So who specifically was John Kerry talking about when he made those allegations?

If that's not clear, then what can anyone definitively say about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:17 PM

More to the point in a way is where war crimes are the result of policy decisions at higher levels, rather than merely being aberrations by the people who directly perpetrate them.

The Nuremberg principal is that it is no defence for a soldier who has committed war crimes to have been following orders from above. But the corollary of that is that the primary guilt lies with those who give the orders and frame the policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:25 PM

I couldn't agree more. The really great war crimes are committed not by the individual soldiers, but by the politicians and business people who plan the wars and prosecute them....on down the chain of command...through the generals to the lesser officers...and finally to the battlefield.

The war leaders themselves who set policy are the greatest war criminals, in my opinion, but they never get any of the blood and dirt on their own hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:32 PM

I am not getting into this. The people he served with thought, rightly or wrongly, that he was talking about them when he was talking about atrocities. It sort of rubbed them the wrong way.

And it is bad enough for ordinary ignorant people to use the word "swift-boat" in a bad way, but for a future commander in chief..and at least two possibile contenders have used it, most recently creepy woman..when she might be commanding them...or he..is disgusting. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:03 PM

Oh, get off that high horse, mg...

This boils down to nothing more than a bunch or wealthy Republicans who put together a "527" to get folks who, yes, served in Vietnam, but who were ***not there*** to witness what Kerry did or did not do... This was a purely disgusting piece of personal character assaination by folks who were Republican and wanted Bush to win in '04...

It was so over-the-top disgusting that it has crept into our vernacular... The English language is evolutionary and just becuase you think you have the right to stand up and say, "Hey, stop that" doesn't mean that it will stop... That is the nature of evolution...

The best thing you can do is accept that "swift boating" is part of our evolution, as well as our culture, and get over it... It is well beyond your grasp to stop it's use...

And I would hope that seein' that "swift boating" has become part of our language that folks in the future will not resort to leing about people records for political gain... In that context, it may have a positive effect on future campaigns...

BTW, Kerry wasn't the first to be targeted by Republicans... There is a certain former Georgia Senator who came home from Nam with no legs and only one fully functional arm who these folks "swift boated" outta office a few years back...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:20 PM

Bobert - The really ironic thing about the swift boat folks is, while they were in the process of torpedoing Kerry, they were electing a drunk coke-head who went AWOL from his command in Alabama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:48 PM

Ahhhhhh, yeah, that too, Rigs...

That why I find it so incredulous that mg would make a stand here...

Yeah, the drunk frat boy gets a pass and the guy who went to Nam when he didn't have to is made out to be the bad guy by a bunch of Repubs who don't know jack from jack about what Kerry did 'casue they, ahhhhh, weren't friggin' there???

Go figure... Maybe mg can straighten this out??? Or not...

I'm sick of chickenhawk Repubs smearin' folks who serve as cowards or liars or whatevers...Let these sumabich's go off and actually, ahhhhh, friggin' put their lives on the line for what they love to describe as "freedom" and then they can talk...

Until then, to all swift boaters, shut the heck up!!!

And, mg, that goes for you, too... If you are too ignorant to keep up with this nasty little game that Karl Rove has played on men who have put their lives on the line then you won't get any room here... I will call you at every turn... You won't get by with yer righteous indignation...

Chickenhawks ain't allowed to call vets cowards and liars... Thems is the rules!!! Today and for all your tomorrows... Thems is the rules...

Period!!!!!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:51 PM

The Swift Boat people can say whatever they want in response to their feeling that Kerry was fingering US soldiers as war criminals. But that does not give them the right to allege that Kerry himself did not fight bravely in combat. That is an outright lie.

Also note that the people saying that are not men who actually served on Kerry's Swift Boat. It seems reasonable that people who did serve directly under Kerry would know more about his personal military service--which is the issue "Swift Boats for Truth" or whatever they labelled themselves--were attacking.

People who served directly under Kerry acknowledged his bravery. One says Kerry saved his life.

Somehow, I get the idea we're drifting off topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:53 AM

Back to the thread's topic, I have been thinking about why people should vote for Obama. All the deconstructionists, intellectuals and pundits who like to get wonky on platforms basically gravitate toward Hillary, possibly on the principle of "better the devil you know". And there is no question that Hillary has many sterling qualities -- she is fluent in programattica, quick with details, tough in a fight, and female (with all the iherent virtues that implies) and a mother. (And the risks, as well). She's pretty bright.

Obama, though, inspires people to step into the future in ways Hillary does not. His vision of where we could go has been sucked up and embedded whole cloth into all the other politicians speeches as their own, especially HIllary's. But he generated them originally.

I think Obama is plenty tough. But he has two young children, where H. has one almost fully grown clone. So he's a bit more vulnerable in some ways.

But these are secondary issues. The big lesson of the last decade is that when the chips are down, and we require the most from leadership, is in the face of the unexpected. Katrina, the World Trade Center, London terrorist strikes, were all pretty much blind-side events of magnitude, and the current administration failed miserably in dealing with the two that impacted us directly.

In this regard, I believe Obama is far more reliable a leader than Hillary. He has a greater depth of understanding of the whole spectrum of life in this country, while she has been a daughter of privelege and money all her life. His experience has been more directly with and for the real hard-working strata of the country. ANd most important, his heart is genuinely geared toward a vision of makign the world better, while I suspect hers is more oriented around personal success.

In the gfinal analysis, with all the complexities and details and chatter behind us, there is one bottom-line fundamental which weighs strongly in Barack Obama's favor in my thinking: he is a better human being than HIllary Clinton is. That is worth a lot of programmatics and worth more than a lot of cleverness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM

Remember Cassius Clay, the Christian boxer from Kentucky, he won the heavyweight title and emerged the next day as Muhammad Ali, embracing Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM

Riginslinger--

WHat the hell? WHat is your point? Are you implying that Obama could do the same thing, because he has a similar amount of melanin or pigment in his hide? WHat kind of an off-the-wall comparison is this?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:17 PM

I think I have earned the right to speak to this topic. There was NO excuse for what the 527 Swift Boat folks did. There is no justification whatsoever. Many who served came home against the war. As to what was done by SOME in 'Nam, there is no question that atrocities occurred. There is also no doubt that the great majority of those that served did so honorably. It is my opinion that those that opposed the war were,FOR THE MOST PART, honorable folks that were fighting for what they believed in. The fact that Kerry served honorably is not disputable, he acted heroically and honorably and was decorated justifiably for those actions. When he came home, he like many of us found himself deeply troubled and struggling with the conflict between love of country, and doing the right thing. Anyone who thinks this is an easy struggle needs to read the link in my last sentence. In hindsight, Kerry was right to oppose the war. Folks coming out of the '50's had a sanitized view of their soldiers and the tragedy of war based on a perception created by films and TV shows that were based on the propaganda films of WWII.

Now, let's get back to the topic at hand.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:58 PM

"WHat is your point?"

          I guess I'm getting paranoid. Almost everybody where I work think Obama is a Muslim in disguise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

Riginslinger, I have read your posts for a long while and had my suspicions. But that last one finally did it. Paranoid is not the term. Xenophobic and racist are the ones that come to mind. I would say that "almost everyone" where you work are the same, except that I doubt seriously that "almost everyone" is an accurate description. I have several questions for you. First, if he was a Moslem how is that anymore relevant than if he were a Catholic, Jew, Baptist, or (Heaven forbid!!!!) an atheist?? Second, do you read or just listen to rumors? This story has been investigated by so many folks that would love to prove its true, and every time it comes back as having no basis in fact. I believe that folks should just admit their racism, and quit trying to hide it in this type of thing.   

Folks that think like this are what is wrong with this country. It is the "fast food" school of intellect. Folks like you describe don't want to be bothered with facts, just stories that are easy to get and are in line with their prejudices. It is the antithesis of the thoughtful intellectual progressive. No friggin wonder we got stuck with this draft dodging, lying, chicken hawk for 8 years with voters like this. Don't you get tired of being used by folks that use half truth and misconceptions because they have an agenda they want to advance. Does the term "pawn" ever come to mind?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:52 PM

Mick - I'm just reporting what they told me. I mention it here because I see it as a huge problem in the future. If you will look up on the thread, you will see where other people have been told the same thing.
                        I would submit that the people who are being used here are the ones who are failing to assess all the information out there. And I would agree, the people who are coming to these conclusions are the same people who elected George W. I didn't vote for him.

                        As far as being Moslim being relevant, it isn't. Islam is as bad as any of the other religions you mention as far as I'm concerned. But what chance do you think a Moslim would have in getting elected in this country?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:54 PM

I would submit that the people who are being used here are the ones who are failing to assess all the information out there.

Care to share with us what information you are referring to?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:01 PM

Mick - All I'm saying is, McCain and his folks have been around the barn a number of times. If they see something they think will give them the advantage, my guess is they'll jump on it.
                   There won't be any limit, I don't think, to the 527 groups that will come out of the weeds to jump on Obama in the general election. Plus, Limbaugh and all of those idiots will be burning up the airwaves with whatever material they can come up with. They don't care one bit if any of it is true or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM

I repeat the question: Care to share with us what information you are referring to?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM

The disinformation I stated above to start with. I don't know what all they'll come up with. But the reason I think Hillary would be a stronger candidate in the general election is because Kenneth Starr has already vetted her--like Whitewater, for instance--there's nothing left for them to find.
                And, just like Whitewater, none of these accusations have to be true for the right-wing-wakkos to run with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

Well, I do not think we should fear to do what is right just because he might get some mud thrown at him. Liars will always lie, and angry people will always throw mud, and the mindless will keep opening their mouths. It's been that way in these parts for over two hundred years. So we better get used to it and hitch up the goddamned mules to pull through it, and fuck them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:34 PM

LOL Amos. Like fine wine, your eloquence improves with each year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:10 PM

So if your work colleagues have told you that Obama is a Muslim have you told them they are talking complete and utter bollocks, Riginslinger?

But as Amos just said "Liars will always lie".

It's not that being a Muslim should rule out someone being a good person to vote for - but this isn't just a claim that he is a Muslim. It is a claim that, by virtue of presenting himself as being a member of a Christian congregation, and in fact of being a member, he is a liar and a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:12 PM

What the hell if Obama WAS a Muslim????????????????

So what? What difference does it make? I know lots of Muslims here in Canada, and I would not be afraid to have a single one of them assume a position of responsibility...including Prime Minister, if they had the experience to do it.

For Christ's sake...talk about a non-issue! It speaks volumes about the insanity of the current mindset in the USA (and some other places) that someone can actually be attacked merely on the possibility that he might be a Muslim. Good God. Unbelievable.

I thought that freedom of religion was guaranteed in the USA Constitution. It is, isn't it? Well, if so, no one has "boo" to say about someone on the basis of him being a Muslim. Muslims are human beings too.

How can people lose sight of their own Constitutional values to this extent? Did Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Ben Franklin struggle entirely in vain in their efforts to build a better and more just society???

******

Now, Rinslinger, I understand your point about Obama possibly being vulnerable to such attacks by the Republicans. Yes, indeed. And I understand how Hillary Clinton is vulnerable to other forms of attack by the Republicans too. And how! Anyone who runs against the Republicans is going to be attacked in horribly unscrupulous ways, because there are lots of people who get paid to dream up those sorts of attacks and market them at election time. Anyone who runs for the Republicans also runs that same risk, matter of fact. It cuts both ways.

Since such attacks are apparently inescapable, I should think one has to be prepared for them and prepared to treat them with the contempt they deserve.

What is a real shame is that there are not more severe legal risks afterward to those who launch such attacks. If they got their fingers badly burned, they might think twice about making a further living through character assassination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:55 AM

LH - I guess what is most disturbing is, the attacks can be made without any evidence at all to back them up, and the public buys into them. And your right, there should be something in place to take those attackers to task.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:06 PM

A well-oiled legal attack machine handing out defamation of character writs and slander suits might be a good tool.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:17 PM

Washington Governor to Endorse Obama
By Jeff Zeleny



SEATTLE – At a rally here later today, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire intends to announce her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, adding another governor to the ranks of his supporters.

The decision places her at odds with the state's two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of whom have endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the eve of the caucuses here, the governor conceded, it was a difficult choice to make.

"Lots of people said, 'Just stay out of it,'" Ms. Gregoire said in an interview with David Ammons, a political reporter for The Associated Press in Olympia. "But all of my friends are going to caucus on Saturday and will be asked to make up their mind, so why shouldn't I? It was time for me to make up my mind."

Endorsements, as the results on Super Tuesday indicated, don't always mean that the beneficiary will carry the state. (Mr. Obama, for example, lost Arizona and Massachusetts, both states where he was endorsed by governors and senators.) But as the Democratic nominating fight devolves into a madcap chase for delegates, suddenly the endorsements from elected officials could matter a lot more.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:45 PM

Most recent head-to-head match-ups:


Time (Feb 1-4)


Obama 48 (+7)

McCain 41


Clinton 46 (+0)

McCain 46



CNN/Opinion Research (Feb 1-3)


Obama 52 (+8)

McCain 44


Clinton 50 (+3)

McCain 47



Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll (Jan 31-Feb 2)


Obama 45 (+2)

McCain 43


Clinton 41 (-4)

McCain 45



ABC/Washington Post (Jan 31 – Feb 1)


Obama 49 (+3)

McCain 46


Clinton 46 (-3)

McCain 49



Fox News (Jan 30-31)


Obama 44 (+1)

McCain 43


Clinton 44 (-1)

McCain 45


Rasmussen (2/04-2/07)

Obama: 47 (+5)

McCain: 42


Clinton: 43 (-3)

McCain: 46

Reported in The Atlantic blogs

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:26 PM

Yeah, it should be a no-brainer that Obama is the one that the Repubs don't want to run against...

But don't belive me... Ask Bill Clinton... He just got a butt whup for sayin'... Ahhhhh, what was it that Bill said that was so outrageous???

See, Obama gets a "PC" bump... The Repubs don't want to be accused or seen as playin' the race card and even if they are very mindfull, they, may step into some of the same traps that Bill C. stepped in... And guess what, folks... There ain't no defense for it other than the proverbial "dance of ther dieing duck" and that will make them look soft...

Yeah, McWar's biggest nightmare is spelled O-B-A-M-A...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:32 AM

Three days after the voting ended, the race for Democratic delegates in Super Tuesday's contests was still too close to call. With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:30 AM

(From WaPO: This column was written by the editors of The Nation)

As this year's front-loaded primary calendar took shape, capped off with the February 5 Super-Mega-Duper Tuesday, many voters once again resigned themselves to watching from the sidelines as a few early states got the privilege of choosing the party's nominee. Yet despite a schedule tailor-made to benefit the establishment candidate and confer an early victory, we are, somewhat miraculously, in the midst of the most contested primary race in 24 years. We are all Iowans now.

This state of affairs is thanks almost entirely to the campaign of Barack Obama, who, because of his background and his relatively brief time in the national spotlight, is a truly improbable contender for the presidency. This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on health care, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years.

But as Christopher Hayes argued in our cover story last week, Obama has also exhibited a more humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq War while Hillary Clinton voted for it, and has been a reliable progressive ally over the course of his career. While his rhetoric about "unity" can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought. Most important, we feel his candidacy, in its demonstrated investment in organizing and grassroots activism as well as his personal appeal, represents the best chance to forge a new progressive majority. For these reasons we support Obama for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:49 AM

"post partisan rhetoric"

Is this supposed to mean that Obama does not fully lay the blame for the failures of the Bush Administration on the neo-conservative Republicans who have held power for the last 7 years? I sometimes need The Nation's editorials spelled out for me.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

No. It means that he is using rhetoric that seeks to transcend the schisms caused by the maldministration of the W years, I think.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

It's really a hard case to make that Obama oppossed the war in Iraq, given that he wasn't there to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:36 AM

Not hard at all.

Here's what he says:

"ÒBut conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, Ôan occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.Õ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.Ó"

Here's a recap:

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of Òan occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.Ó Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of IraqÕs neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:18 PM

There's a sizable Muslim community in Illinois. Does Obama do well amoung Muslim voters?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

Don't bother Rig with facts. He prefers Hillary's approach to the Iraq war--let yourself be stampeded into supporting Bush's invasion, never apologize for having done so, try to throw up all the smokescreens you can to justify your position-i.e. complete misinterpretation of the Levin Amendment, etc. The only question regarding the Levin Amendment is if Hillary is ignorant or lying.

And somehow, I suspect Rig doesn't even have a notion as to what the Levin Amendment was. Clue: it was one of the excuses Hillary brought up in her debate with Obama as to why she voted for Bush's authorization to invade Iraq.

Be that as it may, we've actually had enough of ignorance/lying in the last 7 years--as well as enough of a "leader" who never admits a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM

Gee, I wonder why Rig is constantly trying to associate Obama with Moslems in the eyes of anybody reading his posts. With no justification whatsoever.

Must be just Rig's scholarly interest in religions of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:20 PM

Just trying to size up the Swift Boat approach from the opposition, in the event that Obama is the nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM

HE will be torpedoed from every direction with all the infamous exaggerations, slanders and innuendoes anyone can invent, Rig. Your duty, and mine, as an honest human being, is to speak out and retort with truth, clarity, and rational thinking in every possible instance. I am counting on you to do so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM

Starting with work colleagues maybe: "Almost everybody where I work thinks Obama is a Muslim in disguise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM

"almost everybody at work...". Problem is Rig's track record. It's amazing what percentage is totally unsupported smears. The suspicion arises that if somebody else here actually worked at his workplace, the experience would be totally different.

Unless he actually does work at Smears R Us, of course--as the CEO.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:57 PM

Read my initial post to him with a critical eye.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 04:52 PM

'Starting with work colleagues maybe: "Almost everybody where I work thinks Obama is a Muslim in disguise.'"


                           They get this information from their places of worship. So if you're going to straighten them out, that's where you'd have to start.

                         Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:11 PM

"They"

So you don't share this opinion? If you accept that it isn't true, why don't you step up and help straighten them out? Or do you feel it is OK for untruths to be used to torpedo an honest, honorable person?

I get chastised sometimes when I refuse to allow untruths about adversaries to go unchallenged. I have often said that I believe John McCain is an honorable man, who believes what he is doing is the right thing. I would never allow someone to attack him unfairly. To do so only takes away from the legitimacy of my own arguments in favor of, and support of, my own candidates and beliefs. It is exactly the thing that makes the "Swift Boat" series of ads so dishonorable.

So, Riginslinger, I ask you again. Will you challenge these "work colleagues" when they spread this untrue, and politically motivated, attempt to cast aspersions?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:49 PM

Mick - I do not share their misconceptions, and I have tried to convince them otherwise. They smile and nod when I talk to them, and when they walk away I get the feeling they haven't listened to a work I've tried to tell them.

                   Re: John McCain: I would agree that he thinks he is doing the right thing. I just don't think he's wrong. George W. Bush, on the other hand, didn't have any idea what he was doing, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM

ObamaÕs Song
(melody from "Kelly, the Boy from Killarne")

What's the news? What's the news? You Americans young,
You who boldly come forward to stand?
Say, what wind from the sun blows a new message here,
With a hymn for the hope of our land?
"Goodly news, goodly news, brave Americans all,
Country lady or sharp city boy,
For the brave have stood up in the south and the north
For Obama from old Illinois!"

Tell me who is the giant with his soul so on fire,
Who inspires the nation-wide band??
Standing tall, strong and calm, as his speeches inspire,
Words of hope to a hope-starvŽd land
"Oh, me boys, that's the pride of AmericaÕs best,
Let his fiercest companions deploy!
Bring your friends to the front, and come lend a strong hand
To Obama from Old Illinois!"

For the dark years of terror, confusion and fear
Will be brought to an end and repaired
Constitutional freedom will stand again here
And the pride of free people we will share.
Come and reach for you freedoms, your rights and your pride
COme the fears of cold fascists, destroy!
Let each feeling American do what he can,
For Obama, of old Illinois!

They will scourge him and slander him, as we move on by,
With their lies and their tales from the dead.
But the truth about liars is that they always will lie,
From the hatred that lies in their heads.
Speaking truth is not easy, as liars well know
When their stories they pen to destroy;
But with reason and courage, we will take back the show,
With Obama, from old Illinois.

ThereÕll be hard rows ahead, for each woman and man
To put right all the past has left wrong.
But with clarity, hope, and persistence, we can
If your voice and your reason are strong.
Leave the old and polluted, the rich and ashamed
For a wordl our offspring may enjoy.
Put your votes and your voices to bear on the name
Of Obama, from old Illinois.

Regards,

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:40 PM

Aw, man, that is one terrific adaptation. Captures the spirit of the thing just so. A real nice job.

I think we oughta lay it down to music and post it on you-tube to stir the national fervor, some. Don't you? Contribute to the Movement, man!! You know, like Grow the Kool Aid or sompn...


Nice job, Guest...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:55 PM

10 minutes ago
Senator Barack Obama won in the Nebraska caucuses, defeating his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the two scramble for delegates in their battle for the Democratic nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:04 PM

Will.i.am's ÔYes We CanÕ video getting plenty of clicks on YouTube

Alexandre Meneghini / AP file

Black Eyed Peas vocalist Will.i.am was inspired to create ÒYes We CanÓ while watching Barack Obama's speech after his second-place finish to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.


LOS ANGELES - In the long history of political campaign theme songs, there has never been one quite like "Yes We Can," starring Barack Obama and a host of A-list celebrities.

For one thing, it's more than a song Ñ it's a viral video hit with almost 1.9 million views on YouTube since being posted last Friday.

There's also the fact that the Obama campaign did not commission the song Ñ the rapper, songwriter and producer will.i.am, frontman for the Black Eyed Peas, says he was inspired to create it while watching Obama's speech after his second-place finish to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:06 PM

And if that's too lazy for you, try Fired Up and Ready to Go. It'll get your toes moving, I tell ya!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:10 AM

Listen to them both!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

I just can't wrap my head around Obama being "the solution" to the desires of so many Independent and Democratic voters to elect a "fix-it it's broken" president.

I genuinely see him as the Thomas Dewey of 2008.

And sadly, I don't think either Clinton or Obama will be any more effective as president than Jimmy Carter was--and we all know how that one turned out in 1980.

I know right now it doesn't seem like any president could be worse than Bush/Cheney. But it could happen as early as 2012 if a Democratic president can't fix what ails the nation in the starry eyes of the Obama/Clinton for Change voters.

Neither of them is willing to take on the meaningful changes that could possibly fix what ails the nation (an antiquated, outdated, destructive 2 party system, political corruption at the highest levels of government and business, etc), so it is a given that there will be a future backlash trend of deep pessimism, possibly with Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Gary Bauer saying "we told you so" and getting elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:58 AM

"And sadly, I don't think either Clinton or Obama will be any more effective as president than Jimmy Carter was--and we all know how that one turned out in 1980."


                      In retrospect, Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents the US ever had--promoting both the Departments of Energy and Education. Over the long haul, Ronald Reagan will finally earn his position as one of the worst, I think, if not the very worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:01 AM

I think the sights you see may be to a large degree a reflection of your internal state. Fix that, and things might look a bit brighter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

Jimmy Carter was, IMO, nearly as bad as Reagan on energy. While Carter was at least willing to fund a little bit of research into energy alternatives, he was still a pro-nuclear power man. He set us on the course of energy profligacy we find ourselves in today. Most people have conveniently forgotten that "the energy crisis" was a profit driven exercise to create the facade that has become the politics of scarcity. Carter oversaw that, and didn't do jack shit to reign in the oil companies when they pulled their "energy crisis" trick on the world.

Geraldo Rivera's only redeeming quality on this earth was to be the one adult who rented a helicopter and filmed the oil tankers lined up offshore of the eastern seaboard, waiting for gas prices to sky rocket before they sailed into port and made the killing that has nearly destroyed the planet. What did Jimmy Carter have to say about it?

Look at those long lines at the gas stations! We need more nukes!

Reagan, OTOH, just cut the funding for the alternative energy research that was just beginning to take off (and cost me & my partner our energy efficient construction company).

Carter had a mindset that said "with nuclear power, we'll always have enough energy." Because he was old school, he considered energy conservation to be more a moral issue in the religious sense, than in a practical, what is best for the planet perspective and world view.

I just don't agree that Jimmy Carter was a good president. He campaigned and was elected as a reformer in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, and the disaster that was Richard Nixon, who was the reform candidate to "fix" the disaster that was Johnson's foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:33 AM

I agree his administration was nothing to write home about. He has done a good job latterly as Wrinkled Elder Statesman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:35 AM

Sunday, February 10, 2008; 8:31 AM
Sen. Barack Obama dominated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in presidential balloting in Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington state last night, besting her by huge margins in those contests and further narrowing her slender advantage in delegates needed to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:38 AM

Amos, you are too True Blue delusional to see beyond your nose. Your kind of partisan world view will destroy us, as surely as the True Red partisan world view will.

The solutions the world and it's people need do not lie in electing another ineffective Democrat president of the United States of America.

The solutions like in the realm of ditching the current US political system, and many of the Western world's outdated and antiquated institutions that have now been globalized, to disastrous effect-- capitalist dictatorships are killing us and the planet, and we live in a capitalist dictatorship in the US, regardless of the party flavor currently in vogue with the ever shrinking US electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM

Thanks for the kind remarks, Janet. I guess delusion is where you find it. While I agree with your high goals, generally, I think one step at a time is the real way to go. Obama's the better of the various next steps currently available. Ranting about the ideal situation does not change things any more than voting for McCain would.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:11 PM

"Capitalist Dictatorship"...........hmmmmmmm....... think I am off to write a song......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:27 PM

One step at a time? More like aerobic step dancing enthusiastically in place, to the tune of the same pop singer CD.

If you want me to take you seriously, I'll throw down this gauntlet for you. Head on over to the thread I started titled 'The End Game'. You want people to vote for your boy? Then be forthcoming about the end game you are envisioning. The one beyond the current horse race cycle, which is where you and the True Blues here have been stuck for over a decade. Yeah, I remember you defending Clinton too.

Because I was here in Mudcat in both 2000 and 2004 Amos, and you are still pontificating the same old shit--that we must play party politics as usual, because 2 party politics as usual is the only thing that can save us from ourselves.

You are the epitomy, IMO, of a partisan party man Amos.

I'm looking far, far beyond the party hack solutions--for leadership with authentic vision for the future, not the same old shit solutions of the past--elect a Dem! elect a Dem!

To me, Obama is an empty suit peddling hope as truth. He's just another snake oil salesman, preying on fears by using our hopes and dreams against us for his own ambition and gain.

All over again, IMO. Just like Bill Clinton did it to us in 1992. Bill Clinton was an even better snakeoil salesman than Obama is, IMO. But the end result it still the same.

The Clinton presidency was a fucking disaster for this nation and the world. So how is an Obama presidency going to be any different? Not with those policy papers and false hopes he is using to prey upon peoples' hopes and dreams for a better world for their grandchildren, that's for bloody sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM

Yes, 'capitalist dictatorship' has great alliteration and rhythm to it. Very catchy.

I would imagine Dave Lippman could do a lot with it, because it does have a Lippmanesque ring tone to it. Or maybe he already has, and I stole it from him. Who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM

GG, you continue to bitch and complain and call other people "True Blue" (thereby attempting to label them as intellectual vacuums) while you offer nothing.

NOTHING!

Constant pissing and moaning, but NOTHING of value.

You, sir or madam as the case may be, are a waste of space.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM

"I just don't agree that Jimmy Carter was a good president. He campaigned and was elected as a reformer in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, and the disaster that was Richard Nixon, who was the reform candidate to "fix" the disaster that was Johnson's foreign policy."


                      So Nixon came in to fix Johnson, and Carter came in to fix Nixon.
                      But, with the exception of Kosovo, Clinton was wildly successful, and Bush came in to destroy what Clinton had done. The path we're on now seems worse than Johnson-Carter-Nixon.

                      So it would make sense to send Clinton back in to fix the damage Bush has done, than to send in an unknown to carry on the destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:06 PM

The good folk of Maine have come through for Obama in the Dem caucuses today.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

What's with using "True Blue" as some kind of an insult?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:08 PM

McGrath - You're right. Any comparison is cerainly an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:32 PM

Guardian (UK) opines:

After Barack Obama's sweep of five primary contests over the weekend, he is poised to bag another hefty prize: Virginia.

The state's demographics overwhelmingly suggest a win for the Illinois senator, and he has the nod of governor Tim Kaine and former governor and current Richmond mayor Doug Wilder. Fully 101 delegates are at stake in the state.

The Clinton camp hasn't exactly resigned itself to a loss, but its rhetoric isn't confident. "Virginia is one of those states in February that Senator Obama has some real advantages in," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Friday. "As a campaign we have long factored that reality into our planning."

The Obama camp derides the Clinton campaign's meek talk as spin. "Hillary Clinton has all the advantages," one Obama adviser said. "She has been a dominant personality in the media markets in all three states. If she's the most famous woman in the world, she's certainly the most famous woman in these three venues."

If the neat demographic slices of the Democratic party vote in Virginia as they have in previous states, Obama should win. He's well ahead in polling, with a recent poll showing him beating Clinton 53% to 37%.

"Obama's the favourite," University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato said succinctly.

With Obama's weekend victories in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine and the Virgin Islands, the Illinois senator is a hair behind Clinton in the race for the delegates who will ultimately decide the nomination at the Democratic convention in August. He has 1,070 to the New York senator's 1,095, with 2,025 needed for the nomination, according to a tally by the Associated Press.

That makes this Tuesday's votes in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC, crucial. The total number of delegates at stake Tuesday is 237 — Virginia's total, 99 from Maryland and 37 from the District of Columbia.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:51 PM

Obama's campaigning rhetoric seems to be taking on a more populist approach - as witness here. Clearly he's aware of his need to be recognised as addressing the kind of issues that are top priority for the white working class voters who've been tending to stick with Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:57 PM

Here's a link to a creative {and funny?} take off of the Barack Obama/Yes We Can music video that was produced by will i am :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
john.he.is

-snip-

This video includes clips from some of John McCain's speeches, including his bomb bomb bomb Iran snippet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:38 PM

Ah, Janet. Just as upbeat as always. It's good to know some things don't change--what was it-- Dewar's Whiskey and your sunny humor. And Obama offers "false hope"? Now where have we heard that before?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM

You're right, Azizi--that's a classic-- "Like Hope But Different". And even BTO. There are some sharp minds behind some of these videos.

Obama has a huge braintrust already, in addition to being super-sharp himself--and identifying with the have-nots of society. Truly an amazing combination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:55 PM

We probably should start a new thread on the role of the so called "Super-Delegates" at the National Democratic Convention. They are non-elected, do not come from either primary or caucuses but are directly appointed by State Democratic parties and are generally incumbant congressmen and senators, ex-congressmen and senators, governors and former governors, and anyone else that the state party leadership wants to so honor. They make up about 20% of the total delegates and thus could be the deciding block of votes if the two Democratic presidential candidates are neck and neck by Convention time. Or they may be equally divided and the question mute.

Here's a link to a fuller explanation of this question from CNN: Click at Your Own Risk!

It strikes me as a remarkably undemocratic system but then I don't have a lot of pull at State Headquarters.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:41 AM

ARLINGTON, VA. -- A new battleground looms in a state where picnickers still flock to venerated fields of Confederate glory. The campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are gearing up for today's presidential primary in Virginia, a key Southern state rife with knotty demographics and shifting party loyalties.

Both camps view the Democratic vote in Virginia as their toughest matchup in the so-called Potomac primaries, a stretch of contests that also includes Maryland and the District of Columbia, where large and passionate constituencies among black voters and college students make Obama a heavy favorite.

Clinton aides have tried to dampen expectations, publicly stoking the prospect of an Obama sweep today. But strategic moves by both sides in recent days indicate that Virginia is positioned as Clinton's likeliest target of opportunity.


Three Virginia polls released over the last few days, all putting Obama ahead of Clinton by at least 15 percentage points, gave credence to Wolfson's caution. The latest, issued Sunday and conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, showed Obama leading Clinton 53% to 37%. In surveys last year, Clinton held double-digit leads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

It looks like we're on our way to a President McCain!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

You just trolling, Rig? THe last poll published on that hypothetical put Obama a few points over McCain. Looks like we're on our way to a President Obama!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:12 PM

Norton backs Obama, says super delegates shouldn't decide race


Sen. Barack Obama late last night picked up an endorsement from D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a super delegate who said he is what "our country, our party and this city needs at this turning point in our history."


Norton said she had planned to wait until closer to the general election to endorse a candidate. But "as a super delegate, I decided I had to speak up now to separate myself from the idea that is afoot for the first time that super delegates, especially those who have not announced their choice, could or should decide our nominee under some circumstances."


"The notion that a candidate who has not earned delegates could become the Democratic nominee for president is at odds with the democratic principles of our party reforms. Super delegates were never intended to allow the return of smoked-filled room, behind the scenes selection of our candidate," Norton continued. "I have carried a banner for a democracy of the District of Columbia too long to depart from principles of democracy within my own party."


"I appreciate that Senator Obama is not new to D.C. voting rights but is a co-sponsor of our D.C. Voting Rights bill," she said. "I believe that Senator Obama as president will be invaluable in helping to shift left-over home rule authority from the Congress that should be with the city."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:19 PM

"It's worth noting that a recent Time magazine poll showed Obama beating McCain in a hypothetical contest by 48 percent to 41 percent, while a Clinton-McCain race was deadlocked at 46 percent. "

From This editorial


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:54 PM

Traders Flock to Obama
February 12, 2008 02:04 PM ET | James Pethokoukis | U.S. News and World Report


Take it for what it's worth, but most of the Washington Wise Guys I talk to think the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama will be the nominee. (Also note that the betting markets over at RealClearPolitics now give Obama a 70 percent chance of defeating Hillary Clinton.) The WWGs point to the 3 M's:

1) Money. Can Obama be the first $200 million candidate? Yes, he can.

2) Momentum. Obama is poised to win the Potomac primary today, giving him a seven-state winning streak since Super Tuesday. And while momentum has been a fickle force this primary season, the WWGs expect Obamamania to begin peeling way Hillary's potential voters in critical upcoming states like Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. To quote Patton: "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser."

3) Media. Do the media favor Obama over Hillary? I will just say this: I don't know too many reporters around this town who feel like writing another single word about Monica Lewinsky, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, or cattle futures. Give us brand-new scandals, please! (And not to mention that many of our teenage and 20-something kids are like an Obama fifth column in our families, constantly nudging us to watch that catchy will.i.am Pro-Obama video on YouTube.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:02 PM

Obama, McCain lead in Wisconsin poll

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 12, 2008 12:46 PM

If Barack Obama sweeps today's primaries, it's looking even more likely that he'll have a 10-race winning streak going into the mega-primary on March 4 that Hillary Clinton is banking on.

A new poll out today in Wisconsin shows that Obama has a 50 percent to 39 percent lead over Clinton, boosted by a 21-percentage-point edge among voters most concerned by the Iraq war.

Obama argues that he would be the better nominee against all-but presumptive Republican nominee John McCain on the issue because he opposed the war from the start, while Clinton authorized military action, though she says that President Bush went beyond the authorization by launching a pre-emptive war.

While Obama leads among both black and white voters and holds a significant edge among independents, he and Clinton are virtually tied among self-identified Democrats, according to the Public Policy Polling survey conducted Monday.

Wisconsin -- which votes next Tuesday along with Hawaii, where Obama grew up -- holds an open primary, where voters, no matter how they're registered, can choose to vote in either primary.

From Boston.Com

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:43 PM

The polls seem to have these built in triggers. They project something will happen, they when that eventuality doesn't come to pass, the 24 hour news cycle has something to talk about.

                   A week or so ago, they were saying Obama would beat McCain by a wide margin. Now it's a squeaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:01 PM

Senator Barack Obama won the Virginia Democratic primary, as he continued his winning streak and threatened to cut into Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonsÕs lead in delegates.New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:21 PM

Obama led Clinton 1,144 to 1,138 in the running delegate count going into Tuesday's contests, according to website RealClearPolitics.com. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed for the nomination.

The role of some 440 still-undecided super-delegates -- party luminaries who can choose to vote for either candidate -- is now likely to be critical.

(AFP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:34 PM

Now come Wisconsin and Hawaii, I believe. Wisconsin, with several universities, and some cities. Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, as I understand.

4 March in Texas and Ohio may be an anti-climax.

It would seem likely that in order to avoid a civil war, the superdelegates will start edging toward Obama. (Not taking into account that some have already openly declared for him--like Eleanor Holmes Norton of DC.)

And if possible they will avoid dealing with the MI and FL morass--perhaps, as I believe you suggested, Amos, by simply splitting the delegate count to each down the middle.

And I would guess that the endgame will be a very gallant concession speech by Hillary, redeeming much of her behavior.

Then she divorces Bill. I mean, that's what it said in the National Enquirer, so it must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM

I'd like to hear Hillary announce that, "All of those sexist idiots just handed the country over to John McCain."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:29 PM

Well, be patient, Rig, she may say it. Unfortunately, it won't help her. But you can be sure she was glad to get your vote.

It would be fascinating to know how she and Bill are getting along now. I saw something that said since Virginia is for lovers, it's the perfect place for her and Bill--the perfect loving couple. After all, she owes a good part of her current situation to Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM

Obama has swept Maryland and the District of Columbia by significant margins.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:36 PM

We're on track for president McCain. I wonder if he'll live out his first term of office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:43 PM

900.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:06 AM

I suppose if one is looking for a great motivational speaker, one can choose now between Obama and Dr. Phil.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:29 AM

Dr Phil is a third-tier wuss compared to Barack when he is on a roll. No comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM

But Obama started to broaden his support in the last few rounds; he continued to make inroads Tuesday.

He carried Latinos in Virginia and women and lower-income voters in Virginia and Maryland; all have been vital constituencies for Clinton. At the same time, Obama continued to show tremendous strength among African Americans as he bids to become the nation's first black president; on Tuesday, he won nearly 9 in 10 black votes in Maryland and Virginia, according to exit polls conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

Obama easily bested Clinton in both states among Democrats most concerned about the economy and the war in Iraq. Clinton edged Obama among those most concerned about healthcare.

"Every week that goes by, people get a little more comfortable with him, and he gets a little stronger," said Paul Maslin, a Democratic pollster not aligned in the race. But, he cautioned, "this thing is not over."

Indeed, many Democrats confessed to a hard time deciding between the two.

"I almost didn't vote at all because if you're perfectly even, how do you choose?" said Marc Shapiro, 39, an international development consultant in Falls Church, Va., an upscale suburb of Washington. He wound up casting his ballot for Clinton.

"I went with the issue of who's ready to serve from Day One," said Shapiro, picking up on a favorite Clinton talking point.

Steve Selby, 56, a public policy professor at Michigan State University's Washington semester program, voted at the same Falls Church apartment complex. He praised Clinton as a "very strong candidate" he could happily support in November. But he backed Obama out of "a sense of change, sense of hope."

"I find the excitement among young people very encouraging," Selby said. "I think he's generated some genuine excitement that I haven't seen since I was a kid."

For the first time, Obama pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate count, 1,223 to 1,198, according to the Associated Press. It takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination at the party's national convention in August.

Despite the closeness of the delegate count, Obama has seized a decided edge over Clinton in momentum. He drew huge crowds over the last several days and flexed his financial muscle by handily outspending Clinton on TV advertising in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Over the weekend, he racked up five victories -- in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state, Maine and the Virgin Islands -- by crushing margins.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM

McCain speaks with a quiet dignity, but he's no oratorical match for Obama--even as he lifted Barack's "Fired up, ready to go" slogan--and was thus overshadowed.

LAT: "Obama stacked his wins on top of a string of victories over the weekend, pushing his record to 8-0 since he and Clinton effectively fought to a draw a week earlier on Super Tuesday. Obama's performance puts a breeze at his back and increases pressure on the suddenly struggling Clinton to reverse her fortunes in the next two weeks, when voters in another half-dozen states go to the polls."

NYT: "The lopsided nature of Senator Barack Obama's parade of victories on Tuesday gives him an opening to make the case that Democratic voters have broken in his favor and that the party should coalesce around his candidacy."

(WaPo column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

Will McCain advisor dump John if Obama gets nod?
by Frank James

Way back in distant political history, say last June, when Sen. Hilllary Clinton had a commanding lead in national polls over Sen. Barack Obama, the Cox Washington Bureau "WIndow on Washington" blog ran an interview with Mark McKinnon, a political consultant and friend to both President Bush and Sen. John McCain.

McKinnon heaped praise on Obama and said something rather remarkable, that if Obama turned out to be the Democratic nominee, McKinnon would stop working for McCain since the consultant didn't want to oppose Obama whose candidacy he saw in singular terms.

 
  Q: Are you committed to working for and supporting McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is? 
  
  McKinnon: If the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, I will not work in the general election. I will, however, still support and vote for John McCain. I just don't want to work against an Obama candidacy. I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be a great choice for the country.
  
  Q: Have you decided to back Sen. Obama if he is the Democratic nominee? 
  
  McKinnon: Not if John McCain is the nominee. (McKinnon said it is "too hypothetical" to say whether he would vote for Obama over a GOP nominee other than McCain.) 
  
  Q: What is it about Obama that attracts you? 
  
  McKinnon: I don't think Barack Obama needs the mirror of politics to reflect who (he) is. I think he has deep character and good judgment. I also think he's wrong on some fundamental issues. But, I believe he is honest and independent and if he were elected, I think it would send a great message to the country and the world. (McKinnon said Obama is "wrong on Iraq and pulling out troops too early.")
  
  
  Q: How does Obama's race impact his chances of becoming president? 
  McKinnon: I think Obama's race could actually make it more likely he could be president. I think Americans would vote for an African-American in a heartbeat. Had Colin Powell run, I think he would have been president.
  

The way things are looking, McKinnon could be facing that tough choice that last June seemed merely theoretical.

(Baltimore Sun)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM

The University of Maryland rally Monday was an amazing experience.   Very well organized. I took the Metro to the U of MD Metro stop, then there were shuttle buses to bring us to the stadium. Stadium to the right. They told us to turn left. "The line is on the left--and it's a long line". True. It took us 1 1/4 hours to get into the (indoor) stadium--about 24 degrees outside. 18,000 people--hardly any empty seats. There were rumors we wouldn't all get in--but we did. There were all sorts of people--lots of students but also many adults. White, black, Hispanic. Everybody in great spirits, getting along great.

Electric atmosphere inside. Creative signs. The wave. Cheers interrupted Obama's speech, which was great--OK, I'm not an unbiased observer. Very obvious how Team Clinton has played into Obama's hands--"There is nothing false about hope". Other great lines--Obama said he'd been told he needed more seasoning'--"boil all the hope out".

And he had specifics on programs--I don't have the actual numbers he mentioned, but there are loads of details on his web site--those who think he's nothing but an inspirational figure need to do just a tiny bit of research.

But the main point was to vote the next day.

And the crowd was, as his video says: "Fired up. Ready to go".

And we saw the result last night in Maryland.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:28 PM

But, as Amos notes, it was not just students who voted for him. His appeal seems to be broadening with every vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:58 PM

Remarks in Madison by Senator Obama.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM

Here he is delivering that speech

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:25 PM

Anyone into counting beans or delegates remaining?

CNN was saying that if Obama picked up 60% of the remaining delegates he could not win before the National Democratic Convention.

In fact they said if he won 70% of the remaining delegates he still couldn't win outright.

Is their math fuzzy or does it make sense?

Does it work for Clinton if she wins Texas and Ohio by 70%?

And who wins Vermont?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:44 PM

Someone needs to counsel him and tell him not to use the same trite by now phrases over and over..boil the hope out of him..the same stories about the same people...he is getting very repetitious and not in a good way. I think he also should be bringing up the aloha spirit etc. etc. and put on a 10 gallon hat and learn to two-step and go take Texas. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:50 PM

Mr. ObamaÕs triumphs capped a week in which he went undefeated in states across the country, in many cases by big margins, over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

And his strength on Tuesday sliced across nearly every major demographic line, with one element standing out: in Virginia and Maryland, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls, he beat Mrs. Clinton among women.

The sheer consistency of Mr. ObamaÕs victories over the last few days certainly suggests that many Democratic voters have gotten past whatever reservations they might have had about his electability or his qualifications to be president.

Mr. Obama, in his victory speech in Madison, Wis., acted almost as the primaries were behind him, offering a case against the probable Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, as he spoke disparagingly of ÒBush-McCain Republicans.Ó It amounted to a preview of what an Obama-McCain race might be like, and it reduced Mrs. Clinton, at least for one night, to the role of bystander.

ÒJohn McCain is an American hero,Ó Mr. Obama said before a huge, cheering crowd. ÒWe honor his service to our nation. But his priorities donÕt address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.Ó

Mr. McCain picked up the challenge. While not mentioning Mr. Obama by name, he offered an unmistakable put-down of the theme that has become so closely identified with Mr. Obama.

ÒTo encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope,Ó he said. ÒIt is a platitude.Ó

To make sure no one had missed the message, Mr. McCain appropriated Mr. ObamaÕs signature line with a sly farewell to his own audience in Alexandria, Va. ÒMy friends,Ó he said. ÒI promise you, I am fired up and ready to go.Ó

Even before his latest victories, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had whittled away at the advantages amassed last year by Mrs. Clinton.

He now enjoys a big financial advantage. Her big lead in national polls is gone. By most counts, Mr. Obama can now claim more delegates pledged to him. He has won far more states than Mrs. Clinton, although she won some of the big prizes, like California and New Jersey.

For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had approached this race the same way: as state-by-state trench warfare, in the belief that the nomination would go to whoever got the most delegates.

But the latest results suggest that the race might be tilting back to a more normal form, where the goal is achieving a series of splashing victories and thus momentum. That has provided Mr. Obama with the opportunity, which he plans to seize in a more full-throated way starting on Wednesday, to argue that voters across a wide cross-section of the country have embraced his candidacy, and that the time has come for the group that could hold the balance of power, those 796 unpledged superdelegates Ñ party leaders and elected officials who have an automatic seat at the national convention Ñ to follow suit.

ÒWe are in a momentum phase of the process now,Ó said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:57 PM

I actually heard a clip of Obama telling factory workers the specifics of his economic recovery program, prefacing his remarks with the warning that he was going into lecture mode. He still sounded good and people were listening to every word.

We probably can expect to hear more mini-lectures in the future.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:54 PM

Remember Ned Lamont!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:06 PM

mg--

Different strokes... I like "boil the hope out of him", coupled with "not seasoned enough". But I like extended metaphors, double meanings, etc. I like "Life is Like A Mountain Railroad".

How many times have you heard Obama speak?. I assure you the lines were well received at the rally--some of whom had probably not heard him speak before, just heard about him. It was probably his stump speech--or in his case, stadium speech. I've heard some of the same lines in clips from other speeches. But I don't begrudge that to him.

But, take heart--as Charlie points out, he is coming up with specific proposals in speeches to other audiences--as opposed to the rally-the-troops-to-vote speech, which is what I heard, no doubt--in anticipation of the Maryland primary the next day.

He said today that " as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries. It would be over 10 years, as part of 2 programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called green collar jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources." In other words he's saying what Bush said earlier, but he's actually willing to put sizable funds behind it.

"60 billion would go to a National Infrastructure Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports, and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis".

Source: MSNBC 13 Feb 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM

Here's the coolest one.


And here is the rockingest one.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:24 AM

Hillary is now broadcasting ads in the Hispanic community in Texas-- an ad called "Nuestra Amiga". Both Obama and Hillary voted in favor of the 700-mile fence between the US and Mexico in 2006. Obama has however come out in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--which would be mostly Hispanic-- and also an obvious good step from a public safety standpoint.

Since one election technique is to suppress your opponent's turnout, I wonder if it is legitimate to point out to Hispanic audiences that "Nuestra Amiga" voted in favor of the 700-mile fence. And of course state that Obama did too. Then point out the difference on the drivers license issue.

Or is that dirty politics--the kind we are trying to get away from?

This is a genuine question--thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM

Facts on the record are not dirty politics per se.

Distorting them would be.


The fence is (IMHO) a dumb idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:44 PM

A dumb idea indeed, and a cheapskate one at that.   If the Romans could build Hadrian's Wall, and the Chinese put up the Great Wall all that time ago, you'd think the least Americans could do would be build something a bit more respectable than an East German/Israeli type fence. Probably festooned with ads for MacDonalds and Pepsi to keep the cost down.

And you can guarantee it'd keep getting blown up and so forth. It'd be a perfect target.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:34 PM

It is a dumb idea, and the only reason it passed in Congress is because elites in office think the American people are too dumb to grasp a more sophisticated means of controlling immigration. But if they subbed it out to an Israeli contractor who hired illegal aliens to build it, they'd have an experienced builder and be able to keep the cost down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:25 PM

And it'd still be a perfect target. A pushover in fact.

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build a proper wall. At least that would be a tourist attraction even if it didn't keep people out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,John O'L
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:55 PM

Time for change?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:02 PM

Well, I think the wall is a great idea. It will provide hardware stores in Mexican border towns with huge sales increases in ladders, shovels, wire cutters, ropes, grappling hooks....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:46 PM

And as the authorities return illegals to Mexico, the pawn shops in border towns will start building up with ladders, wire cutters, and etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM

"For a fee, I guarantee I can get you over the wall, senor, but once you're over the wall, the rest is up to you."

Don Firth

P. S. Either business will fall off sharply after the first couple of attempts, of there will be a sudden spurt in the sale of hang-gliders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:56 PM

Amazing how the two excellent clips linked below are receiving no comment from all these musicians.

Odd, as well, that all the media stories today are chiming about predictions in favor of Hillary in the next round of primaries. 'S up wid dat?


I guess they are drawing out the conflict as far as they can, squeezing the last pair of eyeballs out of the story.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:18 AM

February 16, 2008

AFTER Tuesday's big win in the Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland primaries, Barack Obama's campaign team was jubilant when it held its usual phone conference on Wednesday morning to brief senior Washington correspondents.

The reason? They now believe it is impossible for Hillary Clinton to win because they say she cannot pass them on the pledged delegate count - that is, delegates elected by voters.

The only way she can win is to rely on her share of the 796 super-delegates, who include elected officials, party heavyweights and even her husband, Bill Clinton.

"David Plouffe, campaign manager, made it explicit on a conference call this morning, telling reporters that it's now 'next to impossible' for Clinton to surpass what he says is a 136-person lead among pledged delegates," the journalist Ben Smith wrote in his blog on the US website Politico.com on Wednesday morning. "The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points," he said. "Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:24 AM

Amazing how the two excellent clips linked below are receiving no comment from all these musicians.

What clips, what links?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM

KEvin -- see my 13 Feb post that says "Here's the coolest one; here's the rockingest one."

Each line is a link to a YouTube music file which has been sweeping the cybersphere at a mad rate lately.

In other news: "Two labor sources tell Politico that the giant Service Employees International Union, which has been neutral through the primary, is on the verge of throwing its support to Sen. Barack Obama.

"It's done," said one person close to the union.

SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller confirmed that union leaders are set to discuss a potential endorsement today.

"Our board is going to be talking this evening," she said. "This will be a topic of their conversation."

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM

THE US Congressman John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Hillary Clinton's most prominent black supporters, said he planned to cast his vote as a super-delegate for Barack Obama in the hope of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

"In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit," said Mr Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Senator Clinton last year. "Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap."

Mr Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision on Thursday. His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Senator Clinton's support was beginning to erode from some other black politicians who also serve as super-delegates.

Another Georgian Congressman, David Scott, who was among the first to defect, said he would not go against the will of voters in his district, who overwhelmingly supported Senator Obama last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

Here's an interesting take on the choice facing Democrats...

Who would you pick?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama is now leading rival Hillary Clinton by double digits, a new poll found.

Obama leads Clinton 49% to 37% in the daily presidential tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports. The poll of likely Democratic primary voters was published Thursday.

Moreover, the poll found, Obama is now leading Clinton among women voters by five percentage points. Clinton retains her lead among white women but her advantage is down to three percentage points in that demographic, the poll found.

Clinton's campaign is reeling from a string of losses to Obama in Democratic contests but is quick to point out that the New York senator is leading her rival in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
After a delay of nine days, Clinton was declared the winner of the New Mexico Democratic caucuses on Thursday.

The next big contests for the Democrats are in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas. Those are held on March 4 with 389 delegates and super-delegates at stake. If Obama can pull off an upset in Texas, it could tilt the nomination heavily in his favor. IVR Polls determined that Obama was 10 points behind Clinton as of Jan. 31, but he has steadily closed the gap in recent weeks.

Obama is leading Clinton by a razor-thin margin in the delegate count: 55 delegates, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal. Obama currently has 1,275 delegates to Clinton's 1,220. The Democratic candidate will need 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 12:41 PM

Interesting dialogue, LH!!! :D

A correspondent from Zimbabwe wrote in to a blog editor:

"About three weeks ago, I was in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe, having dinner with about a dozen Zimbabweans, all black, and they were fully informed about Obama and their excitement was incredible. These were educated people -- some of the few professionals left in that part of Zim in the wake of the Mugabe-induced economic and political meltdown -- and they were grilling me on how it could be that a man of African ancestry could be elected....

When I told them that to almost all Americans under 40, a candidate's race wasn't of any consequence, they nodded in agreement -- "what a great country," one said "that can ignore such things as race and prosper."   These were all people, though, who have learned the bitter lesson of the consequences of reverse racism -- Mugabe's seizure of white-owned farms and businesses that has led to Zim's collapse, and to widespread hunger in the formerly most prosperous African country. One thing Mugabe has done in Zim- he has made whites and blacks all brothers, united in hatred of bad government. "


Seems Bush and Mugabe are kindred souls under their skins...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

Bad government loves to play the "divide and conquer" game. That's an old story, and one that is written in blood and sorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:55 PM

The Service Employees International Union gave Barack Obama its highly prized endorsement on Friday afternoon.

The S.E.I.U.'s endorsement is especially coveted because the union has 1.9 million members and has a rank-and-file that is far more politically active than most other unions'. Moreover, its political action committee is expected to collect more than $30 million this campaign, making it one of the biggest PACs in the nation.
In a telephone news conference announcing the endorsement, Andy Stern, the union's president, said: "This is about more than one election. It's about building for the next generation of America. Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we've ever seen."

The union's executive board cast ballots by email and fax on Thursday night, and union officials were unable to finish the tallying until Friday.

With John Lewis, the Democratic Congressman from Georgia and former civil rights leader, indicating on Thursday that he intends to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Mr. Obama, the S.E.I.U.'s endorsement is expected to further build momentum for Mr. Obama after his wins in eight consecutive contests. Mr. Stern, like Mr. Lewis, said it would not be a good idea for superdelegates to ultimately choose the nominee in what could be a highly divided Democratic convention in August....(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

Why Obama Succeeds


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 08:19 PM

Glad to see Kermit in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM

"The senator from Arizona is clearly unhappy about the possibility of having to run against Barack Obama, who he has disliked ever since Obama had the temerity to present himself as a campaign finance reformer without McCainÕs permission. And the fact that the 46-year-old Obama keeps referring to the 71-year-old McCain as a military hero, in tones that suggest the conflict in question was the Spanish Civil War, doesnÕt help."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:03 AM

The other option being pursued to "win" the nomination by the Clinton Campaign is to get full credit for it's "win" in the "sooner" primaries in Michigan and Florida. These primaries were moved up by their state committees in violation of the National Democratic Committee policy for timing primaries. Obama abided by the Committee's decision and did not participate in either primary. Clinton decided to leave her name on the ballot and "won."

If she wins at the convention by securing credit for these votes it will further poison her subsequent campaign for President. I would rather not see this happen.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM

" tones that suggest the conflict in question was the Spanish Civil War".   I love it, Amos. What's that quote from? (I thought maybe the conflict was going to be the Spanish-American War.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:21 PM

Of course it would help to keep in mind that the wrong side won in the Spanish Civil War, at least, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:32 PM

Opps!! Sorry...it is from this very funny Op Ed piece in today's New York Times.

Enjoy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM

Toni Morrison's letter to Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it.Ê One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril.

I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion that in addition to keen
intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something
I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivetŽ. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country' s citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:24 PM

An endorsement from Toni Morrison actually has meaning for me.

What about Obama as pres. and Hillary for V.P.?

They are not that far apart on their foreign policy:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13074/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM

I think Clinton would add absolutely nothing to an Obama presidency, not votes, not prestige, not brownie points for having a woman VP. He can find others. I found him a nice one but she had been born in Canada. If he wants a former first lady, perhaps Rosalyn Carter would do. Clinton would bring with her a rogue husband, dealing with rogue states however he wanted in exchange for what? Money? Power of some kind? Too dangerous a world. Obama is smart enough not to go that way, and hopefully politically astute to pass up being her VP...I think she would get votes having him on her ticket and will probably announce to the world that she is going to invite him to be the VP, knowing he will not accept. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:50 PM

Funny how language works: "Nor do I care very much for your race." In another context, from another person that could mean something completely different and highly offensive.

Surely the point of having Clinton as VP wouldn't be to add something to an Obama presidency. It would be that doing this might increase his chances of making it to the White House in the election. At least that would be the idea. Of course it might work the other way...

If Cliton does win the race, why wouldn't Obama accept the offer? This rivalry between them is genuine enough, insofar as they both want the same job (and probably think that they would do it better), but there's not that much difference between them on issues. And the chances are that her VP would be first in line to be put forward to replace her when she's done, because it always seems to work out that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:10 PM

eb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama picked up key newspaper endorsements in Wisconsin and Texas today as he and Hillary Clinton compete for delegates in states that may help determine which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin's largest daily newspaper, said it recommends that voters support Obama in the state's Feb. 19 primary because ``change and experience are crucial to moving this country forward'' and the Illinois senator is the ``best-equipped to deliver that change.''

The Houston Chronicle, the biggest daily publication in Texas, gave similar reasons for endorsing Obama, 46, over Clinton. He's ``the best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party,'' the newspaper said in an editorial today. Texas will hold its primary on March 4.

Both newspapers also backed Senator John McCain of Arizona for the Republican presidential nomination, whose lead in some of the largest states with contests coming in the next few weeks effectively blocks any challenge to his nomination. McCain, 71, has 814 of the 1,191 delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination, according to unofficial estimates compiled by thegreenpapers.com, an independent, non-partisan Web site that tracks election statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:13 PM

Having the other as a VP would add much more to her campaign than it would to his -- which is one reason I suspect he is the one who will have the option, and decline it. His grass-roots inertial momentum is being echoed by media voices and superdelegates. He is nearly to the point where all she will have left to do is flail; almost, but not just yet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:20 PM

Who would he get in terms of votes by having Clinton as VP? That he couldn't get by having some female governor instead? Or Patty Murray or some senator with less of a toxic cloud about her? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:53 PM

The thing is, one of his strongest messages has been about bringing people together and healing division and reaching out to opponents and so forth, and inviting Clinton on board would be seen as a way of doing that in the context of the Democratic Party.

There'd be counter arguments around the claim of Clinton being divisive in herself in relation to the wider electorate, but binding in the Clinton wing of the party would make a lot of sense.

It'd make less sense for her to accept it, especially given her age. (Though even after eight years she'd be younger than McCain is now...) My bet is if he gets to be candidate he'll offer her the job, and she'll decline it.
........................................

If Clinton does get to be the Democratic candidate for president, one theoretical possibility would be that she could even pick Bill as her running mate. No rule against a former President being Vice President that I can see. And nothing to prevent him from taking over as President if she got elected and couldn't carry on, or whatever.

There's no bar on being President a third time, just on being elected to the office:

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 06:21 PM

The "Clinton wing of the party" was always mostly based on electability--consider the early slogan of that wing--"In It To Win It". Her support was always thin--based primarily on collecting endorsements early--and thus being the only plausible candidate. Now that argument, the first and last one she had, is slipping away.

Consider the large number of Democrats, in poll after poll, who said either Obama or Clinton would be acceptable. Her supporters will support him--just to keep a Republican--with power to name Supreme Court justices, for instance-- out. He has made this much easier by refraining in large part from the sort of divisive campaigning that she--and more so, Bill-- has engaged in.

But due to the nature of the Clinton team campaign, it's not at all clear that Obama's supporters would show up and vote for her in the fall.   Many would not vote Republican--just not show up at all. For many of them, the ties are to Obama, not to the Democratic party.

There is absolutely no necessity to have her on the ticket. And, as has been pointed out, she would also bring Bill--who has been no asset to anybody recently.

Obama can and will unite the Democrats--and attract many independents--and some Republicans. Hillary, with the campaign her team has run and is running, never can unite even the Democrats, much less attract anybody else.

I just read a good quote to the effect that her negative ads now starting make it seem as if she imagines voters are thinking "Gee, if only the Clintons were a little more ruthless, I'd vote for Hillary." Somehow, it's unlikely many voters are feeling that way.

So it's totally pointless to speculate on her VP choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 09:24 PM

What about Obama's VP choices?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 05:09 AM

Well, the first set of names of possibilities include Edwards and Richardson, for straters. But there may be some powerful possibilities among the lesser known circles -- ex-Cabinet members, activists of various sorts, Governors all over. I have no idea what the short list would look like.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:41 AM

Current Individual
Market Values

                              Intrade                  Iowa Electronic        News Futures
Candidate              Price               Change        Price        Change         Price        Change
Barack Obama         73.00        +2.200        71.90        +0.010        75.00        -1.000
Hillary Clinton         26.80        -2.200        28.30        -0.007        29.00        +2.000


This is a composite of three electronic betting boards nation wide, composed by Slate magazine . Click link for more details. Wisdom of crowds?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 04:02 PM

I saw Sam Nunn mentioned as possible VP for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 04:58 PM

Yet another great video for Obama--this one by Mo Rocca. Mo says there is one more demographic Obama needs to get, and to that end has made his own contribution: Para Ganar Obama--set to a --definitely-- recognizable tune. I found it under AOL News. But I don't know the process to link it to Mudcat. Hope somebody can do so--it's another instant classic.

"Yo no soy Clintonero...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 05:34 PM

Here you are

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:38 AM

"...The fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination is increasingly portrayed as one between romantics and realists.

But a realistic view of Obama would be that he is best placed to seize and shape a new world of such possibilities. He has the youth, the global background, the ability to move people, and the demonstrated talent for reaching across lines of division, even those etched in black and white.

He would, as Andrew Sullivan has written, ÒrebrandÓ America. Wieseltier dismisses such rebranding. But even the Papacy was rebranded in our times, by a Pole, and Poles then precipitated the fall of the Soviet empire.

A romantic view of Clinton might be that she has the guts and savvy to free herself of her husbandÕs coterie of the worldÕs rich and famous, with its dubious deal-making from Kazakhstan to Colombia, and ensure that a White House with a president and ex-president in it projects U.S. renewal rather than the tawdrier sides of Clintonism.

IÕm just not enough of a romantic to believe it.

Obama is the expression of a hybrid world whose promise outweighs its menace. He needs to recall what he once said: ÒNo president should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.Ó

If he does, and a tough foreign policy team would help, hope and hardness will in time find a fecund balance confounding even to IranÕs mullahs...."

( Roger Cohen, writing in the New York Times).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:05 PM

I think Iran's Mullahs are already confounded! ;-) They are being confronted very aggressively by a superpower which has invaded and occupied two of their immediate neighbours upon the most spurious excuses, has shot down one of their civilian airliners, and has repeatedly threatened them with possible attack even to the level of using nuclear weapons...all supposedly because they are enriching uranium to theoretically "make a nuclear bomb", when in fact they have every legal right to enrich all the uranium they want to (to produce nuclear power), since they are a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation act which GIVES them that legal right.

They're already bloody well confounded. Why wouldn't they be? Anyone would be confounded under such a circumstance. Obama does not need to confound them further.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

They were confounded well before that, LH. In a world where even a date for lunch is made only through the grace of allah, where no acknowledgment may be accepted except redirected to Allah, and where human brutality appears to be (to many) an ordinary part of Allah's will, the world is a thoroughly confounding place.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

Yes, that too...but I hear that there is actually a considerable fondness for western culture in Iran. Matter of fact, there always has been. The Iranians, if left to their own devices, would much rather get along well with westerners.

In any case, if people of a different culture have some religious customs that strike us as ridiculous or oppressive....well, I hardly feel that that is justification for threatening to invade them or bomb them. Their religion, weird as it may be, is their own business, not ours.

I mean, look, say they were surrounding the USA, having previously occupied Canada and Mexico in bloody invasions, and they were threatening to bomb you at any time....in order to get you to stop eating pork, stop your women from wearing short skirts, and stop executing your felons who are on death row.

Would you like that? Just as a theoretical situation, I mean? How would that strike you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:42 PM

The best hope that the present regime in Teheran has of holding onto power lies in the threats and the hostility of the present regime in Washington. Without that to bolster them they'd probably be on a hiding to nothing.

But then without that Ahmadinejad would never have been elected President. There's a symbiotic relationship between the two regimes, and it goes both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:54 PM

True. If the USA had had the sense to leave Iran alone WAY back in the 1950's, instead of toppling their elected government in a CIA-planned coup, then the authoritarian religious rule of the Ayatollahs would never have come about in the first place. It is indeed a symbiotic relationship, as you suggest.

As for Ahmadinejad, he's not the ruler of Iran. He's the president. The president is not the ruler or the top person in Iran, he's an underling. The ruler is the Ayatollah. What Ahmadinejad is, is he's a perfect poster boy for the USA's anti-Iranian propaganda...worth his weight in gold to Washington at the moment. Without him there, they'd have to find another boogeyman...and they would. There's always another one. Just like on TV, the story has to have its official "bad guy" to keep the public interested. It helps a lot if he has facial hair, but it's not an absolute necessity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM

Don't worry about Iran. Ahmadinejad is losing power--due to his disastrous policies on the economy. There is gas rationing--in a country with huge reserves. People have frozen to death, due to lack of fuel in their homes. He's even been rebuked by the man Teribus likes to call the "head git"--who actually has the final word in Iran. Discontent with Ahmadinejad is large--and rising.

And as I've said earlier--not well received, to put it mildly--Bush will not invade or bomb Iran in his last year--that's a shortcut to impeachment, conviction and removal--and he knows it.

Ahmadinejad will be tossed out by his own people in June 2009---or earlier--with no nuclear bomb ready. And his successors will be much more ready to deal constructively with the West--especially with President Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 02:19 PM

A cheerful forecast, Ron! ;-) I like it. The great thing about politicians is...they're all temporary.

Now, why the heck would Iran even want a nuclear bomb? I can think of only one good reason: as a deterrent to the USA attacking them. It works for North Korea.

And why would the USA want other people to think Iran wants a nuclear bomb? So the USA has an excuse to attack Iran. Same excuse as with Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction!

And how stupid do those in government in the USA think their (general) public is? I think the answer to that would be...very, very stupid!   Colossally stupid. Stupid beyond any conceivable measure of unimaginable couch-potatoe stupidity. Let's make that..."just plain stupid". I think that's the theory the government goes on, judging by its standard rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM

that's a shortcut to impeachment, conviction and removal- But why should he care?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 04:15 PM

Yeah, it's amazing to me that there are still people out there threatening to impeach Bush. He'd be out of office anyway, before the proceedings could get started.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 04:40 PM

Which reminds me...is it too late to impeach Reagan? Darn!

There's nothing as persuasive as war, once it gets started. All you have to do is start it. The moment it's underway (upon whatever excuse), the moment some of your own "boys" are in danger and being shot at or your own people are dying...well, it becomes overpoweringly persuasive to the general public to step up to the plate and support the war. To do otherwise would be "unpatriotic", even traitorous!

Bush might rely on just that sort of response. There are many ways to start a war. One is to launch a false flag "attack" on your own people and blame it on a foreign power. The attack can occur at home or abroad, but at home is far better, because it generates a great deal more fear and outrage. Don't underestimate just how far some people may go to get the war they want.

Hitler arranged for a false flag attack on Germany mere hours before his attack on Poland. Most Germans bought it, because that's what their media told them: that Polish soldiers had attacked a German radio station. They even provided some dead bodies in Polish uniforms as evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:44 PM

"Why does he care?" Because for some reason--can't explain it--he just doesn't want the asterisk after his name: "Only US president ever impeached and convicted". It doesn't quite fit with whatever "legacy" he imagines he'll leave.

If you don't think this is so, evidence and logic, please.

Much as some Mudcatters allege that GWB is a total nutcase, that has not been established. Just some references to a "listening to a higher Father" or a similar phrase are not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:56 PM

It'd put him in the record books all right - and there'd be bound to be a bunch of revisionist historians who'd regularly come up with accounts of how he was a great man, and unfairly treated.

As it is he'll be written about as "perhaps the worst president ever" and so forth, and that'll be just about as bad, except he won't get the sympathy vote that an impeachment would be sure to get him in future generations.

I think impeachment and conviction might actually make for a better "heritage". I'm not suggesting he'd judge it that way, but when it come to Dubya's judgement the jury is out. Or rather it's not out, because that would imply a judicial process.

In any case it isn't going to happen, no matter what Bush might do in the public arena, so it's no kind of a threat or deterrent hanging over him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 08:03 PM

You have to trust me on this. I've been in enough US history classes and read enough US history books to know that impeachment, conviction--and don't forget the immediate removal as a result--is not anything any US president would ever want. And no revisionism would ever wipe it out. It's the ultimate, indelible scarlet letter.

And if anybody disagrees, as I said, let's have some logic and evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 08:26 PM

Being martyred, which is what it would be seen as by a significant section of people, has never been a reliable way of permanently damaging reputations. There are plenty of examples of political figures, including heads of state, who have been put on trial by their opponents and have been convicted, and subsequently this has helped them achieve heroic status.

But in any case the suggestion that the threat of impeachment might affect the decisions Bush makes in his remaining months runs into the sand - because there just isn't any realistic possibility of his being impeached, no matter what he does in public life.

It may indeed be highly improbable that he wouldn't care about being impeached (and convicted), but if anything the prospect of that actually happening is, if anything, even more improbable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

"Martyred?"   It hasn't worked out that way for the others who were involved in the impeachment process. Even Democrats say Clinton was totally stupid for getting himself in that position. You know the story on Nixon--and he was not impeached. Johnson's reputation has not improved--and that impeachment was in 1868.

If Bush were impeached for attacking Iran, it would be because of all the dead Americans that resulted. Especially in Iraq--where the reaction would be swift--and violent. Iranians attacking across the border. Likely participation by Sadrists. The immediate fall of the Maliki government--and with it any chance for a stable Iraq in the reasonably near future.

Bush's fellow Republicans would be leading the charge in the impeachment--especially since they believe Iraq is now improving--and he would have thrown all that away.

There is absolutely no reason to think Bush would ever be seen as a martyr--by anybody--for anything as incredibly stupid as invading or bombing Iran---with the likely responses I have outlined.

Anything about his "martyrdom" is absurd speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:22 AM

Well, you've got me convinced. ;-) Suppose you succeeded in convincing everybody else here too? What would we then talk about? I guess we could all have a big farewell party, celebrate our newfound solidarity, and consign the political threads to the dustbun of Mudcat history from that point on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:22 AM

"dustbin", that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:21 AM

Dustbun is rather a good word though. I'm sure a useful meaning for it could be devised.

It may be that you are right Ron, and the USA is so different from all the other countries where digraced and vilified leaders have subsequently bobbed to the surface as national heroes (at least in the eyes of a significant section) that it couldn't happen there. (Though Nixon isn't the best example to prove that - I seem to have seen quite a few cases of him being compared very favourably to Bush in recent times.)

But it ain't going to happen anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:11 AM

"Martyrdom" was the word used. No "martyrdom" for anybody who gets lots of US soldiers killed needlessly. The bum's rush is more like it.   And the "Bush team"s expertise in propaganda is the only thing that prevented it in 2004.

Back to the topic.


In the Wisconsin primary, it appears to be neck and neck. If Hillary by some chance wins it, it will be portrayed as her big comeback.

Why?   Since what reporters want is attention--so they like drama. No conspiracy involved--drama always gets more attention.

But Wisconsin always was a good possibility for Hillary. Industrial unions--some of whom have endorsed her. Primary, not caucus---she's done better. Economically depressed.

So if she edges out Obama, it is not a big deal.   Though it will no doubt be pictured as one. More significant is that it seems she is not far enough ahead of Obama in Ohio and Texas to get the delegate count she needs. (Though obviously it's not March yet--nobody can predict the actual outcome of those votes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:57 AM

Also, her remarks on the meat recall situation are apt to play well.   Obama should come out--now--with his own proposed solutions--even if they are similar. Being called a copycat is not the worst thing that could happen. It's called being willing to learn from your opponents.
He's already said there would be a place for her in his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

I would love to see Obama overturn expectations for Ohio, not to mention Texas. Schadenfreude, I guess.

The NYT today had a very droll OpEd on Obama Come Down syndrome, when hope-junkies find themselves needing more and more doses of hope... it was funny, yes, but as the essay itself says, even after the morning after, a thin still note persists; this man is making some kind of difference. Humorously enough, one of the columnists in the Times this morning wondered whether we should worry about Obam's degree of self-confidence. At least his self-confidence has not degenerated into arrogance, as it did so early in Bush' campaign, and he has won his case so far without having to buy judges from the Supreme Court.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:08 PM

No "martyrdom" for anybody who gets lots of US soldiers killed needlessly.

Maybe so, though that kind of thing never stopped Napoleon getting the fallen hero treatment, to name but one. "Soldiers killed needlessly" can often be relabelled as "soldiers who gave their all in a noble cause" when the rehabilitation process has got under way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:12 PM

Napoleon was one hell of a fine general...specially in his younger years. It is no wonder that the French remember him in rather heroic terms. Even his enemies, though they hated him, also had a grudging respect for him.

The English sailors and soldiers used to sing "Boney was a warrior", their salute to Napoleon's generalship.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:37 PM

If Bush were impeached (and there are plenty of reasons that he should be, even without his launching an attack on Iran), there would, of course, be a lunatic fringe who would consider him to be a martyr, but I can't see that their numbers would be at all significant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

"Yet Obama has made inroads into Clinton's support base of late. In last week's Virginia primary, Obama split the white vote and got more votes from women than Clinton. He also captured more votes from those concerned about the economy.

"The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama now holds a lead of 1,275 delegates over Clinton's 1,220. But the gap could prove to be wider since Clinton's total holds more super-delegates who are free to change their votes. Without super-delegates, Obama's lead is 1,112 delegates to Clinton's 978. A total of 2,025 is needed to secure the nomination. " (MarketWatch.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM

Napoleon was indeed a pretty good general, and it's not in the least surprising he was and is revered in France.

But my point was that he undoubtedly got an awful lot of French soldiers killed needlessly and led his country into terrible defeat not once but twice - and that this did nothing the long run to diminish his status.

And the last thing I'm doing is to suggest that Bush is in any way in the same league as Napoleon. Just that being publicly disgraced in itself does not necessarily ensure permanent disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 11:01 PM

Barack Obama won by a comfortable margin in Wisconsin, putting new pressure on his opponent, while John McCain closed in on the Republican nomination

NYT

10:34 p.m. | Rural Wisconsin: From partial returns in Wisconsin, it looks like Mrs. Clinton won in only some of the rural fringes. Mr. Obama totally dominated the state, including the blue-collar, lower-income areas where she campaigned.

CNN says itÕs going to replay some of Mrs. ClintonÕs speech that it cut off.

Also Ñ To correct an earlier projection on electability based on the exit polls, 63 percent of Wisconsin voters said Mr. Obama was more electable, while 37 percent said Mrs. Clinton was electable. (We had said that the difference was about two-to-one.)

And while we are taking care of some housekeeping É While Mr. Obama said his crowd in Houston numbered 20,000, his campaign now has the official count from the Houston fire marshal: 18,500.

10:25 p.m. | Getting Air: CNN occasionally split the screen, giving us some hard numbers to look at. But mostly, the cameras on all networks stayed on his entire speech.

NYT Blog

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 12:45 AM

And what is the lesson Hillary's campaign has learned from this?   It seems to be: "We weren't negative enough".

Well, we'll see how this plays out.

They seem to really believe what I read earlier: her campaign is convinced people are thinking: "If only the Clintons were more ruthless, I'd vote for Hillary."

Truly a fascinating perspective.

But the numbers are closing in on her. With every loss the percentage she has to take in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania rises.

I trust she's preparing the gallant and generous concession speech she may well need--to try to at least undo some of the damage she and Bill are doing to their own good reputations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:26 AM

About the only voting group that is holding (but not expanding) for Clinton is senior citizens. In Texas we'll get a new reading on whether her Mexican-American support is still holding, a group that wasn't a major factor in Wisconsin.

Obama also won in the Hawaii caucuses 74% to 24%, a rather crushing defeat for Clinton.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:51 AM

Reuters - 1 hour ago
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Barack Obama has surged past Hillary Clinton to open a big national lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

...For Mr. Obama, Hawaii was his 10th consecutive victory, a streak in which he has not only run up big margins in many states but also pulled votes from once-stalwart supporters of Mrs. Clinton, like low- and middle-income people and women

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:25 AM

"In his speech on Super Tuesday, and throughout much of his campaign, Mr. Obama talked so much about his candidacy in terms of a "movement" that he sometimes seemed more interested in organizing the country than in governing it. This week, in a subtle but significant shift, he hit on tax cuts and infrastructure, on the need to change the culture around education, on a national service program. He followed up Wednesday with a major economic address at a GM plant in Wisconsin, where he aggressively sought to put to rest some of the questions about whether there was substance behind the rhetoric. His proposals range from small, consumer-friendly innovations, like a rating system to assess the riskiness of credit card offers, to much more expansive public investment ideas, like a $60 billion fund for infrastructure projects and a $150 billion project to create jobs in alternative energy fields."

NYT

I think it needs to be clearly understood that Barack Obama knows the difference between PR and policy and appears to be competent in both arenas.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM

I was talking to a "brother" today and he said that black people say that American will not allow Obama to be President. WHy? because many black people fully expect Barak to be shot, possibly before he is even sworn in.

Cynical perhaps, but with a mood like that on the street things would get very ugly very fast if that worst scenario comes to pass.

A disorganized national riot and armed insurrection would be something that the priviledged 1% of Americans who control 90% of the money would dread but they are not entirely unprepared either.
The 1% now have a HLS and several other agencies designed to deal with "enemy compatents and terrorists". They have new technologies for mass crowd control like the heat ray. They have the media well in tow and with a push of a button, undedicated internet screens could go black.

But for now

we will we will Barak you
boom boom
we will we will Barak you

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

Sure the idea has been floating around. I would bet, though, that Barack's response would be that nebulous fears are not grounds for backing off.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 04:25 PM

Obviously he's a potential target for an assassin, but he's known that all along, and so has everyone who has voted for him. That's one of the implications of the parallels that have been drawn between him and the Kennedy brothers.

If it happens the reaction is going to be shock and horror, but not surprise. In a sense it's almost like waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I just hope it won't come to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 07:44 PM

I think everybody who listens to McCain hears what sounds like an undertaker explaining why grandma's funeral will cost $19,899.

He promised more war and more of them, not figuratively but literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

If Americans really are still as racist as that GUEST thinks, it's as well to know it for sure. There seems good reason to hope that they aren't - and it'd be even better to know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:19 PM

Ten states in a row have testified that about 60% of them are not, at least.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:31 PM

That's be 60% of the ones who would consider voting Democrat, which isn't quite the same...

Still that's not to make any assumptions about Republicans being racist. I'd not be surprised if most of them would have been ready to vote for Condoleeza Rice if she'd been running.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:42 PM

"Ten states in a row have testified that about 60% of them are not, at least."


                      That's not necessarily the news. A large number of the blacks in the south primaries could be incredibly racist, and we wouldn't know it by the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone is a bigger target for assassination right now than Dubya. But if conspiracy theories are what floats yer boat...

It might be well to remember that Jesse Jackson was the Democratic front runner in February 1988...he is still alive and kicking. So I see no reason why a good corporate Democrat like Barak won't be too, for some time to come.

It does look like Obama has it sewn up, and it is time for me to be handed my slice of humble pie. I had a bet going with my husband he'd never go the distance against Clinton. However, he reminded me that Bill Clinton spoke as the darling annointed one at the Dem Nat'l Convention 4 years before he received the nomination too, just like Obama.

So far, the only truly 'historic' president remains JFK--the only Catholic to ever be elected. Think about that one for awhile folks, if you think religion is no big deal. The only leaders we have ever known, outside JFK, have been WASPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

And another thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:57 PM

Wooooooohoooooo!!!

I never got a one thousand before! I ROCK.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:13 PM

Well, I agree with the excellence of your fine accomplishment...;>)

I am not worried about O. getting rubbed out.

It could happen but I don't see it as probable right now.

When he start pulling the levers, we will see who gets pissed then.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:16 PM

I love the tenor of this thread.

....and I don't think I have ever got 1000.... gonna have to work on that....***chuckle***

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM

And all the aging Mudcatters say
They could of nailed it any day;
They only let it go so long
Out of kindness, I suppose.

GG-

You rock!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:29 PM

Thank yew. Thank yew very much.

Elvis exits.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:55 PM

Wasn't Nixon a Quaker? Wasn't Jefferson something? A theist or something not overly denominational? I bet there are others we could come up with. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 11:01 PM

Indeed Nixon was a Quaker. However, the Quakers are still considered to be under the 'Protestant' side of the Christian umbrella.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:27 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad global primary, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in more than 30 countries voted by Internet, mail and in person. The voting took place over the course of a week, beginning Feb. 5.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has not won a nominating contest since Super Tuesday, more than two weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

WASHINGTON, Feb 20, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Hoffa Makes Announcement Following Texas Meeting With Obama

Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa announced today the union's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. The endorsement is the first step in mobilizing the union's 1.4 million members and their families to elect Obama.

"Senator Obama understands the challenges working people face every day," Hoffa said. "He is the candidate in the best position to lead our movement to restore the American dream for working people in this country. Senator Obama will fight for better wages, real health care reform, stronger retirement security, fair trade and an end to the outsourcing of good jobs. He understands the importance of giving workers a voice at work and will fight for strong unions to help rebuild America's middle class."

The endorsement decision follows a meeting in Austin, Texas, between Hoffa and Obama, and completes a months-long process that included scientific polling of Teamster members, surveys of local union and joint council leaders and deliberations by the union's democratically elected General Executive Board.

"We have been fortunate to have candidates throughout the Democratic primary who are friends of working families and the Teamsters Union," Hoffa said. "We are pleased that all of the Democratic candidates have focused on issues of importance to working people, including wages, health care, retirement security, fair trade and outsourcing."

The union's endorsement immediately activates the union's 50-state election program, with special emphasis on swing states.

"Senator Obama will stand with the Teamsters when it comes to fighting for working families," Hoffa said. "This endorsement begins a partnership to change America. Together we will reinvent the political process and give a voice to those who have been ignored by the Bush administration for the past eight years."

---

So...do I get this right? Obama has brought Jim Hoffa back? I mean, how can you NOT vote for him if he can do stuff like that? ;>0



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 11:47 AM

On thing you'll have to admit. Jimmy Hoffa is persistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:01 PM

See, now, if Hillary was paying attention she would immediately jump on this and completely turn things around by starting a campaign decrying Obama's use of voodoo and juju and mojo to resurrect Mister James Hoffa from the bottom of the Long Island Sound or the East River. But she doesn't have the imagination to realize what an opportunity she is passing up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM

She might not have the voodoo either, if, in fact, that went away with Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:49 PM

An' she sure ain't got no Mojo wukkin'....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 01:06 PM

Amos-

Hoffa the Elder is, as you well know, still buried in concrete under some major building project in the great Detroit area (was it the new stadium?). His son is a chip off the old block, so to speak, but evidently more sensitive and better educated.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 01:35 PM

AH, Charley, I knew that, but I was falling in with the current fad of making Big Political Footballs out of molehills. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 05:43 PM

" WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ The new Change to Win labor federation gave its first presidential endorsement to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday, saying its 6 million members could help push him over the top and into the general election as the Democratic nominee.
"We think we can make a difference," chair Anna Burger said. "We think it's time to bring this nomination to a close."
The endorsement came after a teleconference between Change to Win's leaders and the heads of the seven unions that make up the federation. The federation's members will now head to the crucial election states of Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island for the upcoming March 4 primaries, as well as in Pennsylvania on April 22.
Change to Win has 175,000 members in Ohio, 60,000 in Texas and 25,000 in Rhode Island, Burger said. Besides leafletting, knocking on doors and advocating for Obama at workplaces, Burger said she expected more than 100,000 Change to Win voters to participate in the Ohio primary alone."

Te International Herald Trib also reported on Obama winning the voters-abroad contingent, as large as a small state.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:22 PM

"'We think we can make a difference,'" chair Anna Burger said"


                If it had been Hamilton Burger, he would have been certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:45 PM

Guest - That's a point I've been trying to make for a while now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:46 PM

WASHINGTON Ñ Senator Barack Obama won his 11th straight nominating contest on Thursday, carrying the Democrats Abroad global primary by a 2-to-1 margin over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and prevailing among American expatriates in every region of the world.

The results represented thousands of ballots submitted from Americans in 164 countries and territories from Feb. 5 to 12.

The overseas Democrats were allocating a small number of delegates Ð 4.5 Ñ on Thursday, under a proportional system that allotted 2.5 to Obama and 2 to Clinton. A further 2.5 will be determined at a Democrats Abroad convention on April 12 in Vancouver, Canada. The group also holds 4 superdelegate votes, for a total of 11 votes at the national convention in late August in Denver.

But in a close contest, Democrats Abroad said they felt particularly engaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:47 PM

February 21, 2008
BOSTONÑBarack Obama lost the popular vote among Massachusetts Democrats, but is gaining an edge among the state's so-called "superdelegates."

Democratic National Committee member Margaret Xifaras (EX'-ah-FARE-is) of New Bedford is endorsing Obama for president.

Xifaras had been uncommitted, but she says she was drawn to Obama's campaign.

An ongoing tally of Massachusetts' 26 Democratic superdelegates by The Associated Press now shows 11 supporting Obama, nine backing Clinton and six undeclared.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:50 PM

Well -- I submit it is an unrealistic point. But we have to roll it out to see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:24 PM

"Drive throughout Dixie and look at the flags waving on every house - the Confederate Flag." Do those people generally vote Democrat these days?

(Here in the UK of course if someone displays that flag, say on a T-shirt, it just indicates a liking for Country Music, it doesn't have any particular political significance.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM

Well, Hillary got the last word but her last word was that she was honored to be on the same platform as Obama and the American people would do well to unite behind either of them.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:49 PM

In the debate tonight, when Hillary was asked about negative things she'd said about Obama, she backed off--did not say Obama was "all hat and no cattle" again ( but did not admit he had some specific proposals.   Or when she affirmed her earlier criticism--"plagiarism"-- she came off as petty.

I thought Obama had the most important line of the night--obviously I don't claim to be impartial.

But he said: "It's time to stop bickering".

And she still hasn't learned that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:05 AM

To say "It's time to stop bickering" while participating in a presidential debate sounds like you have missed the point entirely, though.

You see, this is the problem I have w/Obama. His dismissive arrogance.

I don't think that will continue to play well once he gets beyond preaching to the choir.

Remember, the people who are flocking to Obama now are not the same people who will be voting come November. They are a much tougher sell.

Obama is still getting a free pass, as far as I'm concerned. That means, once it gets to the rough and tumble of the actual campaign, he is likely going to be making a lot of mistakes.

Anyone notice how quickly (less than 24 hours) McCain stomped out the sleeping with the slut story--which has brought down more than one president and presidential candidate in the past?

Frankly, I don't think Obama & his campaign have the chops to defeat McCain. One of the reasons why is this arrogance. You see it Obama, and you see it even more in his wife, whom I see as a real liability in the fall campaign. Somebody needs to stuff a sock in that woman's mouth, or there is no hope for getting rid of the War Machine Party come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Kweku
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:34 AM

Anyone who dismisses Obama as a flash in the pan is politically naive. Most elections are won by people who inspires the "ordinary soft people".

Put McCain and Obama side by side and most will go for Obama, for him to floor Clinton of all people state after state is no fluke. even conspiracy theorists like myself is beginning to take a second look at his candidature. Let's admit the man is infectious and it will take more than a miracle for both the Clintons and Republicans to stop him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:38 AM

Guest-Guest - I agree. Arrogance it is. And his wife is quoted as saying, "I've never been proud of America before, but I'm proud of America now." That will play well to the Huckabee suporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

Yah, that will go down well at Camp Pendleton too. And among the uber patriotic Hispanic voting bloc, and large percentage of which voted for Bush in 2000. Especially when they look at what Obama's position is on Mexico & immigration, and what McCain's is.

Another thing that bothers me is that Obama has no real ties to military families. He can't win in November without reaching out to them, and reassuring him that their service hasn't been in vain (even though I personally believe it was a complete sham).

McCain comes off as calm, modest, humble, and knows how to work connections to people who vote in EVERY election, not just the lemming designer voters who won't go to the polls unless they have a rock star candidate to support.

Problem with relying on the so-called "youth" vote or "campus" vote is, most of those kids have to vote by absentee ballot, which is something most of them never quite get around to doing...

The over 50 brigade, OTOH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:00 AM

One other thing--McCain's age won't be a factor to boomer voters who are now all over 50, because there isn't a larger anti-aging contingency of voters in the history of the friggin' world than the vain boomers. They won't have any more problem voting for him than they did for Reagan, especially with the choice being a historic candidate that doesn't have much going for him beyond being historic, sparkly and new.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:00 AM

Obama may be able to win the General Election without the Huckabee supporters. But you may have a point that some patriotic voters, the super zealots, may also feel more comfortable voting for McCain. If that support adds up to a majority of the vote come November, I'd be surprised and disappointed.

I believe that Obama has proven that he can mobilize the center and I fervently hope that he can take back American from the misguided or blatently greedy plunderers who have been in control for the last 7 years.

I do find it hard to understand why some posters here would characterize Obama as "arrogant." Most commentators find his style inclusive, reaching out, avoiding direct attack but persisting in trying to achive his goals, a style more culturally identified with women than with men. Where did you harvest such a characterization, or is it some personal revelation?

I must say that Clinton appears a whole lot more humble now than she did a few months ago. Maybe she's learned something in the campaign process.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:03 AM

I agree, in general, with the assessment that this fight is going to be much tougher than the starry eyed, clamoring for change, voters think it is going to be. McCain, in the main, is perceived to be an honorable guy, who served his country well, a maverick (are you paying attention, out there????) who is not beholden to special interests, and who is able to work with both sides of the aisle. HELLLLOOOOOOOOO...... are you listening? His position on the war, and his clinging to supply side economics, should sink him. But if the Democratic candidate isn't careful, and doesn't control the direction of the debate, keeping focus on the war and shrinking middle class, ..... if that person doesn't have concrete plans, and allows himself/herself to be defined by the opposition.... the great middle will fall into a comfort zone and surprise the shit out of you.

Guest, while I don't think it is as grave as you, (I believe McCain has plenty of vulnerabilities) I do absolutely agree that this isn't the walk in the park that some think it is. I remember sitting in my office, back in 2000 when I was running the Michigan Gore campaign, watching the Republican debates during the primary time. I remember a senior activist hoping Bush would win the primary. I asked him why. He responded, "because we can kick that guys ass". Didn't quite work out that way.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:38 AM

That will play well to the Huckabee suporters.

Is it very likely that many Huckabee supporters will be voting for any Democrat?
.....................................

As for Obama being "arrogant" - isn't the more traditional word in this context "uppity"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:12 AM

What you saw, Gigi , wa snot arrogance but an effort to elevate the conversation -- a mature response to the kind of petty-minded granfaloons that were being tossed around. On the otherhand, if you perceived this as arrogance, consider the possibility of projection, and that accusations are often confessions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:24 AM

"I've never been proud of America before, but I'm proud of America now."

Rig:

THose were not her words. And in the context of the actual words, the meaning was clear, and not what you impute it to be. This sort of literal-minded twisting, to make it appear she meant something she did not, is really beneath you, unintelligent and unbecoming, and certainly beneath the dialogue she was engaged in. She also took the trouble, for those who were too tin-eared to get what she was saying, to issue a clarification the next day as to what she was describing. Would it be too much trouble to include that in your torqued compuitations? Just to be, shall we say, fair and balanced?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

Yes, well, that's the reason I wrote "quoted as saying," instead of attributing it directly to her. I think I heard that on Sean Hannity, which is, in fact, a fair and balanced source. Just ask him.
             Also, I didn't know she'd clarified the remark later.

             Still he does seem a little arrogant to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

Arrogance can be a virtue, too, if no-one else is willing to jack the show up above the gutter level of mass mob-mad thinkery pokery. It has to be handled with caution though. So far, from what I have seen, Obama has used just a pinch here and there; for the most part he is very democratic and very friendly. In the context of the debate it made him look more the chief executive than his opponent, not such a bad thing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:20 PM

This is the sort of crap out of Obama I'm talking about re: military families, and the military in general:

Fact check: Obama's story about Afghanistan platoon hard to verify

Associated Press



WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama says the war in Iraq, which he opposes, has pulled troops away from Afghanistan and left soldiers there without proper equipment.

He underscored his point in the Democratic debate Thursday by telling a story about a rifle platoon in Afghanistan that allegedly didn't have enough soldiers or weapons to do its job, leaving the platoon to scrounge for weapons from the Taliban.

His source was an anonymous Army captain, whom his campaign refused to identify Friday.

___

THE SPIN:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," Obama said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq,"

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

___

THE FACTS:

The Obama campaign offered no details to support the captain's story, making it impossible to verify. A spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about who the captain was and when and how the candidate learned about the allegation.

ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified.

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

The Pentagon has acknowledged forces are stretched, but spokesman Bryan Whitman said that without knowing more, he could not comment on the veracity of Obama's claim, except to say: "I find that account pretty hard to imagine."

Whitman contended "all of our units and service members that go into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful for the mission that they've been given."

Obama said the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. A platoon does not have to consist of 39, but can have between 16 to 40 soldiers, according to standard Army unit organization. It is also commanded by a lieutenant and not a captain.

According to the ABC report, the captain was a lieutenant when he took command of the rifle platoon.

Sen. John Warner, a supporter of likely GOP presidential nominee John McCain, sent Obama a letter Friday asking for details about the platoon and the name and whereabouts of the captain, so he can tell military officials about it at an upcoming hearing. Warner is ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

___

By Ann Sanner

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM

Obama's words seem to be pretty consistent with "THE FACTS" given there.

Well, perhaps not with the Pentagon spokesman's comments - but then that should surely have been placed in the section marked "THE SPIN".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:52 PM

Errr. I believe that ABC (and CNN) got the name of the Captain from the Obama Campaign with the stipulation that ABC (and CNN) would not identify him, and get him courtmartialed. The story I heard only varied in detail from what Obama said, but feel free to spin it any way you want.

Yes, the Captain admitted, his squad did make use of their inventory of captured Taliban machine guns when their own machine gun broke down. However, when they were inspected they were careful to replace the working Taliban machine gun with the broken U.S. one.

I really love it when posters seeking the "truth" want other people to sacrifice their careers for their interest. Why don't you volunteer for a tour to Afganistan.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM

Here is the deal with me Charley. I'm not for or against Obama, any more than I am for or against Clinton.

The problem I have is with dumb ass Democrats who are more interested in feeling good about the candidate they support, than about getting rid of the perpetual war boys on the other side. That makes me sick, and it is deja vu all over again, as far as I'm concerned.

It matters not one whit what I think about this story. What YOU should care about, as an Obama devotee, is the fact that he doesn't have a grasp of the basic facts of the military, that he is scaremongering for political gain in the eyes of many military personnel and their families, and that he has very much been for the war after he was against the war, by voting to continue the funding for it ever since he arrived in Washington.

This story is yet another demonstration of his lack of a grasp on the facts. He is a really, really smart guy in so many ways. Except, it seems, the whys, whats, and wherefores of how to beat Perpetual War Man on that other team.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:02 PM

Of course, I'm also for Nader jumping in with John Edwards to do a 3rd party/indie run. Now there's a dream ticket for ya.

Tune in to Meet the Press on Sunday. Ralph will be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

I think, behind the fog of scrimmage, he is making a good point. Bear in mind, bright eyes, that it was Afghanistan -- not Iraq -- that harbored bin Laden in September of 2001, and pretended he was not there. While Iraq has of course claimed all the headlines in the eyes of those who would like to relive WW II by starting it over again -- a misguided dramatization -- it is worth considering that Afghanistan is the greater offender by far.

This is still yesterday's discussion, though, as there is no telling where the strategic nerve center of al Queda is if in fact it has one, and if in fact it is al Queda that is driving what terrorism still operates in the Muslim world. I have very little hard data about either of those things, if you separate them out from the insurgency that still pops up in Iraq which is not anti-US terrorism as much as it is civil fires.

Hundreds of thousands of dead have not balanced the books for the 3,000 who dies on September 11, because it is not really about injury but about insult.

Anyway, I suggest Obama might be onto something here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:29 PM

"Anyway, I suggest Obama might be onto something here."

Yeah sure, if it was the summer of 2003. Your boy hasn't exactly been spearheading the anti-war movement though, Amos. And that was all it was about for you in 2004, you hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 12:10 AM

I am not sure what you mean, there, garbage mouth. What was "all it was about" -- being against the war? Whatever are you on about?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:41 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters Ñ straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.
As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second Ñ or third Ñ thoughts about their public commitments.
Take John Perez, a Californian who first endorsed John Edwards and then backed Clinton. Now, he says, he is undecided.

"Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice," he said in an interview.
Clinton still leads among superdelegates Ñ 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while Obama's is up 25. Since the primaries started, at least three Clinton superdelegates have switched to Obama, including Rep. David Scott of Georgia, who changed his endorsement after Obama won 80 percent of the primary vote in Scott's district. At least two other Clinton backers have switched to undecided.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

This U.S. election represents a major inflection point for that country as well as for Canada and the world.

Obama will crush Hillary and then McCain in the fall, a new comprehensive poll shows.

Why? Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.

This week's poll shows Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52% to 38%, after being in a statistical tie last month. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%.

Obama is uniting those left behind by the Republicans and other social Darwinists who have exclusively looked after -- to quote President George Bush -- the "haves" and "have mores." Enormous tax cuts go to rich people, while the rest are given a stern lecture by the Republicans about the benefits of hard work and the American dream, which, by the way, is mostly unobtainable if you were born a member of a minority or if you cannot stay healthy or are educated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:54 AM

Obama is out-spending Clinton 8 to 1 in Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:07 AM

And your point is, Rig?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:59 AM

"Over 2,000 March at Prairie View, a Reminder of Young Voters' Engagement in '08 Election
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
By: BlackAmericaWeb.com

A huge banner carried Tuesday by Prairie View A&M University students at the head of a march to the Waller County Courthouse said it all: "It's 2008. We will vote."

The Prairie View students, hundreds of them, waited for hours in line to vote after walking seven miles from campus to the county seat. Students say they wanted to protest changes the county recently made in early polling locations and show officials the impact of their political participation.

The unofficial crowd estimate was 2,200, said Prairie View Student Government Association President Andre Evans. He said about 3,000 Prairie view students in total are registered to vote.

Waller County had reduced the number of early voting locations from about six around the county to only one at its courthouse because county officials said they could not afford to operate multiple early voting locations.

After getting pressure from federal government, the county added three early voting locations, still there was not one announced for the Prairie View campus, convenient to students. An early voting site will be open this weekend at a community center in Prairie View.

The activism demonstrated by the Prairie View students is yet another example of trends observers across the country are noting as more people between the ages of 18 and 30 register to vote and take roles in political campaigns".


http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/prairieviewprotest220

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

responding to yesterday's comments:

"I have the courage of my convictions!"

"YOU are a bit over-confident."

"HE is arrogant!"


-swiped from a Sidney J. Harris column of 40 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 01:11 PM

Thank the Lawd for the fire of youth; in the final analysis, it is all we have to move ahead on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM

I suspect strongly that as usual, Rig's sources are not the best.   Obama outspending Hillary 8 to 1 in Texas?   I doubt it strongly--and the WSJ also implies strongly it is not true. According to the WSJ, Hillary has 100,000 people working for her campaign in Texas. I'd be very surprised if Obama is outspending her 8 to 1 there.

And, by the way, Rig-- sorry, Hannity does not make it as a good source--of anything except his own opinion.

Perhaps you could drag yourself away from the cesspool of right-wing talk radio and actually get some facts.

It would be a pleasant change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 05:53 PM

Ron - Why would Rupert Murdoch lie? Speaking of dragging oneself away from the cesspool.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 06:02 PM

Why would Rupert Murdoch lie?

I assume that is heavy irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:41 PM

It could be irony, but it could be put another way. What is Rupert Murdoch's purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:09 PM

Lambasted for Not Drinking the Obama Kool-Aid
Expert guest post by Michael K. Fauntroy

It's hard out here for Black pundits/analysts/commentators who haven't come around to drinking the Barack Obama is the best-thing-since-sliced-bread-how-did-we-ever-exist-as-a-nation-without-him-this-is-
our-last-best-chance-to-elect-a-Black-president-so-we-better-support-him-see-I-told-
you-racism-is-dead Kool-Aid. I have learned an unfortunate lesson in observing the Democratic presidential nomination fight: In too many segments of the country – Black and White – to express any skepticism about Barack Obama is considered political heresy. I'm blown away by this discovery, because it suggests a dangerous group think: Obama is the only agent of change and to not praise him at every opportunity is to support the status quo (And, oh, by the way, Hilary is the devil!).
Michael Fauntroy

This is a strange position for me to be in, as I think he has the instincts to be a really good president. I don't consider myself an Obama critic, just someone unwilling to critically analyze his candidacy. I am a progressive registered as an Independent and my preferred candidate is not in the race, so I get a little touchy when callers and blog respondents assume that because I'm not yet ready to drink the Obama kool-aid, that I must be in the tank for Hilary Clinton. Not true. I think it's narrow-minded to think that just because one is lukewarm to Obama that they must want Hilary to win. Between you and me: I'll take Al Gore over either of them in a heartbeat.

I realized all this during a radio interview in Atlanta the day before the New Hampshire primary. I had the temerity to suggest that we shouldn't overreact to his Iowa win. I reminded listeners that Jesse Jackson won Vermont – a state every bit as White as Iowa – 20 years ago and that many White Democrats have been voting for Black candidates for years, so we shouldn't jump up and down over Obama's caucus win. I knew I was in trouble, though, when the music bump before the interview began featured a caller who said she supports Obama "100 percent" and would vote for a Black man over a White woman every time. I thought: "wow, by that logic, you'd vote for Ike Turner, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas over Hilary Clinton." How ridiculous.

While I got slapped around by a few callers (and gently by the host, an Obama supporter), one caller was particularly unhinged. He called himself an "Obama Republican," which struck me as oxymoronic (or maybe just moronic), and went on about how Obama showed leadership in the Illinois legislature in opposing the war and that I was out of line for not giving him credit for this. I reminded the caller that Obama has not opposed one nickel of Bush spending to continue this travesty, but, alas, I was deemed unduly critical of "the Brother," not to be taken seriously. By the way caller: Do you know how easy it is to oppose something when you have no skin in the game? Can anyone say for sure that he would not have voted to authorize Bush's foolishness in Iraq if he were a member of the Senate in 2002? I'm willing to bet that Obama would have done as all the Senate Democrats who wanted to be president did: vote to support Bush so that their Republican general election opponent couldn't say they were soft on terrorism.

All I've tried to do is add some reason and caution to the over-the-top response that many voters have for Obama. And I'll keep doing it. I have thick skin, so it's no big deal to me.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: MichaelFauntroy.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:11 PM

chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.
The Obama Messiah WatchIntroducing a periodic feature considering evidence that Obama is the son of God.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 29, 2007, at 6:23 PM ET

Is Barack Obama—junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, and "exploratory" presidential candidate—the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can't dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst.

Today's item, from a Los Angeles Times profile by Larry Gordon about Obama's two years at Occidental College (before he transferred to Columbia):

    In [political science professor Roger] Boesche's European politics class, [classmate Ken] Sulzer said he was impressed at how few notes [italics mine] Obama took. "Where I had five pages, Barry had probably a paragraph of the pithiest, tightest prose you'd ever see. … It was very short, very sweet. Obviously somebody almost Clintonesque in being able to sum a whole lot of concepts and place them into a succinct written style."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:17 PM

My bad. The last two launched without my knowledge.

The second one is from Slate magazine, the first from a very interesting African American political indie commentator, Michael Fauntroy.

It isn't just l'il ole GG expressing dissenting views on the Obama cult in Mudcat in a random, abberant manner. There are a lot of people still out in the big world beyond the Mudcat echo chamber who haven't surrendered all their critical thinking faculties in an easy trade for fuzzy feel good rhetoric from the leading corporate Democratic party candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:23 PM

Well, Geege, you may just be an ass, then. I don't know who your sweeping generalizations and condemnations apply to hear at Mudcat; I have already voiced disappointment in Barack Obama once, but it turned out to be based on a false report -- if I recall, one that you posted. So it's not like your goal to spread cynicism and despond has no traction; just not as much as you would probably like.

Both of those comments are interesting enough -- I have heard many more both pro and contra Obama, which were just as articulate.

What is it about people making decisions according to their own lights that bothers you so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM

I'm not the one hot and bothered about somebody else's opinions here, Amos. That's you, Ron Davies, Bobert, et al deciding to attack anyone who doesn't agree with your glowing reports about Obama.

It's the Mudcat group think, and the hatred of anyone with a different point of view that binds you all together. Your hate is your most powerful motivator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:57 PM

The Obama Glow

The Nuclear Industry's Golden Child

by Joshua Frank / February 22nd, 2008

Barack Obama, hoping to shore up major victories in the delegate rich states of Texas and Ohio early next month, is going after Hillary Clinton's ever-dwindling base of working class voters. The Illinois senator is hoping to stimulate their passion for his campaign by proposing to stimulate the weak economy by spending $210 billion on new jobs. Obama says his government sponsored employment program would allocate $150 billion over 10 years to create 5 million jobs in environmental industries.

Sounds Keynesian enough. Obama would couple his lavish government spending with investments from the private sector to produce work for many of America's underemployed. The number of jobs he seeks to create is significant to be sure, but the real question is in what "environmental" capacity would these so-called "green collar" jobs be created? Many critics argue that Obama's plan doesn't exactly create jobs, but only redistributes money from one part of the economy to another. Even so, there may be far more sinister tenets to Obama's economic plan.

Unfortunately the Obama campaign is light on the details of his stimulus program, only referring to these government gigs as working to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. At face value this may all sound like a noble venture — one greens and others concerned with the environment might consider getting behind. But given Obama's track record, voters can't be too certain his plan is all that "green". In fact it may be just the opposite, for the senator's ties to the nuclear industry are stronger than any other candidate in the hunt for the White House this year.

In 2006 Obama took up the cause of Illinois residents who were angry with Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator, for not having disclosed a leak at one of their nuclear plants in the state. Obama responded by quickly introducing a bill that would require nuclear facilities to immediately notify state and federal agencies of all leaks, large or small.

At first it seemed Obama was intent on making a change in the reporting protocol, even demonizing Exelon's inaction in the press. But Obama could only go so far as Exelon executives, including Chairman John W. Rowe who serves as a key lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Lobby, have long been campaign backers, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars dating back to Obama's days in the Illinois State Legislature.

Despite his initial push to advance the legislation, Obama's office eventually rewrote the bill, producing a version that was palatable to Exelon and the rest of the nuclear industry. "Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Illinois, where the nuclear leaks had polluted local ground water. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

Inevitably the bill died a slow death in the Senate. And like an experienced political operative, Obama came out of the battle as a martyr for both sides of the cause. His constituents back in Illinois thought he fought a good fight while industry insiders knew the Obama machine was worth investing in.

Obama's campaign wallet, while flush with millions from small online donations, is also bulging from $227,000 in contributions given by employees of Exelon. Two of Obama's largest campaign fundraisers include Frank M. Clark and John W. Rogers Jr., both top Exelon officials. Even Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, has done consulting work for the company.

During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions "on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration."

Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry's top trade publication, praised the senator. "Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common sense solutions'. And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind."

The rising star of the Democratic Party's ties to the nuclear industry run deep indeed, but Obama may not only be loyal to Exelon and friends — the senator is also cozy with Big Coal.

Last year Obama pushed to get a FutureGen "clean coal" plant built in Illinois. The company is a public-private partnership that is intent on building "zero-emission" coal plants. FutureGen's energy production is less than a zero-sum game, however, as the company doesn't count the energy used prior to or after the coal is burned, not to mention tallying up the disastrous consequences of coal extraction.

In 2005 Obama also voted in favor of Bush's Energy Plan which included many favors for Bush's oil cartel connections. To top it off Obama even opposed a House bill that would have radically altered the disastrous 1872 Mining Law that continues to allow companies to mine our public lands while they skate the costs of cleaning up their environmental wreckage.

Barack Obama's "job creation" plan may well be code for building taxpayer-sponsored nuclear and coal plants across the country. While Obama's industry pals may profit from his shady deal, it is safe to say the environment won't.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in June 2008. Read other articles by Joshua.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM

Sounds pretty blown up, to me. Not to mention slanted with hot phrases. Why can't you just lay the facts out without all the innuendo, "may be awful..." crap? The writer's agenda is so loud you can't even hear what is actually being said!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM

"Mudcat group think."

That's a snort!! You don't really know much about this place, do you GiGi!!???

"Mudcat group think."

HAH!!   That'll be the day!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:41 PM

From swans.com:

Obamania: Curb Your Enthusiasm




by Charles Marowitz









(Swans - February 11, 2008)   The pro-Obama video making the rounds of the Internet at the moment is entitled "Yes We Can" attributed to "Will I Am," which I assume is some kind of inspirational nickname for those avidly supporting the candidacy of the senator from Chicago.

It is a fervent, hypnotic chant assuring its listeners that change is definitely in the offing if the right forces combine to bring it about. Obama's words are counterpointed by the incessant and hypnotic drone, "YES WE CAN" and there are shots of various celebrities from the world of entertainment individually intoning the message to those who may have any doubts that Obama can effect the social and political reversals he has so eloquently described in debates and stump speeches throughout the country.

The din of that mesmerizing chant is highly reminiscent of the kind of pro-Nazi collective mania we associate with the Nuremberg Rallies; an attempt by the National Socialist Party and its charismatic leader to sway the general populace towards the marvels the Third Reich would bring to a troubled Germany.

I don't mean to suggest there is any polemical resemblance to Barack Obama and the insane leader who conquered Europe, murdering millions of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals in the process. There is none. Obama is a civil, sensitive, intelligent, and, to many, inspiring candidate whose greatest asset is his desire to dismantle the brutal partisanship that has crippled America almost as long as there have been political parties competing for electoral office.

My objection to the video is that it resorts to whipping up a kind of emotional frenzy for a deputed leader rather than applying ratiocination and cool-headed evaluation to determine whether or not that leader's message may well be the most salutary in the upcoming election.

By turning Obama into "a mystical force" who is rushing to a Meeting with Destiny, his supporters are threatening a process that should be rooted in objective analysis and cool-headed evaluation. Too much is at stake in the next election, too many horrors have been unleashed in the land for us to suggest that some avatar has arrived who will make everything "magically right"; will transform the brutalizing Present into a benevolent and congenial Future.

It is true (as I've been suggesting two weeks ago) that character counts for more than policy pronouncements in a political election, but unless we apply our unshakeable, Yankee-bred skepticism to each of the candidates and the ballyhoo of the electoral process, we will be swayed like audiences are in the theatre -- another instance in which contrived emotions are marshaled in order to produce a specific state of mind and a certain semblance of character in those to whom they are directed. Here politics, like the theater, is rigged in very much the same way in order to achieve a premeditated effect. It may look spontaneous but it has been assiduously contrived.

If we turn up for Obama on election day, it mustn't be because we believe there is some inescapable, messianic desire that must be fulfilled by placing the tenor of his idealism against his ability to operate that elaborate political machine, which, though he would like to transform it, is an immensely powerful juggernaut sustained by deeply entrenched forces that have a vested interest in keeping it just the way it is. Should he try to re-tool that machine, the antagonists that he would encounter are formidable. They comprise some of the wealthiest and most impregnable corporations in America and they will not be joining in the chorus of "Yes We Can," but quietly murmuring, "No They Won't." To underestimate the forces already massing against an Obama victory, we, the voters, should be considering, as finitely as we can, the strengths and weaknesses of what an Obama presidency would imply. And we should be doing that now -- during the months leading up to the election and in a critical and probing frame of mind in order to gage what counterforce can be mustered to rout the demagogues who have winkled their way into every branch of government and industry reducing a democracy into an oligarchy and one that will fight to the death to retain its privileges and its profits.

The Obama video and its worked-up crowd mania had the same appalling reaction on me as Bush's final State of the Union address when a great phalanx of cheering Republicans rose up regularly (like spasmodic erections) to cheer some sickening conservative mantra like "No tax increases" and "The Iraqi situation is definitely improving." At moments such as these, human beings were transformed into marionettes and their fusillades of applause into signal reactions that belied their humanity. They could just as well have been shouting "Heil Hitler!" What is unnerving about such uniform outbursts of aggressive enthusiasm is the suspicion that politicians were cajoling themselves into a solidarity that belies their own individuality and makes them appear like brainwashed androids. The maniacal insistence behind such outbursts is the essence of dogmatism and the antithesis of reasoned approval.

The Nuremberg echo behind "Yes We Can" is a troubling sound -- not so much because of its Hitlerian overtones, but because that kind of frantic enthusiasm can only blur the clarity we need in the tangled circumstances that now beset our nation. If we ever needed cool heads and sound judgment to extricate ourselves from the quagmires of Iraq, a faltering economy, and corporate thievery in order to restore dignity to a nation that is rightly despised in so many parts of the world, we need it now. The last thing we need is mass-hypnosis and a rallying cry behind a charismatic leader who may or may not be able to scale the heights into which the presidency may thrust him. A leader rapidly becomes a hero to those who uncritically support him. In the early l940s, Bertolt Brecht fled Germany when he saw Hitlerism destroying his country. In Galileo written in exile, Andrea, the astronomer's apprentice, remarks: "Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero." To which Galileo replies: "No, Andrea. Unhappy is the land that needs a hero."

There is more to chew on in those eight words than all the slogans of both the Democratic and Republican parties combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:47 PM

Strikes me that not even knowing what "Will.I.Am" stands for (or who he is) is a confession up front that the gentleman is facing something he cannot understand, something like Mister Jones. And, something he is in no wise qualified to make comment upon.

For him then to say it reminds him of Hitlerian rallies is both insulting and stupid in a single breath.

I share his respect for a grain of salt and "Yankee" skepticism. But to take that reasonable proviso and turn it into thundering ignorance and Nazi parallels is just tediously ignorant and wrong-headed.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:11 PM

Amos, where does this god complex of yours come from anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:55 PM

No experience is required -- whether you're a first-time volunteer or a seasoned veteran, you'll have the experience of a lifetime organizing for Barack on the ground.

Learn more and sign up to come make history in Ohio:

http://my.barackobama.com/CometoOH

********************************************

Come join us - today they turned off the electricity at 1524 Madison St., Cincinnati. The hive bustled nonetheless. There are millions more doors upon which to rap and softly say, "I'm from the Obama campaign and I am here to ask you to help make a change that the World will believe in, may I ask you to.... " By day's end a few more broad boulevards were lined with Obama signage.

The relentless poet sings in my head:

"I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall."

... and I am become the rain ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:14 AM

And a sure sign the anti-Obama backlash is well underway, Saturday Night Live is back with it's first live show since the writers strike.

The opening routine mocked the whole Obama cult.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:15 AM

As well as Hillary's stock answers that say nothing and admit nothing...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:21 AM

Well, they are owned by GE so they need to be sure all their talk about being one sided, is duly balanced by going after the Democrats, rather than what the original SNL cast & writers would have gone after this week, which would have been, hands down, the McCain story.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:26 AM

It's a natural impulse to defuse stupidity, Gigi. IF the things I pointed out about Joshua Frank's under-informed remarks offend you, feel free to say why. I just didn't like the slant and loaded bias of his writing. Starting with his choice of being sarcastic about Will.I.Am's name, because purely of his own cultural ignorance. The least he could have done is looked it up -- 45 seconds of keyboarding would have done it. He pretended he had not done even that much. Was he incompetent to speak because he was lazy? Or fixed in his pre-formed opinions and unwilling to expose them to a few simple facts? Given this, in either case, I should look on him as a pundit? I don't think so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:35 AM

Yeah, because Joe Six Pack in Akron is gonna google willIam. Sure, Amos.

There is no reason for ANY voter to give a shit about celebrity endorsements. NONE.

Unless they have drunk the Kool Aid of course. At least all the young people are cynical about all the celebrity endorsement crap.

Or as my daughter said in 2004, oh yeah--she was going to vote for Kerry because Ben Affleck was endorsing him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:01 AM

Hey, I don't care if the guy looks him up, or doesn't--but if he isn't going t bother to find out the story, he shouldn't try to write it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:04 AM

Amos, I didn't post any of those articles from other websites because I agree with any and all of them. I posted them as examples of what other people are thinking and saying about Obama.

A backlash against him, now that he is the frontrunner, was inevitable. The fact that huge crowds of people are relating to and responding to him as if he were a cult messiah figure or a celebrity, is something a lot of voters, including me, find very disturbing. Especially in light of how fucked up Bush/Cheney, Inc. has made this world.

I don't want a rock star, celebrity, savior politician for president. The thought of that absolutely terrifies me, because I know all the major party candidates are the frontman/puppets for the corporados. The pretty, shiny, new face they put forth, to lull people into believing that looking and sounding different equates with an ability to systemically change all the things wrong with the nation as a result of nearly a decade of mismanagement. The problem here isn't just that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama. It is also that there is only 24 cents worth of difference between them and McCain.

Here is the true answer to what ails us as a nation: electoral presidential elections can't save us from ourselves.

Try googling The Story of Stuff. The problem isn't just with the candidates or the system. The problem is our own greed and avarice, our own 'fuck the rest the world' attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:13 AM

And you all may be shocked to hear me, of all people, say this, but Al Gore would be a far better choice than either Clinton or Obama, because as a person & a politician, I think he has grown a lot since 2000, and in the right sort of way to make a good (not great, mind you, but good) president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

Set 'em up and then knock 'em down. Keeps the punters sort of interested... Politics, music, sport, literature, whatever, they all come in for the same treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:36 AM

If Gore stepped up today I think I would swing for him; and I agree he has grown a lot since the day when he used to be the next President. But he is not going to.

I also concur that the backlash is inevitable -- see my earlier remarks about hoping his fields can take the shit that will be thrown at him.

Barack has the potential -- not promise -- to be a genuinely great President. But he has to run the bloody gauntlet of the campaign first.

If he wins the nomination, as seems likely, the Repubs will, I agree, try to make race an issue, in all their sanctimonious self-righteous stupidity. It angers me to see stupidity intnetionally deployed to do harm, but after eight years of this crap I am not going to be surprised by it.

More power to Obama's shields. He's gonna need them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:42 AM

Backlash against a frontrunner is so inevitable, any campaign that doesn't plan for it isn't doing their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 11:39 AM

New York Times column:

"...
Clinton fans donÕt see their standard-bearerÕs troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from na•ve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim JonesÕs Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But itÕs the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; itÕs a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidateÕs message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. ObamaÕs organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3...."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM

Maureen Dowd offers a spicy comparison between Hillary and Barack, well worth the short read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:05 PM

"...the Repubs will, I agree, try to make race an issue,..."


                Depending on how you define Repubs, but I think the extreme right wing will make a bigger deal out of religion than race, and with them the truth doesn't matter because they simply will refuse to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

Religion as an issue runs up against the problem that there isn't in fact any issue. Obama's a Christian, like all previous Presidents have been, and a Protestant, like all his predecessors, apart form Kennedy. The suggestion that he's a covert Muslim is liable to run into the sand before long.

Much easier to make a big deal out of race - though harder in the actual election than in the primaries. It's easy enough to argue that a black candidate won't be able to get elected because of the existence of substantial numbers of racists in the electorate. And it's perfectly possible for someone to make that argument while protesting truthfully enough, no doubt, that they are in nio way racist themselves.

But once it comes to a general election that argument just doesn't work any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM

Bizarre as it may seem, GiGi, there's something we can agree on.

Al Gore.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM

Rig--

Some people recognize good reporting when they see it. Unfortunately you don't seem to be among that number.   If you don't think my figure, from the WSJ, that Hillary has 100,000 people working for her in Texas is accurate, what is your figure?

Also, still patiently waiting--patience is certainly a requirement in dealing with you--for your exact source for your claim that Obama is outspending Hillary 8 to 1 in Texas.

Making snide comments about Murdoch, I'm sorry, doesn't answer the question. He has officially won his battle to take over the WSJ, but so far the quality of the reporting has not changed at all---and I'll put the reporting up against any other source in the world for accuracy.

But I'm not surprised to see another offering from Smears R Us from you instead of an actual answer to a question. Nice to know some things don't change.

It's also obvious why you are making the specious claim about 8 to 1.   When Hillary wins in Texas but not by the 20% she needs, you can then claim--falsely-- that it shows conclusively that she has the momentum she needs--since she did it against huge odds.
Too bad your entire theory is, in the current vernacular, a "fairy tale". One of the many reasons your claim is absurd is that Obama doesn't even need to pay many of his workers at all---many young people are happy to volunteer.

By the way, I understand that in addition to a steady stream of slander and bad-mouthing Obama and his chances, you've also found time to improve the Carter Family's theme: it's now "Keep On the Gloomy Side". Any truth to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:55 PM

The Hispanic view on Obama.

Enjoy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:06 PM

Gosh..the first Kool-Aid reference, not here but all over the internet and the press..was OK..not brilliant but OK...But it has become so 1990s..I guess we go to jumpin the shark next....

well, time for an obamarama group hug. I hope he is allowing the Return of Elvis emotion to continue because it will translate into votes, and then squelches it as soon as expedient. It is a little icky, but I like him anyway. He seems to me smart, smarter and more pragmatic than anyone coming down the pike in a long time. And he has a Muslim heritage..perhaps not his personal faith but it can not have helped but influence him. And so? What is not wonderful about that? He himself said something to the effect that a billion people were and perhaps he could breach some gaps or something to that effect. I think it is a plus. I think that talking as though, oh goodness, this is something bad, is idiotic. There are some dangers involved here, because by they way his ancestors considered things, he is one, like if your mother is Jewish, aren't you Jewish? and some of the more fervent do not like people abandoning their faith. Still, if people have Irish names people interrogate them if they are not Catholic..did an ancestor take the soup? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM

Ron - I've found several sources that will tell you that Obama outspent Hillary 5 to 1 in Wisconsin, and I think the 8 to 1 figure for Texas came from NPR, though I can't find the source. Given the 5 to 1 figure in Wisconsin, however, I don't think it's out of the question.
                     It could be that reliable figures are not made available until the voting has been completed and that somebody was speculating on the 8 to 1 figure. If it makes you feel better, however, I'll strike it from the record.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:47 PM

"Religion as an issue runs up against the problem that there isn't in fact any issue."


             And when have facts ever made a difference in an American election?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:15 PM

Right on! Who needs facts when you have good innuendo? And who needs ALL the facts, when just a few carefully chosen ones will appear to offer ironclad support to YOUR favorite prejudices? ;-)

Standard technique. Just talk about the specific facts that seem to help your cause. Ignore or discount all others. That's what 99% of the people on this planet do, and have always done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:22 PM

I must have posted the only reference I could find to spending ratios in Texas on another related thread in error. The individual cited a ratio of 775K to 1.2M (Clinton to Obama) in ad purchases in Texas. Less than 2:1.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

That's probably why the newspapers are backing Obama. They need to sell advertsing these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:47 PM

Innuendo can only take you so far. There needs to be some kind of substance. I'm sure there are people who are predisposed to be hostile to Obama, but they aren't going to vote for him anyway - to be effective the innuendo has to get to people who are inclined to vote for him, and some basis in fact is needed for that, I suggest. And having a father who deserted him at the age of two, and who was some kind of a Muslim, just doesn't stack up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

If you had an informed public, innuendo wouldn't do much at all for you. But wasn't his stepfather a Muslim as well?

             Given the state of the American electorate, I think they can go a long way with it. Remember, the young people who are involved in the caucuses are mostly college students, a lot of the rest of them get their news from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and that awful Michael Medved.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:44 PM

Well, you never know when a long absent parent might decide to show up on the stage of a famous child though. It could happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:44 PM

That is, it could happen if he were still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:45 PM

And of course, I haven't a clue if he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:45 PM

Or isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:46 PM

Nonetheless...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:46 PM

2000!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM

By George, Gigi -- an on-topic good humored series, ending in a spectacular numerical snag. Well done. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:52 PM

No snag, just wanted to be sure everyone knew I could count just as well as a 5th grader educated under Bush's NCLB program.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:56 PM

Well, good job counting, keep up the good work... LOL!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 11:17 PM

I think I read where Obama's father was killed in an automobile crash. I don't know a thing about the stepfather though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:56 PM

Finally, Rig you recognize: "I don't know a thing about the stepfather". But of course that doesn't stop you from speculating in print that he is Moslem. We couldn't expect you , as the CEO of Smears R Us, to do anything else.

Though I do thank you for withdrawing your specious 8 to 1 ratio. Too bad it hurts your plan to claim a big victory for Hillary when she barely wins Texas.

All you have to do is actually have a definite source to cite when you give information. It doesn't seem unreasonable. Oh yes, it would be good if you actually did give the source at the time--not waiting til you were forced to backtrack--though that's a handy political skill--particularly in smearing. (Somehow I don't think I needed to tell you that--you knew already.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 11:54 PM

CBS) A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Barack Obama with a 16-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationwide.

Obama, coming off 11 straight primary and caucus victories, had the support of 54 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally. Clinton had 38 percent support.

In a CBS News poll taken three weeks ago, shortly before Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton were tied at 41 percent. Clinton led by 15 points nationally in January.

The former first lady has lost her advantage among women, according to the poll: The two leading Democrats now have even levels of support among female primary voters.

Men, meanwhile, disproportionately favor Obama. He leads Clinton among male Democratic primary voters 67 percent to 28 percent, and leads among white men 61 percent to 33 percent.

Fifty-nine percent of Democratic primary voters said Obama has the best chance of beating likely Republican nominee John McCain in the general election. Twenty-eight percent said Clinton is most likely to win in November.

Obama is now seen as the likely Democratic nominee: More than two-thirds of Democratic primary voters said they expect the Illinois senator to win the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:27 AM

Ron - This is from the LA Times:

Obama was born in Honolulu. When he was 2, his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and his Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham, separated and later divorced. Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, who was a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama lived from ages 6 to 10. People there knew him as Barry Soetoro.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:31 AM

Washington Post - 36 minutes ago
By Shailagh Murray Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a former contender for the Democratic nomination, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) this morning, sources close to the campaign said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:50 AM

Dodd's endorsement ain't worth squat. Call me when Edwards is ready to endorse Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:18 AM

Maybe not where you are, Gigi, but back in CT he has some influence. So it is too worth squat. :D

Post your phone number here so I can call you when Edwards comes out.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM

Clinton's hopes to use Ohio as a firewall in her falling campaign suffered another blow today when former Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White, who had earlier backed Clinton, also endorsed Obama.

"As an African American, I am proud to see Barack Obama make such an extraordinary effort to become the president of the United States," he wrote in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "But being black is not enough for me to vote against my friend. I am voting for Barack because he has rekindled my hope again through his experience, vision and leadership for change in a political system that has gone so awry."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 02:41 PM

(guardian.co.uk, Tuesday February 26 2008 )(updated at 18:53 on February 26 2008).

Barack Obama has extended his electoral grip among groups of voters until recently seen as core supporters of Hillary Clinton, including low-income families and moderates, and has even drawn level among Democratic women, a slew of new opinion polls suggest.

The surveys underline the critical few days facing Clinton, who must perform well in next Tuesday's primaries in Ohio and Texas if she is to stand any chance of regaining some of the momentum currently enjoyed by Obama, who has won 11 straight contests in the past two weeks.

In the face of such setbacks the Clinton campaign has decided to go on the offensive against Obama, unleashing what one adviser told the New York Times was a "kitchen sink" fusillade against him.

The paper said that she would focus on five points of perceived weakness in his experience and preparedness for government.

But such aggressive tactics look increasingly like last-ditch efforts.

A nationwide poll by the Associated Press and Ipsos found that Obama has taken a significant lead among Democratic voters earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year — reversing the lead that Clinton had enjoyed among that group as recently as February. He has also pulled ahead among white men and those describing themselves as liberals.

According to the survey Clinton continues to enjoy dominance among those aged over 65 and with white women.

But a similar poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News found that even her prevalence among Democratic women voters has been eroded until both candidates now stand neck and neck at 45%.

The Times/CBS poll overall gave Obama a 16-point lead nationwide, with 54% Democratic support to Clinton's 38%.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM

I'm waiting to see a picture of Ron Davies wearing a turban.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:08 PM

Yes, I'm sure it is every bit as valuable as the Kennedy & Kerry endorsements were in Massachusetts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM

I do find Sen. Chris Dodd's endorsement of Obama of interest. But that's mecause I also served in the Peace Corps and I was sorry that Dodd's own campaign didn't leave the ground. He's a good man.

So, Gigi, do you have anything specific to criticize about Sen. Dodd's record? Or is this your usual critique by associated names such as Kerry and Kennedy?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:14 PM

Nothing about Dodd, no. I think political endorsements are pretty pointless, and rarely make any difference. If ever. And how would you prove they did besides hocus pocus anecdotes?

Exit polling doesn't ask those questions, and even if they did, exit polling isn't THAT bloody accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

"Dodd endorsed Obama at a news conference in Cleveland where Obama is campaigning one week before crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas that could be decisive in the battle for the party nomination.

Two new national public opinion polls show Obama has moved into a healthy lead over Clinton. A New York Times/CBS News poll has Obama out in front by a margin of 54 to 38 percent. Another survey by USA Today and the Gallup organization shows Obama leading Clinton 51 to 39 percent."

Reuters

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:35 AM

Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008, at 1:05 PM ET

In Texas, Barack Obama is either tied or leading in almost all of the recent polls and has finally passed Hillary Clinton in Pollster.com's poll average. Public Policy Polling (PDF) has the two candidates tied but reports that Obama leads by seven points among white voters and that a large chunk of Clinton's support comes from Latino voters. SurveyUSA has Obama in the lead by four points and dominating among 18- to 49-year-olds. CNN also has him up by four but doesn't show much movement from Obama's numbers a week ago.
Before Super Tuesday, some polls showed Obama down by as much as 18 points. He now leads Clinton by more than three points in the poll average. SurveyUSA's numbers may have one silver lining for Clinton: Twenty-three percent of voters say they could still change their mind, and the plurality of them are Obama supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:14 AM

"No doubt, ...anyone acting as an Obama campaign surrogate...should be able to rapidly list the important issues that the Illinois Senator has championed. This includes the Lugar-Obama legislation that has helped decrease the threat of old nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the former Soviet Union and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which Obama co-authored and that led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending.

Obama has also been very active in legislation to end the Iraq war and the much-heralded Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which passed in July of 2007 and addressed the hideous treatment received by Veterans under the Bush administration, began its legislative life as the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, introduced by Obama earlier in the year.

But here's the thing that any person going on television to represent Obama should repeat without end -- and that should also be a part of the Obama campaign's standard playbook: No Democrat, including Senator Hillary Clinton has been able to do one hell of a lot that meets the accomplishment benchmark of "passed legislation" in a time of unending, record-setting Republican obstructionism.

Obama has been in the Senate for three years, two of which were spent with a Republican majority that would not even let legislation sponsored by Democrats reach the floor for a vote and, on the few occasions where Bill Frist granted such a luxury, Republicans shot down most Democratic initiatives with extreme prejudice.

In the current (110th) Congress, the Republican minority has blocked everything but the Senate chaplain's morning prayer and is on pace by a wide margin to filibuster more legislation than any Senate in U.S. history.

And there's the answer that the Texas state senator should have given on Tuesday night in response to Matthews' badgering. He should have been able to list just a few of Obama's legislative efforts but, far more importantly, he should have been in tune enough with the national legislative scene to say "Chris, have you been watching the U.S. Senate the last few years?"

He could then have gone on to discuss how Republicans have had a significant Senate majority for most of this young century and, during the brief periods Democrats have held a razor-thin edge, the GOP has made damn sure that the Democratic side of the aisle has no "legislative accomplishments" to hang their hats on in election years.

As for the Obama campaign, I support your guy and I'll give you this statement for free as you will certainly need it when Republicans begin lobbing charges of zero legislative accomplishments that will make Matthews look like an Obama groupie.

Senator Obama knows that the American people are smart enough to see that the Republican party has become committed to doing nothing but blocking legislation that would help the American people and restore our nation to a place of esteem in the world. And they'll further reject Republican claims that any Senator has not passed enough legislation when the GOP has made it their life's work to see that no legislation is allowed to pass.

"More than anything, this demonstrates why a new kind of politics is necessary in Washington and why the American people are ready to turn the page and see all of us begin to accomplish more. ...

(CBS Blogs)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:56 PM

I see where McCain tried to bully Obama and Obama gave McCain as good as he got.

But the dialogue puzzles me. My understanding was that the group calling itself Al Qeda in Iraq was not actually a branch of Al Qeda per se.

Any know with any clarity what the relationship is between these two groups of nutballs? Is Al Qeda in Iraq an affiliate with a group called Al Qeda that was purportedly behind the Twin Towers attacks, or not?


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:38 PM

I don't think Al Qaeda is organised like that, with a central command structure. As I understand it, there's Bin Laden and those around him shaping the ideology, and promoting it - and there are people who like the sound of that ideology and use it as a basis for organising and going out and killing people or whatever, wherever they are, or wherever they can get to. A kind of franchise.

That means it's vastly more difficult to counter than a centrally organised and directed organisation. Wipe out Bin laden and those around him, and there's no reason to think that Al Qaeda would cease to be doing terrible stuff, or even be in any way weakened.

As Obama pointed out in this clip responding to McCain, before the invasion of Iraq, there wasn't any Al Qaeda affiliated activity in Iraq (apart from in a small area up in the North on the border with Iran outside the control of Baghdad). In the chaos after the invasion and the total collapse of civil society it was Liberty Hall for insurgents of all kind, and plenty of scope for people with Al Qaeda sympathies, largely from Saudi Arabia, to start blowing up Americans and Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM

The best way to eliminate Al Queda would be to go back to 1950 and eliminate the CIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM

Main salient point about "al Qaeda in Iraq", ignored by all parties as far as I can see, is that it is roundly loathed and despised by Iraqi Kurds and Shiiites--and now also hated by Iraqi Sunnis.

So, as I've noted earlier, the question is where the support necessary for al Qaeda to take over in Iraq--the threat constantly held over us by Bush and now McCain-- will come from?

And since that's the reason for our being in Iraq, the reason is now gone--except in "Kurdistan"-- where there is oil--and the Kurds want us there on a long-term basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM

It's inconceivable that an Al Qaeda linked orgnisation could take over power in Iraq following an American pull-out. The only thing that has given them any possibility of operating has been the American presence.

Of course it's also pretty inconceivable that there will be an Iraqi regime that is particularly friendly to the USA either, but that is another matter. But staying longer isn't going to do anything to change that, except perhaps by making things even worse in that respect than they would be otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM

DALLAS Ñ Senator Barack Obama on Wednesday accepted the endorsement of Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and longtime African-American political leader, who switched his support from the presidential candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

ÒJohn Lewis is an American hero and a giant of the civil rights movement,Ó Mr. Obama said in a statement issued after he arrived here for a campaign stop. ÒI am deeply honored to have his support.Ó

The support of Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, has been carefully monitored as the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination evolved into a fight for delegates between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Lewis, a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, first disclosed his intention to support Mr. Obama in an interview with The New York Times on Feb. 14. He said then that he could Ònever, ever do anything to reverse the actionÓ of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama, of Illinois.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:21 AM

The problem is that at least 40% of Americans respond to cartoon-image thinking. McCain seeks to raise a comic-book depiction of frightening evil, without caring much to analyze the dynamic structure of it, or the vectors tha t produced it, or even whether ti is accurate or not. Obama is rejecting that comic-strip, and is providing a slightly more analytical rebuttal. LEt us hope his instinctively excellent PR sense enables him to carry this point so the American viotong public is not bullied, cowed, herded or terror-stricken into doing a wild-eyed panic vote for McCain.

Barack, too, uses vivid rhetorical images to generate his enthusiastic support. But his cartoons are ones of enthusiasm and a better plan, while McCain's are straight out of the violent WW II "Sergeant Rock and the Commies" class of cartoon -- not worth spending more than a dime on, despite their full color spreads.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM

the Democrat presidential race.

Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who represents a toss-up district and who had one of the toughest re-elections battles in the country in 2006, picked Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying Obama's already proven his willingness and ability to work in a bipartisan manner.


"He's the one who has shown in his work that he's able to work with all sides," Barrow said.

Obama now has the backing of all five of the Democratic congressmen from Georgia who have announced a preference. Clinton now has no public support from the state's congressional super delegates to the Democratic national convention this summer.

Barrow said Obama's bipartisanship more than makes up for his relatively short experience in Washington.

"The best indicator of what a person's going to do in the future is what they've done in the past," he said.

Barrows' announcement comes a day after Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, announced that he's switching his support from Clinton to Obama.

Unlike Lewis, however, Barrow had not endorsed anyone in the Democrat primary until now. He said he cast his primary ballot earlier this month for Obama, "but felt I owed to everybody to pay attention to how everyone else (in his district) voted" prior to making a public announcement.

(www.ajc.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 04:24 PM

Here's a link to a song that got posted in a thread in the music section. There may be people dropping into this thread who have missed it, and it's a good one - For Obama: "Si Se Puede Cambiar" by Andres Useche

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 04:58 PM

It's inconceivable that an Al Qaeda linked orgnisation could take over power in Iraq following an American pull-out. The only thing that has given them any possibility of operating has been the American presence.
---

Are you for serious? Any bad apple groups in the world will be there..the Russian Mafia, the Mafia Mafia, the Chinese Ton???s, the IRA, and they will all join hands/forces....there is incredible money to be extorted there...

And McCain was not bullying Obama in my opinion. He was bringing up a very serious point that Obama seems clueless about, although I am totally for him domestically. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 05:31 PM

I somehow doubt if the IRA will be too involved. The logistics would be a bit difficult. And the same would probably apply to other foreign mobs. There are plenty of local bad boys, I'm sure - but I doubt if Al Qaeda would be very well placed to compete.

The only thing they've got for them is that they have been able to present themselves as fighting the invaders. Without the American presence Al Qaeda in Iraq are just a bunch of highly vulnerable foreign thugs.
...............................

I don't think it was a matter of "bullying" - it was McCain identifying Obama as the opponent he has to beat, and indicating a political area where he thinks he can beat him - and Obama responding in the same vein. Both were sending a message that Clinton was to be seen as out of the competition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:56 PM

If it is the case, as I believe it is, that AQIR is a separate organization from AQ, not supported by it or endorsed by it or under its control, then accusing Baarck of missing the picture in reference to AQ was an effort to beat him down with spurious rhetoric. Call it bullying or something else. I could be wrong. The fear-mongering that proved so valuable to Bush and so mind-numbing to the country at large should stop.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:38 PM

Unfortunately, fear mongering can not stop for many many years because there are some very serious things to be fearful about and that we must be prepared to face. I am totally for doing whatever is possible diplomatically etc., while at the same time we watch people being stuffed into paper shredders, oops diplomacy does take a bit of time, as well as a strong stomach while people are torn into bits...but there is a point at which you have to be prepared to stop the bad guys. The question is when, where, not if, unfortunately. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:09 AM

Sorry Kevin, you are incorrect in saying that the only thing that made it possible for al-Qaeda to operate in Iraq is the US presence. Al-Qaeda operates all over the world--without necessarily a US presence.

In Iraq there were and are Iraqis behaving in a way which did not fit with al-Qaeda's Moslem Puritanism. Al-Qaeda tried to enforce its will on these Iraqis--with incredible violence and viciousness. As a result virtually all Iraqis have turned against it.

However, as I've said before, since the vast majority of Iraqis have made it clear they loathe and despise al-Qaeda, the threat that al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq is now gone---any attempt to do so would be crushed by the Iraqis themselves.

As a result, there is no further justification for the US presence in Iraq--except in "Kurdistan" where the Kurds definitely want it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:14 AM

Essentially we're saying the same, Ron - that any suggestion that Al Qaeda are going to be able to take over in Iraq when the Americans go is a nonsense.

In a sense Al Qaeda can operate anywhere - but they aren't too successful in most of Iraq's neighbours where there there isn't an American occupation. That has been the factor that has provided them with opportunities in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM

MG:

Straight facts and rational risk assessments are not fear mongering.

Waving your arms about disastrous futures if people do not do as youthink they should qualifies.

People are quite capable of being neurotically terrified all on their own without any help from the government or the candidates.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:32 AM

"...What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.

Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.

"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"

The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

From this interesting column in Huffington.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:38 AM

"...The true difficulty facing the GOP's henchmen in the coming months will be how to get those who are just a tiny bit smarter, calmer, less easily swayed, those on the right who might actually be a bit impressed and charmed by Obama's obvious intelligence and oratory power, to hate him, fear him, find his genuinely moving brand of hope and inspiration to be suspicious and problematic and even deeply dangerous.

It won't be easy. Because at the same time, they must make their own unlikely candidate, a feisty but fuzzy 71-year-old war hawk whose entire campaign is apparently now being fueled by a giant hunk of Cold War phlegm, the nauseating notion that not only is a perpetual state of war and aggression desirable for America, but is actually essential to a healthy and functioning nation, they must make John McCain's musty, patriarchal brand of regurgitated Republicanism seem fresh and visionary and not horribly regressive and embarrassing.

Wish them luck. Or, you know, don't.

So then, here's the fun little game all progressives can play until the election itself. Assuming Obama gets the nod, just how will they attack him, smear him, paint him as an evil and untrustworthy force for the nation, the way they did Al Gore and John Kerry? How nefarious, racist, draconian will they get?

We have a few hints, the first one allegedly (if you believe the Drudge Report, which you should almost never do) coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign. That old photo of Obama wearing a traditional head-wrap and robe while visiting Kenya, looking vaguely like a terrorist because as everyone knows, only terrorists wear traditional tribal garments? Not bad. That sort of thing has potential, something the right normally would hurl all over the airwaves as fast as possible, though it mostly just reeks of the same kind of ignorance-baiting as the "Osama Hussein" name game. They'll have to do better.

What about the shocking lapel-pin scandal, wherein Obama allegedly refused to wear an American flag button, causing a bunch of angry fat white men in the GOP to grumble and pretend to be outraged over his "lack" of patriotism? Sure, it was deeply stupid reaction. Yes, the minor furor was merely meant to enrage the gun-rack-on-the-pickup-truck crowd. But the patriotism angle might be something they can poke at. Hell, they just don't have much else.

See, unlike Hillary, Obama can't be effortlessly demonized. He doesn't have Hillary's infamous laundry list of faults and transgressions, the enormous built-in wall of hate the right already has for her, her gender, her husband, everything she represents and carries forward from the Bill Clinton era. Smart as she is, Hillary has truckloads of baggage. Obama has but a tiny carry-on.

At the moment, the McCain camp is spinning like mad, trying to find its footing and apparently basing his entire run on permanent tax cuts (the same ones he voted against, twice) and war war war. McCain himself ain't exactly the world's sharpest tack, and, given how he's the presumptive GOP nominee only through a rather astonishing series of flukes and lucky breaks, he has enough trouble of his own just trying to articulate a coherent message that doesn't offend the entire planet. He's far short of a master strategist. ..."

From SF Gate's inimitable Mark Morford.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 12:13 PM

Mudcat repost-with minor word additions:

Subject: RE: Yes We Can video & other similar videos
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:58 AM

Here's the new will. i. am video that promotes the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for President of the USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU
We Are The Ones Song by will.i.am

**

Here's the "lyrics/words" to that song/spoken word video:

"people say Obama's words are just words...
but...
when was the last time "words" weren't important...???...

when was the last time a great leader didn't use words to lead...??...
when was the last time a person didn't use words to describe how they felt...?...
when was the last time "words" weren't empowering...?...

and we can all recall the last time "words" were used to divide us and install fear...

Bush used words to fear us into voting for him the second time around...
terror this...
terror that...
nuclear here...
weapons of mass destruction there...

and those words effected a lot of people's choices...

"enough is enough"...
let's rebuild...

let's change ourselves...
let's allow positivity to guide us...

let's take action....
let's activate our passion...
we are Americans....

and this is the first time in forever that someone running for president represents "US"...

some say this is all excitement...
I call it "proud to be an American"...

some say this whole Obama movement is "cult like"...
well...
if it comes across cult like...
then...
the cult is called America...

the Obama movement is connecting America.
and it has made "US" realize our importance...
the youth is excited and activated...
adults are passionate and motivated...
the elderly are proud to know the country they built is in safe hands...

we are one...

for too long politics has been corrupt...
separate from the American people...
with agendas that go against what the American people "need"...
education...
health...
safety...
jobs
etc...

politicians have spoken a different language...
making it so the youth and poor people feel as if voting was only for the wealthy and old people...
making "US" feel as if "we" had no voice...
making "US" feel powerless...
making it feel like if "we" did vote it wouldn't change anything...

but wait...
that did happen...
some of us voted, and it didn't change anything...

we were in the dark...
we had no voice...
we were powerless...

because America was not a united America...
and "they" spoke a different language...
and they had an agenda different from our well being...

correct me if I'm wrong... or speak up if I'm missing something...

we want education, health, safety, and good jobs...right???...
oh yeah...
and "a healthy planet to live on"...

but here we are...

in a war... poor education... poor health programs... the dollar is down... the planet, polluted...
the rich, richer... and the poor, struggling...
with sky high gas prices to top it all off...

and now even the rich aren't really rich internationally because our dollar is has fallen so far down...

in our slumber... a very small few got really rich...

because when you're sleeping...

"it's hard to change agendas"...

we know what happened in 2000 and 2004...
but in 2008...
it's different...

we are awake...
and there is a movement...

and "it's hard to change a movement"...

last time "we" didn't have a movement...
America wasn't united...

and now "United and "Standing"...for something...
we know the power of "US"...
and we have a person who represents the "U.S."...

"US"...

"we are the ones we've been waiting for"...

I'm proud to be an American..."

will.i.am

Added: February 29, 2008
Category: News & Politics


****

The "RE: Yes We Can video & other similar videos" Mudcat thread is a
respository of links to Barack Obama music/spoken word videos. The hyperlink for that thread is:

thread.cfm?threadid=108722&messages=15

All of these videos were inspired by the Obama for President campaign but were created and produced independent of that campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM

Correction:

Those words were will.i.am's statement about the video, and not the the words/lyrics spoken by various individuals in the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 01:05 PM

Good song - I think Si se puede cambiar is better, but they aren't in a competition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 01:20 PM

That was a total misrepesentation of Senator McCain. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 01:34 PM

How ironic is this?

Check out this 2004 quote from Bill Clinton:

"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/25/pzn.01.html

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Bill Clinton Enters the Fray; Iraqi Weapons Vanish

Aired October 25, 2004 - 20:00   ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:51 PM

Obama should use that one. And he could make a point of crediting it to Bill Clinton in case anyone might think he was plagiarising.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 04:14 PM

Obama's rapid response team is great!

Here's a link to the "We Can Do Better" video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzk_J42Ob0c
Bill Clinton gives a speech on Hope vs. Status Quo for John Kerry in October 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 04:22 PM

EXCELLENT idea!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM

from the Washingtom Post:
The Last 'Yes, We Can' Candidate

Ronald Reagan at the 1980 Republican convention. (By Rusty Kennedy -- Associated Press)
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, February 29, 2008; Page A19

Barack Obama's critics bear a remarkable resemblance to the liberals who labored mightily to dismiss Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Reagan's foes wrote him off as a right-wing former actor who amiably spouted conservative bromides and must have been engaged in some sort of Hollywood flimflam.

Like Reagan's enemies, Obama's opponents concede that he gives a great speech. Indeed, both Obama and Reagan came to wide attention because of a single oration that offered hope in the midst of a losing campaign -- Obama's 2004 keynote to the Democratic National Convention and Reagan's 1964 "A Time for Choosing" address delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater. But surely speeches aren't enough, are they?

Yes, Obama gets his crowds swooning. So did Reagan. It's laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a "cult of personality" around Obama. The Reaganites, after all, have lobbied to name every airport, school, library, road, bridge, government building and lamppost after the Gipper. When it comes to personality cults, the right wing knows what it's talking about.

But don't worry, say Obama's adversaries, he'll collapse because voters won't trust him to handle foreign policy. He's too inexperienced and has these perilously idealistic ideas. Yes, and President Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1980 was absolutely convinced it could persuade the country that Reagan was a dangerous warmonger who could not be trusted to keep America safe.

In any event, claim the anti-Obama legions, voters will eventually be convinced that he is nothing but a big, bad liberal. He may make sweet bipartisan sounds, but the old attacks on left-wing ideology will work, as they always have.

The liberals who were so dismissive of Reagan similarly insisted that he represented the same "right-wing extremism" that voters had rejected in 1964 when they sent Goldwater to his landslide defeat.

Yet Reagan didn't play to type. He reached out warmly to Democrats, notably in his 1980 convention speech that was his single most effective political sally.

"Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom," Reagan declared. "They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote -- during the darkest days of the American Revolution -- 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' "

You can almost hear the Republican crowd shouting, "Yes, we can!" Reagan offered, well, change we could believe in.

Still, Democrats kept telling themselves, right to November, that voters wouldn't fall for any of this. Charisma, eloquence, idealism and hope were no match for experience, realism, prudence and predictability.

The Reagan metaphor explains why Hillary Clinton was in trouble from the moment she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa. During the past two months, Democrats in large numbers have reached the same conclusion that so many Republicans did in 1980: Now is the time to go for broke, to challenge not only the ruling party but also the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life.

"This is our time," Obama says in a short sentence full of meaning. The conservative age is as dead now as the liberal age was in 1980. Jimmy Carter, in many ways not a liberal at all, became the whipping boy for the end of liberalism. George W. Bush, no pure conservative, has come to symbolize the collapse of conservatism. "It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history," Obama says -- exactly the sentiment of the Ronald Reagan who invoked Tom Paine.

The frustration of the Clinton campaign is understandable. Like George H.W. Bush, whom Reagan defeated for the presidential nomination in 1980, Hillary Clinton has worked very hard, knows government from the inside out and would clearly provide the country with a safe set of hands. The Clintonites argue, fairly, that there is no way to know if Obama can live up to The Promise of Obama.

But the same was true of Ronald Reagan. In that 1980 speech, Reagan quoted a certain Democratic president who "told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a 'rendezvous with destiny.' I believe that this generation of Americans today has a rendezvous with destiny."

Obama is being propelled by the same sense of historical opportunity, and that is why it will be hard to derail him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:22 PM

So, Hillary was right, Obama is another Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM

Generalizing danger without specifics, assessments of accurate risks, and targeted solutions aimed at correct causes, constitutes fear monger in my book. The only way to deal with fear is to aim clearly at the right target with the right amount and kind of effort. Keeping the whole nation up in arms without specifics is counter-productive.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:46 PM

Works for me. I call it eternal vigilance. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:23 PM

Yeah -- that's what the lad who cried Wold tried to say. There's a big difference between vigilance and the spreading of alarum. And there's vigilance that is equally alert to the good and the bad, and then there's the kind that is constantly seeking the bad. Which one owrls best, d'ye thinbk?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:51 PM

Well Rig, Obama is not quite the same as Reagan. Seeing change in an optimistic framework--and Reagan's "change" was nostalgia for a Main St. America that never existed-- is about the limit. Sorry you can't tell the difference between the two, but I suppose for one of the top officers in the Sour Cynics Club, it shouldn't be surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasnÕt the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine Ñ a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

The real concern about Hillary ClintonÕs record on civil liberties is that her administration would look like that of her husband. Bill ClintonÕs presidency had many virtues, but a devotion to civil liberties was not one of them. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration proposed many of the expansions of police power that would end up in the Patriot Act. (They were opposed at the time by the same coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives that Mr. Obama has supported.) The Clinton administrationÕs tough-on-crime policies also contributed to the rising prison population, and to the fact that the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country.

(See rest of article here in the Times).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM

"the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country."

                        I know, but doesn't it seem like the wrong people are in jail?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM

I am sure there are people who need to be incarcarated and are let go, and there are people who are incarcarated and should be let go, after a thorough review of their history, psychiatric condition, etc., to very securely supervised semi-jails, where they are somewhat free to come and go during the day but must be there for a pretty early, say 10 p.m., time to catch the early movie, curfew. The key is having a place for them to live that is supervised, and throwing them back in the clinker for any infractions or failure to report in or to be electronically tracked. I hope Obama does something like that..starting with the elderly prisoners, who probably wouldn't need too much supervision, but would need a place to live. You want to know where people are, some of them, and you want to make sure there is not a pool of ex-prisoners (the male ones anyway) mooching off women in various situations and perhaps bothering their teenage girls. Certainly not in public housing. So I think a whole bunch of prisoners could be semi=released, some could be totally released if there are provisions for their housing...some would have to be electornically surveyed perhaps for a very long time...and some should not ever be released barring some sort of surgery because of violence potential. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM

"HillaryÕs boys pout that the press should find some dirt on Obama before time runs out. Their once fearsome campaign is now reduced to whining that Obama did not hold any substantive hearings of his Subcommittee on European Affairs. WhatÕs next? Bitterly complaining that he missed a quorum call?

Hillary keeps trying to dismiss ObamaÕs appeal as emotional, something that can be overcome with enough mental discipline. But behind that ethereal presence heÕs a wonky lawyer, just like Hillary. He reads The Times and Philip Roth and talks about the fine points of Medicare Part B in a way W. never could have when he first ran for president. (Or now.)

HillaryÕs visceral attacks will not work. And the RepublicansÕ visceral attacks on the ObamasÕ patriotism, and their usual attempt to make the Democrat seem foreign (Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!), may not have the same traction.

The president took the country to war on his gut, exploited our fears and played the patriotism card to advance his political agenda.

This time, Americans may prefer cerebral arguments to visceral ones. What a refreshing change reality would be."


(Maureen Dowd, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:00 AM

It looks like the Obama campaign has found the 2004 Bill Clinton appearance in support of Kerry--the one Azizi has brought to our attention-- in which Clinton says if one candidate is urging you to hope and another to fear, you'd better support the one urging hope. And this is of course one of "Clinton's laws of politics".

So the Obama campaign now has an ad consisting of exactly this clip of Bill on hope vs fear---and then the Obama logo. I've seen the ad.

Perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:52 PM

Maybe they are sensible enough to read the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM

I am praying to watch Obama sweep Texas. Far-fetched as it sounds, the seeds of this kind of innovation are deep in the Texan mindset. If the idea starts to catch, as it well might, it could produce a remarkable reversal of expectation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM

I wonder if a lot of Republicans will switch over and vote for Hillary, like Rush Limbaugh is urging them to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:33 PM

NEW YORK The generally conservative editorial board of the Dallas Morning News today endorsed Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in their party's primaries on Tuesday. Texas also has a complicated caucus structure.

Huckabee has little chance to turn the GOP race but Texas is a key state for the Democrats. If Obama wins there, or Ohio, he will probably wrap up his party's nod.

Here is an excerpt from the DMN editorial on Obama.
*

Texas Democrats have a chance to make history as they choose between two qualified presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton often seem to be singing from the same hymnbook, but that doesn't mean this race is a close call.

On questions of substance and leadership style, Mr. Obama is the better choice.

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's antics mocking his optimism, Mr. Obama has shown that it is possible to have both hope and intellectual heft. Her campaign has confused proximity to power with work experience, selectively taking credit for her husband's accomplishments.

At times, Obama-mania has threatened to obscure the substantive differences between the two candidates' proposed policies. A close examination shows that Mr. Obama is on the right side of several key issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:34 PM

From HElena, MT:

"By Ann Hagen-Buss, 2204 Alpine Drive - 03/02/08

What an exciting presidential primary weÕre having with so many good Democratic candidates to chose from.

My support is with the incredibly smart, hugely patriotic, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. A recent letter bemoaned the saturation of the media with Obama stories. I am somewhat confused as to how blame could be slanted to Sen. Obama as he has no control of the media.

This letter also questioned Sen. ObamaÕs experience in relationship to his ability to lead our country out of the mess from the past eight years. IÕm pleased to inform that when he takes office, Sen. Obama will have served eight years in the Illinois Legislature, followed by four years in the U.S. Senate. Oh, and by the way, he graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School, and went on to teach constitutional law at University of Chicago.

Sen. Obama has the smarts, the experience, and the calm judgment to lead this country back to a status of prominence and respect in the world. I will be casting my vote for him in June and I encourage all voters to do the same."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:40 PM

From Rhode Island:

"he conventional wisdom is that Rhode Island will be a clean sweep for Hillary. I tended to agree until yesterday.

My girlfriend and I took a spin down to Rhode Island College yesterday for the Barack Obama rally. Unfortunately, we were unable to get into the main rally inside the gymnasium (capacity: 5000), and were relegated to the overflow crowd. The overflow crowd also numbered around 5000, and we waited in the cold and rain for over 3 hours to see Obama. He spoke to us first, and gave a very abbreviated version of his stump speech.
10,000 people came to his rally. In comparison, Hillary Clinton drew 2000 (This is the same venue where she invoked "celestial choirs" in order to mock Obama's inspirational message).

There are very few times that I have seen this many Rhode Islanders show up for something (the annual airshow and Waterfire being the only other events that come to mind). The crowd was very diverse, while in line I spoke to or observed a whole bunch of vastly different people: Black, White, Hispanic, Pakistani. Working class, Middle class and Upper class. Single, Married and parents toting children - young and old.

I noted people sporting sweatshirts and jackets from Brown university, R.I. college and the local community college. Catholic (mostly) and protestant. Freemasons, Hippies, Punks, Yuppies, Soccer Moms and Anti-war activists. I even ran into some Ron Paul supporters, anti-illegal immigration activists and 911 truthers."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM

"Simmons Endorses Obama
By SARAH WHEATON
Russell Simmons has just announced his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, but the hip-hop mogul did not always have kind words for the candidate.

ÒObamaÕs leadership, passion and demand for a change resonates effectively with the aspirations of millions of people who want a better quality of life,Ó Mr. Simmons, co-founder of Def Jam Recordings, said in a statement." (NYT Blogs)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:45 PM

CINCINNATI (AP) Ñ The Cincinnati Enquirer on Sunday endorsed Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama in TuesdayÕs Ohio primary.

Both candidates would best serve the constituencies of their respective parties, the newspaper said.
In the endorsement, The Enquirer said McCain has been square with voters about where he stands, citing his views on immigration and campaign finance reform.
ÒMcCain has long enjoyed a reputation, deserved or not, as a Õmaverick,ÓÕ The Enquirer said in an editorial. ÒMcCainÕs departures from the beaten path have proven, perhaps ironically, to be just what his partyÕs mainstream voters were looking for.Ó
Obama, though lacking Hillary Rodham ClintonÕs experience, would do a better job of putting the coalitions together needed to make government work, the newspaper said.
ÒObama has been on the national stage for a relatively short time, but in that time he has demonstrated an ability and a willingness to work with others. He does not waste time demonizing those with different views,Ó the newspaper said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:50 PM

From London's Financial Times:

"Candidates go deep in the heart of Texas
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: March 2 2008 22:00 | Last updated: March 2 2008 22:00

Barack Obama on Sunday increased the likelihood that he will secure the Democratic partyÕs presidential nomination in TuesdayÕs key primary elections with opinion polls showing him moving narrowly into the lead over Hillary Clinton in Texas and reducing his deficit to just 4 percentage points in Ohio.

Mrs Clinton must win both states, which until recently had been seen as safe territory for her, to retain any realistic chance of securing the nomination."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:53 PM

This is getting ridiculous. Have I ever posted 6 times in a row on a thread I myself started about Winona Ryder or William Shatner?

No. I haven't. Show some restraint, Amos. You are verging on obession here. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM

Rig--

Somehow, it's not likely that many Texas Republicans will take Rush's suggestion to cross over and vote for Hillary--even though she'd be the weaker Democratic candidate for the fall.

You see, the problem is that there's a rather large bunch of Texas Republicans who--not to put too fine a point on it-- loathe and despise Hillary and Bill--and have since the 1990's. It's actually somewhat more likely that they'd cross over and vote the other way--against her--to make sure they don't have to see another Clinton in the White House.

A lot of them feel pretty strongly about this--I don't know exactly why.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:34 PM

Little Hawk:

Listen to the still, small, voice.

If you will not, then shut the F+++ up.

There's a good lad.

These are people speaking to you who are genuinely concerned about the path of nations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM

Sorry, Amos,

It's likely to be the day after hell freezes over before LH takes either of your suggestions. It's his God-given role to bring peace and concord to Mudcat--in his own inimitable way. It's certainly good to know that he's always so calm and impartial, sagely counseling all parties to see themselves as equally guilty of whatever problem is being discussed. Since of course there is no difference between political parties--all are caught in the grip of the $ystem, against which the citizen is of course powerless. And there is no such thing as right and wrong. And of course voting is therefore close to totally pointless.

So nobody should get exercised about anything as trivial as a mere political campaign.

I can't imagine how you and I could be so off-base as to actually care deeply about this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:02 PM

Tsk! Tsk! The one gets touchy and the other gets catty. :-) Cannot a man inject a little levity into the political turmoil now and then without arousing this sort of venomous reaction? Goodness sakes! You wound me, good sirs, you wound me! I shall have to crawl off and recover now...dear, dear...

(I wasn't seriously objecting to Amos's thread, I was just rattling his cage a bit, cos he's my pal. I can't help it if you two chose to take me dead seriously.)

Ron, you must be joking, implying I don't care about your election. I care deeply about your danged election, though I'm not in much of a position to do anything about it. However, I even contributed to one of the campaigns down there...cash money, my lad. That's how deeply I care about it. Have you ever contributed money to a Canadian election campaign?

Didn't think so. ;-) Hell, I have never contributed money to a Canadian election campaign, but I did to this American campaign. THAT's how important I think your election is. It's important to the entire world.

I would hate like hell to see McCain win. The thought just horrifies me. I feel pretty queasy at the thought of the Clintons again occupying the White House too. Not as bad as the thought of Jeb Bush or Condoleeza Rice moving in, mind you...but still not so good.

Obama? I've got hopes he might just be a real breath of fresh air. We'll see. If he gets elected, we'll see. Got my fingers crossed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:54 PM

LH,

You might want to be careful what you say:
" However, I even contributed to one of the campaigns down there...cash money, my lad. That's how deeply I care about it."

I believe that it is against US federal law for campaigns to accept funds from foreign sources. The Clintons had that problem, as did Gore, I think.

So please keep it under the table, in the best (Democratic) tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM

STAT OF THE DAY:

In 2004, only 33 percent of registered voters in Ohio turned out in the primary — though an enormous 72 percent ultimately voted in the general election.

---

THis strikes me as interesting. It is possible the turnout will tip things in an unpredicted way, because of the number iof unpolled voters who bypassed the primary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:34 PM

Little Hawk clearly isn't the only Canadian who likes Obama - YouTube - Canada Loves Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

Terrific video, McG--thanks!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:00 PM

That was a very, cute video.

On facebook, there is a group called, "I have a crush on Obama."

He is definitely charismatic!

I just hope he chooses a good running mate. He'd be a terrific diplomat but I think he needs some experienced help in the background.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:19 PM

"The gospel of Sen. Barack Obama might not have opened up the heavens, as Sen. Hillary Clinton sarcastically suggested in a recent speech, but it apparently opened the eyes of one of her self-described friends and supporters, Russell Simmons. The music mogul, entrepreneur and staunch yoga practitioner endorsed Obama over the weekend.

"I see him as a different kind of candidate," Simmons said, echoing a refrain that is repeated over and over by converts to Obama's political message. "I see him as more of a spiritual inspiration, as much as a politician. The idea that other people are experiencing a change in themselves. I see that as an important part of the process."

A day before two decisive Democratic primary votes in Texas and Ohio, the question is not what Obama can do for Simmons. It's what Simmons can do for Obama. Simmons is the third richest man in hip-hop, with a net worth of more than $300 million, behind the rappers-turned-music-executives Jay-Z and Sean "P. Diddy" Combs. Young black voters have turned out in droves to cast ballots for Obama -- and Simmons could inspire even more.

Obama's campaign said Simmons will jet to Cleveland tomorrow to make appearances at a barber shop, a community college, a public housing complex, and a favorite stop of both Democratic candidates, a local high school.

But first, Simmons "dropped some knowledge," the hip-hop term for divulging previously unknown nuggets of information. "I did hear that the Obama camp got a call from Sean Combs," Simmons said. "I did hear from 50 Cent's camp that he didn't know about Hillary anymore."

What does that mean? He won't say. And Combs and 50, a.k.a., Curtis James Jackson III, couldn't be reached for comment. Combs and Jackson have been politically active in the past. Four years ago, Combs led a now defunct get out the vote effort for youth called "Vote or Die!""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:25 PM

EW YORK - Former Gov. Hugh Carey has endorsed Barack Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination over fellow New Yorker Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Carey praises Obama's judgment, inspiration and leadership while saying either candidate would be a major improvement over the current administration.

He says Obama can deal with crisis and think globally to protect national security. Carey also cites Obama's call for bipartisanship and coalitions to address issues facing the nation.


Carey was a seven-term congressman from Brooklyn and was twice elected governor from 1975 to 1982.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM

Senator Barack Obama blended themes of optimism and change yesterday with a sharp attack on opponent Hillary ClintonÕs vote for the Iraq war, at a presidential campaign rally before an overflow crowd of 10,000 at Rhode Island College.

Obama tailored his stump speech for a Rhode Island audience and drew a deafening swell of cheers for his criticism of ClintonÕs 2002 Senate vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

ÒReal change isnÕt voting for George BushÕs war in Iraq,Ó Obama said. ÒAnd then telling the American people it was actually [a vote] for more diplomacy. The title of the bill was Ôa resolution authorizing the use of the United States armed forces against Iraq.Õ

ÒI knew what it was,Ó he shouted. ÒLincoln Chafee knew what it was. It was a vote for war!Ó

Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator, was the only Republican in the Senate to oppose the resolution. Now an independent, he has endorsed Obama. In ChafeeÕs upcoming book, he excoriates members of Congress who supported the war, arguing that a vote for the resolution should be Òa career-ending lapse in judgment.Ó

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:34 PM

È

Obama Top Choice in American University Survey


The junior senator from Illinois received 71 percent of the vote among those who had voted or were planning to vote in a Democratic primary, while Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y) received 12 percent of their primary votes. Among Republican primary voters surveyed, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received 41 percent of their votes, followed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a favorite among some young people, who garnered 18 percent of the respondents' votes; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed with 15 percent and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee drew 10 percent of the respondents' votes.

When young voters in the survey were asked to volunteer the name the candidate they would vote for if the presidential election were held today, Obama came in first, with 54 percent of the respondents choosing him. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) came in second place, with 19 percent of the respondents selecting him as their presidential candidate of choice. Approximately 10 percent of the respondents chose Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as their presidential candidate. (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:37 PM

From the Geek Front (Information Week):

Marc Andreessen On Barack Obama
Posted by John Foley, Mar 3, 2008 12:47 PM
        
ÈOn his Pmarca blog today, Marc Andreessen comes out in support of Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Andreessen bases his endorsement on a private 90-minute meeting last year in which, he says, Obama "grilled him" on the impact social networking would have on politics.

Andreessen's post comes just a day before primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont that could determine whether Obama or Hillary Clinton represents the Democrats in the fall election. Andreessen says he has "tried very hard" to stay away from politics on his blog, then jumps in with both feet. "He's got my vote," he says of Obama.

Andreessen reflects back on a meeting that took place nearly a year ago. That's a long time ago in the current political scene, but Andreessen thinks it has value in showing what Obama was like before he was fully engaged in today's race. "I think we got a solid look at what he's like up close," says Andreessen.

The subject of social networking came up, not surprisingly given Andreessen's involvement with Ning. "The Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, YouTube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics," Andreessen writes.

What might that look like in action? On Ning, a half-dozen social networks have been created by Obama supporters, including Families for Obama, Obama-nation, and Obama Friends. A Ning search for Hillary Clinton comes up empty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:53 PM

Stevie Wonder does his thing.


It's a zany world out there!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:31 PM

Batman is taking on The Joker as the race for the White House heats up in America - Michael Keaton has announced he's backing Barack Obama just days after Jack Nicholson confirmed he's supporting Hillary Clinton.

Nicholson has approved a pro-Clinton Internet video director Rob Reiner created using the movie veteran's most iconic film scenes, and now Keaton, who played the first big screen Batman, has admitted he wants Obama as America's next president.

He says, "There's something about him I find really attractive. (He's) really refreshing." And, as the two Democrats fight it our for their party's candidacy vote, Nicholson and Keaton aren't the only celebrities taking sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

Obama nabs another Georgia superdelegate

By AARON GOULD SHEININ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 03/04/08

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has scored another superdelegate from Georgia.

Democratic National Committee member Mary Long told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution she will back the senator from Illinois in his quest for the Democratic nomination for president.


Long was one of five Georgia superdelegates yet to choose between Obama and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

I wonder if she's any relation to Huey P.?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:01 PM

Still March and look at the length of this thread! By the time this election is done it promises to be up there with the Mother of All BS Threads... (Unless Clinton makes a dramatic comeback of course.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM

8 posts in a row, Amos! Wow! As a card-carrying member of the OTHCITAWWAFWB (Obama Trojan Horse Committee to Irrevocably Transform America into What We All Fervently Wish it to Be), I wish to thank you for your untiring efforts here to inspire the faithful and to persuade those who have not yet made the one and only proper choice for the future of their country...a vote for Barack Obama. You WILL be rewarded amply after victory is achieved, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:24 PM

Obama/Richardson '08...

Liked the video, too...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM

This is lifeblood talking, Little Hawk. I have offspring whose lives will be made better or worse by this month's events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM

Yes, quite possibly, Amos. I don't have such offspring, but if I did, I would have much the same concerns as you, albeit removed by one paltry borderline. The trouble is, every time the USA catches a cold, Canada starts sneezing. We wouldn't have soldiers dying in Afghanistan right now, if not for the USA's foreign policy, believe me.

Canadians would vote overwhelmingly to get the Republicans out of the White House. Polls have shown that. As for Hillary and Obama, support is split fairly evenly here, with I think a slight advantage going to Hillary (and that surprises me). The Clintons are better known here than Obama, but it still surprises me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM

Obama is projected to have taken Vermont. Rhode Island results will probably take two more hors, and Ohio and Texas be available around 1AM PST. I am not waiting up.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM

Hmmm. Well, we'll find out in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 08:46 PM

He;s leading in Texas with the first 1% of the votes in, by about 54 to 42.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM

I'm worried!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:43 PM

Texas is a dead heat, Vermont's gone to Obama, RHode Island to Hillary, Ohio still in play with Hill leading by a couple of points. Wodda hoss race, huh?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:59 PM

From what I hear, the news in Texas sounds good for Obama---most of the areas yet to report in are high-population centers, where his strength likely is.

If he takes more delegates in Texas--and especially if he also gets the majority of the popular vote, his net lead will probably increase. So there should be more superdelegates signing up with him--which will increase the pressure on Hillary to drop out.

And since McCain will have a clear field from tonight on, it will become progressively more obvious to the Democrats that the bloodletting has to stop---especially if Hillary, thinking her negative ad--"3 AM"-- worked, tries more negative ads. That will prove, if proof was still needed, that her own victory is all she cares about---and the hell with the Democratic party.

It's also clear that she is by far the weaker of the two Democratic candidates for the fall election--she would get very few independents, no Republicans, and not even a enthusiastic unified Democratic party----as I've said earlier, she's poisoned the well she planned to drink from---and more negative ads directed at Obama will make the poison yet deadlier. And if she thinks the Obama enthusiasm can be seamlessly switched over to her, she's living in a fool's paradise----unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:56 AM

LMAO.........Gee Ron, didn't turn out that way did it? Looks like this dreaded she-devil will be around for awhile. Don't kid yourself if it goes to the backrooms either.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:10 AM

Well, whoever survives as the winner at the Democratic convention will be well tested, and just maybe the voters will be innoculated by then against the more bizarre allegations.

McCain is not going to have an easy time portraying himself as "an agent of change." I do hope he accepts a big bear hug from Bush and Cheney this week. It will make a nice video for the ad campaign.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:13 AM

Spaw--

So it didn't turn out that way. Absolutely right. But she was about 20 points ahead of Obama a short time ago. His showing is not shabby.

And I hope you continue to LYAO as Hillary proceeds to worsen the Democratic civil war with more negative ads--since she has now proven they work.

And perhaps you'd like to tell us how she plans to seamlessly switch the enthusiasm of Obama's legions over to her for the fall.

Unless of course you're fine with McCain winning the election--more and more likely the longer the Democratic bloodletting continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM

How will she switch Obama's legions to her command?

1. Bush/Cheney

2. The economy

3. Bush/Cheny

4. The war

5. Bush/Cheney

What you don't seem to understand Ron, but many of the legitimate pollsters have been saying since before Feb 5th, Obama's support is soft. A lot of people who say they are for Obama also say they would be fine with Clinton getting the nod.

Which you should be seeing as A Good Thing.

Rather than continuing to cast Clinton as the Morrigan here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:31 AM

"A lot of people who say they are for Obama also say they would be fine with Clinton getting the nod."


                      And it doesn't seem to work the other way aroung. Obama makes a good first impression, but after he's been around a while he seems to wear kind of thin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:10 AM

The reports I have heard indicate the reverse is also true, RIg,. They say it DOES work the other way around.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM

Maybe it would work. The thing I'm finding so laughable are the news pundits who keep saying, "The way these candidates are going after each other, they'll never to civil to one another again."
                I keep asking myself, "What am I missing?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM

"Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who was fresh off 11 straight wins against Sen. Hillary Clinton, may have been overconfident going into yesterday's battleground state primaries, but he still has the "inside track" to the nomination, says one political strategist.

"His people had decided he was the nominee designate and they just had to get past last night, and well they didn't get past it," said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Clinton scored victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Obama came away with Vermont. Ohio and Texas were must wins for Clinton's campaign.

Sabato said Obama failed to respond effectively to Clinton's attacks, and Clinton capitalized on her core base in Ohio.

"Those are her people," he said. "That's why she's led consistently in Ohio. There are so many blue collar, white Democrats in Ohio."

Clinton won 54 percent of the vote in Ohio, to Obama's 44 percent. She won 51 percent of the vote in Texas, to Obama's 47 percent. She bested Obama 58 percent to 40 percent in Rhode Island.

Obama won Vermont with 60 percent of the vote.

Sabato said he still believes Obama has the "inside track" in the race for the nomination. He is ahead in the pledged delegate count and is the favorite in Saturday's contest in Wyoming as well as the Mississippi primary on Tuesday.

"Obama will sweep both," he said. "He's got to come back. Whenever you are knocked down you have to come back."

Although Clinton hinted today at the possibility of sharing a ticket with Obama in the future, for now she's focused on the presidency.

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket," she said. "I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

Sabato said the big loser in yesterday's contests is the Democratic party. The next six weeks will be costly and divisive for the party as Clinton and Obama battle it out for the nomination."

---

Actually I don't think there's that much advantage in the Republicans early closure of their primaries. Particularly, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, probably Obama, is not going to be at any particular disadvantage, because the voting public do not have long memories and there will be a long campaign leading up to November. Bear in mind he came sweeping up to lead the Dem race in a very short period of time.

THis assumes the campaign on the Dem side against McCain is run well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:49 AM

After all the hoopla, it's clear that the Obama campaign's message from this morning is 'spot on'. Obama is clearly on target to win the Democratic nomination....   after all, he has won twelve (12) of the past fifteen (15) state primaries.

************************************************

We may not know the final outcome of today's voting until morning, but the results so far make one thing clear.

When the dust settles from today's contests, we will maintain our substantial lead in delegates. And thanks to millions of people standing for change, we will keep adding delegates and capture the Democratic nomination.

We knew from the day we began this journey that the road would be long. And we knew what we were up against.

We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end -- the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter to people's lives, the stunts and the tactics that ask us to fear instead of hope.

But this time -- this year -- it will not work. The challenges are too great. The stakes are too high.

Americans need real change.

In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century.

John McCain has already dismissed our call for change as eloquent but empty.

But he should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It's the resounding call from every corner of this country, from first-time voters and lifelong cynics, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

And together you and I are going to grow this movement to deliver that change in November.

Thank you,

Barack

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM

It's possible for the loser of the primary to win more delegates with a strong showing in the caucuses. Texas' method of awarding delegates in the primary -- with more delegates coming from large population centers like Houston, Dallas and Austin -- further complicates the matter.

...Texans were reportedly lining up in bigger-than-expected numbers for the caucuses -- in some places lining up in parking lots and overflowing buildings where caucuses were held.

A CNN I-reporter in Houston reported hundreds of people at his polling place -- saying he had to wait for over an hour just to sign in.

In Austin, about 800 people showed up -- far outstripping expectations and causing organizers to stand on top of tables and yell to organize caucus-goers, one voter said.

In early returns from those caucuses, Obama had the edge.

---

At about 38% reporting, that edge on the Texas caucus front was about 52 to 48 per cent.

If he wins the caucuses, it dilutes the impact of the primaries by about 1/3 as far as Texas delegates go,.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:39 AM

"When you've lost 12 in a row, any good news qualifies as a comeback," Axelrod said of Clinton's claim of resurgence. "The reality is, though, they promised to cut our delegate lead, and I don't think that's going to happen tonight. They set a test for themselves, which was to wipe out our lead in delegates in the Ohio and Texas primaries. I don't know if they're going to reduce our lead at all, and we may actually add to it by the end of the night."

He was just getting warmed up. "So, I think they have to spin this as best they can, but the reality is still the reality," Axelrod said. "We're in the lead. We've won 28 contests, they've won 13. We've won more popular votes. We've got somewhere in the neighborhood of a 160-delegate lead, and time is running out. And at some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee is going to be Barack Obama."

(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:52 AM

The "neighborhood" appears to have shrunk some........Obama lead is about 85-90 at the current time. LOL......Give it up Amos, this things going to the backrooms and we both know it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

Mebbe 'tis, Spaw, maybe 'tis.

I'd like to see him pull off a Statue of Liberty with a Hail Mary at the end and cross the finish line, just for elevated entertainment.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

What seems to have swung it for Clinton in Texas is that while Obama came in first among the men, Clinton came in first among the women - and there were a great deal more women than men voting in the Democratic primary - 53% women voters and only 43% men,(whereas in the Republican vote it was pretty even - 49% women, 51% men).

And the same seems to have been the case in Ohio, where there were 59% women and only 41% men Democratic voters. (Whereas among Republicans it was 54% men,and only 46% women.) And once again Obama got a majority of the men voters in the Democratic primary.

It rather looks in both cases as if a lot of women who might have been expected to vote Republican came out to vote for Clinton. Interesting.

(Figures taken from this site, CNN Election Center.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM

She ought to do well in Wyoming then. Isn't Wyoming the state were women were able to vote first?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM

HE's still leading in the caucuses in Texas, BTW -- they are real slow counters, I guess...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:21 PM

Washington Post:

Obama's First 100 Days

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, March 5, 2008; Page A21

In the seesaw Democratic primary race, Republicans generally are rooting for confusion, which means rooting for Hillary Clinton -- who now has some political momentum after last night's victories in Ohio and Texas but little realistic chance of taking a lead in delegates.

It is the Republican dream: a tenacious, buoyant, well-funded challenger to Barack Obama who is also politically doomed -- and incapable of admitting she is doomed.

So now Clinton herself is the most effective agent of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- proving just how devious and subtle that conspiracy really is.

And this is not Agent Clinton's only contribution. By raising questions about Obama's foreign policy judgment, she has identified a potent issue -- an issue she cannot fully exploit because of the liberalism of her own party.

But John McCain could. As a thought experiment, consider the foreign policy achievements of Obama's first 100 days in office.

Redeeming his inaugural pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, fly any distance to meet with our enemies," Obama's first major international meeting is with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. National security adviser Samantha Power does her best to talk tough on human rights in preparation for the meeting. But, as Henry Kissinger once said, "When talks become their own objective, they are at the mercy of the party most prepared to break them off." Having made Iranian talks "without precondition" his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice but to move forward.

The New York Post runs a front-page picture of the Obama-Ahmadinejad handshake under the headline "Surrender Summit!" The story notes another of Obama's historic firsts: the first American president to meet with a Holocaust denier. The Israeli prime minister publicly asks, "Why is the American president meeting with a leader who calls us 'filthy bacteria' and threatens to wipe us 'off the map?'" Tens of thousands protest in Tel Aviv, carrying signs reading "Chamberlain Lives!"

America's moderate Arab allies in the region also feel betrayed, assuming that America is cutting a bilateral deal with Iran that accepts its nuclear ambitions, while leaving the Sunni powers out in the cold. The Egyptian press notes that President Obama's motorcade in Tehran passed near a street named in honor of Khaled al-Islambouli, the assassin of President Anwar Sadat.

Shell-shocked by the criticism, the Obama administration moves its forthcoming summit with Ra¿l Castro to Turks and Caicos, in a vain attempt to limit media scrutiny. The four-minute, Friday evening meeting -- photographers are forbidden -- still results in hundreds of thousands of Cubans protesting in Miami. Spouses of the imprisoned and tortured carry pictures of their loved ones. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez praises Obama's visit as a "public apology for generations of American imperialism and militarism."

At the same time, the Obama administration is arm-twisting Mexico and Canada into a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Mexican president wonders aloud to the press: "Why is the new president courting his enemies in the hemisphere while insulting his closest friends?"

Obama's Oval Office speech to the nation on Iraq is initially more successful. As promised, he orders a phased, unconditional withdrawal of combat forces, beginning "not in six months or one year -- now." American troops will no longer be embedded in Iraqi combat units or used to combat Iranian influence (all pledges made during his campaign).

Many Americans cheer. But the next day, The Post reports stunned disbelief among the troops. A high-ranking officer observes, "The surest way to break the morale of the military is to undo its achievements and humiliate it on the verge of success." Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni allies react with panic at another sign of American unsteadiness and retreat from the region. Armed groups of Sunnis and Shiites within Iraq begin preparing for a resumption of sectarian conflict. An intercepted al-Qaeda communication talks of "so much defeat, exhaustion and death -- and then, praise be, this unexpected victory!"

Obama's 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America's global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world -- and that is being a pleading, panting joke. By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Which is why President Obama would probably not take these actions -- at least in the form he has pledged. Sitting behind the Resolute desk is a sobering experience that makes foolish campaign promises seem suddenly less binding.

But it is a bad sign for a candidate when the best we can hope is for him to violate his commitments. And that's a good sign for John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

What a lot of twisted angry codswallop, Bruce.

How can you be beguiled so by hatred?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:33 PM

Amos,

YOU seem to have no problem using NYT articles to express your hate of Bush.

Are you claiming that the WPost is less "public opinion" than the NYTimes?

Can you give one example in the article that is NOT supported by Obama's words?

How can you be beguiled so by hatred, that you cannot even think of the negative effects of a policy without declaring it to be hatred??

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM

A rational policy -- being willing to communicate -- has been twisted into an exagerrated, obsessive version. It's a bunch of fantasy. It does not start witht he actual context it pretends to, it projects actions unlikely to be taken, consequences unlikely to be brought on, and reactions unlikely in the actors. It's just codswallop, a sort of hate-based science fiction.
And it smacks of derision and ridicule, which is something we've had enough of from the hooting simians of the true-believers in Rove tribe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:31 PM

If Ahmadinejad is a welcome guest in Iraq, as he is today, it doesn't make any sense at all for the US not to talk with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM

You have a really good point there, McGrath. When he tried to speak at Colombia University they hooted him off the stage. That didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:49 PM

It's easy to distort and twist and nullify people, no matter how smart they are or how good their intentions. It is not as easy to clearly understand their point of view and weigh it without prejudice against other points of view.

It's a sad thing that the process of fielding better button-pushes and scary pictures has taken the place of dialogue and the exchange of ideas.


I guess ya gotta call your side according to your lights, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:27 AM

Riginslinger

They hooted him off the stage AFTER he made the statement that "There are no homosexuals in Iran."

Since there are people being executed in Iran for the crime of being homosexual, this statement deserved at least a hooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:08 AM

Well, what the hell...Bush and Cheney would probably get hooted off the stage in Iran too, wouldn't they? ;-) And with good reason.

Although, perhaps the Iranians would be more polite than that.

They should try it and see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

bb - I think the hooting started long before he got to that point, and why would they bait him with a question like that anyway. His position on homosexuality doesn't seem all that different from Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-ect. to me.
                      The president of the university was one of the cheerleaders for the hooters. Is that responsible leadership for a prestigious institution like Colombia?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:15 AM

The really annoying thing is that "politics as usual" is being allowed to fruck up an important national opportunity to put someone forward who could make a major difference. And it is not McCaIN OR hrc, both of whom are deeply vested in the SSDD patterns of how things are. It's a damn shame, is what.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 11:52 AM

The Huffington Post


"Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama's Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.

Said Clay: "She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over."

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw first reported yesterday that Obama had about 50 secretly committed superdelegates."

Reassuring, if so. I was really irritated that Hillary's "scary phone call at 3AM" ad had any effect at all. I can betcha the occasions when she has been up at 3 A.M. dressed in a suit are on the order of < 2 since she turned 30, so long ago.....(See? Cattiness can be a two-way street).


a

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:24 PM

Actually I thought the ad was unattractively done, but the questions have to be raised. Of course she has no foreign experience to speak of either so I think the scared people will choose McCain. She actually has some good points..she is just not the one to execute them..oh she is creepy...

I wish they would quit saying the race is over. It just invigorates them. There are so many dirty tricks out there yet...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM

"The race is over" is supposed to appeal to people who like the idea of jumping on a bandwagon. I'd have thought it's just as likely to alienate people who don't like being taken for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM

another unwanted popular view from the Washington Post.

Where's the Exit Strategy?
By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A21

In "The Exterminating Angel," a 1962 film by Luis Buñuel, the great Spanish anarcho-surrealist director, the guests at a dinner party find that, mysteriously, they cannot leave. Though there are no external constraints to their exiting, none can cross the threshold of the music room to which they've adjourned. For days and days they stay, some growing to hate one another, some lapsing into despair and most eventually determining to sacrifice their host in the hope that killing him will set them free. (They manage to get out before the host has been dispatched.)

Democratic voters awoke yesterday to find themselves living out a primary season alarmingly like Buñuel's mordant fantasy. Nobody wished for a process that would roll on through summer or envisioned a contest in which the party's constituencies were arrayed against each other, in nearly equal force and with only minor variations, in state after state after state. Nobody anticipated that two candidates with no great policy differences would battle it out to no readily apparent resolution. Yet that's exactly what has happened. The Democrats are stuck.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both have every reason to keep on campaigning, but the remaining contests will probably settle nothing. She almost certainly can't erase his lead among pledged delegates, and he hasn't demonstrated yet that he can win enough white working-class voters in key states to convince an overwhelming majority of superdelegates that he should be their pick. Clinton and Obama have divided up the Democrats' political world along distinct constituency lines, and only in a handful of states has one of them won over the other's demographic base -- chiefly Wisconsin, where Obama managed to win less-affluent white voters.

Indeed, this year's contest is proceeding much like a political-demographic census, in which the class, race and age breakdown of each state's electorate gives you a pretty fair idea of who's going to win. (The party's gender breakdown doesn't vary much by state.) Handicapping which candidate would run better against John McCain is no easy task, either. Obama can clearly attract more upscale independents than Clinton can, and her claim on less-affluent whites who shifted to the Democratic column in the 2006 midterms looks stronger than his. He'd probably do better in the Mountain West; she might do better in the Rustbelt Midwest.

Eventually, of course, the Democrats will have a nominee -- but how to determine whom without wrecking the party's prospects in November will require sound judgment and firm leadership from Clinton, Obama, party Chairman Howard Dean and other party leaders. First, the party needs to schedule primaries in Florida and Michigan -- preferably in June, soon after Puerto Rico, so that it doesn't add a crisis of legitimacy to its accumulating difficulties. Second, party leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on "60 Minutes" over whether Obama really is Christian. That caution should be conveyed privately, but if such ploys continue, then Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the as-yet-unheard-from Al Gore should condemn them publicly.

Also, somebody is going to have to focus on McCain, who will merrily be depicting the Democrats, particularly Obama (Clinton is a known quantity), in the worst possible light. If the Democrats are to carry Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan in the general election, they need to put a spotlight on McCain's continuing infatuation with trade policies that have taken the Midwest's good jobs offshore. Obama and Clinton will attack McCain on trade while stumping in Pennsylvania, but their chief focus is more likely to be on attacking each other.

McCain's vulnerabilities as a candidate are legion. He accepted his party's de facto nomination Tuesday night without mentioning any ideas on how to get us out of the coming recession. His perfervid support for the Iraq war has blinded him to the bigger strategic picture, which is that the predictable pro-Iranian tilt of Iraq's post-Saddam Hussein leaders has helped Iran in its drive to become a regional superpower. Now, McCain speaks of war against Iran to undo the consequences of the war in Iraq that he has championed. But who will be broadcasting a critical look at McCain's record while Clinton and Obama duke it out? The Democrats' biggest donors -- unions from both sides of the candidate divide and business executives who funded the independent expenditure campaigns of 2004 -- will have to assume this task in the absence of a presumptive nominee.

Because just now the Democrats can't find their way out of a primary contest that almost surreally refuses to end.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM

And another- Washington Post, again...

Why Clinton Isn't Dead
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A21

The scope of Hillary Clinton's latest resurrection can be appreciated only in light of the elaborate preparations that had been made for her expeditious burial. That she is very much alive can be attributed to her true grit but also to the revelation that Barack Obama is not a miraculously perfect candidate after all.

SNIP>>>>>>

LINK TO ENTIRE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE IN FOLLOWING POST BY McGRATH OF HARLOW

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

Here is a link to that in the Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM

Clone:


Link is to 01:37 posting- I gave full text to both, as links will go bad in a day or so... Not supposed to remember what they said longer than that, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:42 PM

Well, the thing is that punditry jumps hard on small stories. The statistical change in HRC's standing is relatively tine, relative to BHO's, but for want of anything better to do, Is uppose, it has to be analyzed to afaretheewell and everyone has to klook very smart about it, until the next tick in the graph comes along. I don't think these stories are fundamental enough to merit the bloviation. but it's the business they're in. They have no better "fix" on the ground truth to come than they did last Sunday.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

"Well, the thing is that punditry jumps hard on small stories."

Sort of like what the NYT does about anything it can ding the Bush Administration on... Oh, you mean to say that punditry in support of what YOU want to push is a different thing?


If the discussion of such points is "unworthy", perhaps we need to decide who gets to decide. If these were about McCain, would you have any complaint?

If Obama, or Clinton is supposed to be uncriticizable because YOU want them to win, pardon me for living.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

OH, Bruce, dinna fash thysel' -- I wasn't commenting on you!! I don't consider yoru living a pardonable offense, but rather, an applaudable virtue on your part, for which many thanks.

You are fully sensitive to the fickleness of the mesia, I expect.

I just think discussion should be tempered with perspective, which I have often seen you do.


As for BHO himself, I rather like him, and find him appealing and seemingly trustworthy. I haven't been aware of him long enough to be able to substantiate that instinct. But it is certainly one MS Clinton does not evoke, in me anyway. POwer to the Shields, Scotty!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM

"As for BHO himself, I rather like him, and find him appealing and seemingly trustworthy. I haven't been aware of him long enough to be able to substantiate that instinct. But it is certainly one MS Clinton does not evoke, in me anyway."

Agreed. I do NOT like ( or agree with) his proposed policies, but I do think he would be a reasonable President.

It is the seeming double standard ( anything is ok to ding Bush ( or now McCain), nothing is allowed to criticize Obama) that I object to, NOT your support of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:02 PM

Oh, of course; I know I can count on you to reject the double standard, as you always have.

But let's not over-simplify. The point I was making was that (regardless of who the story was about) a small change was made into a huge story, painted up as a sea-change, when it was just a swell.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:06 AM

STROUDSBURG, Pa. (AP) — For Edwin David, who served with the famed World War II unit of black fighters known as the Tuskegee Airmen, Sen. Barack Obama is an easy choice.

"Just let me live till voting time in November," said David, 83, living in retirement in the Pocono Mountains. "In my lifetime, we just might get to see the first African-American president of the United States!"

Fresh from victories in the big states of Ohio and Texas, and with polls having shown her holding the lead here, even if it has dwindled, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton starts her campaign in Pennsylvania as the favorite to win the April 22 primary.

But in random interviews last week with dozens of voters in swing districts across the state, much of the Democratic voter enthusiasm seemed to tilt toward Obama, not only because he is a fresh face, but because they believe he has the best shot at beating Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, whom they call old and out-of-touch.

But unlike David, many said it wasn't an easy decision.

Kate Clark, 53, a cafe owner in Nazareth, a small town near Allentown, said she struggled with her choice. Tempted to vote for Clinton because of her gender, she said Obama's energy and vision ultimately won out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:10 AM

NSIGNT: Why I am a woman for Obama
15:00 Fri 07 Mar 2008 - Vanya Rainova

"I'm tired of pseudo-feminist interpretations suggesting that contempt for Senator Hillary Clinton is rooted in misogyny. I'm disheartened by sisters guilt-tripping sisters for not supporting the first woman to run for president of the United States. So, even though I'm not eligible to vote, I'm a woman supporting Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

Yes, I'd very much like to see a woman be the president of the United States, but not any woman, not if this woman is yet another tough guy on the establishment block. I thought the idea of having women in a position of power was that they might introduce some empathy, dialogue and unity to our testosterone-driven, conflict-wrought world, and I don't see divisive, war-supporting Hillary going that way. She says the White House needs a fighter. I say it needs a uniter...."


Full article is an interesting take. It can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM

Emerging Obama Coalition

...Barack Obama stands the best chance at uniting the Democratic base by promising record turnout of movement activists, appealing to crossover independent voters and drawing stark contrasts with McCain's record. Though Obama won almost as many delegates as Clinton on Tuesday, the perception of losses will help his campaign in that it will force them to deal with adversity head-on.

Tuesday shows the diversity of the Democratic Party. Americans from all walks of life have voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses since Jan. 3. The varying results from state to state paint a tapestry of the emerging Democratic party of the 21st century. The Democratic base consists of a heterogenous cross section of America: African Americans inspired by the historic candidacy of Obama, seniors living on fixed incomes worried about the economy, Latinos building their lives and families in the United States, young voters finding a voice in their political system and women of all walks of life.

No wonder Democrats in Congress do not always vote as a bloc — the party is far from monolithic and too nuanced to coalesce on every issue. But Obama's candidacy may be the spark to inspire the Democrats to join together.

If Obama can speak to female voters as individuals — and not as a group — he will successfully appeal to the largest single demographic of Democratic primary voters. Younger women do not feel compelled to vote for Clinton, while older women share her brand of "shoulder-pad feminism," a term popularized by The New York Times' Maureen Dowd. If Obama can speak to the young women of Pennsylvania, from Penn State to Bryn Mawr to the teaming office lounges of Philadelphia, the campaign can drive a wedge into Clinton's support.

Ending the Democratic nomination contest before April 22 appears unlikely.

Should the campaign continue for an additional seven weeks, victory by Barack Obama stands the best chance of uniting the Democratic Party for a tough general election campaign against John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:13 AM

From CNN:

"March 6, 2008
Rolling Stone picks Obama
Posted: 12:05 PM ET
(CNN) – Rolling Stone has been endorsing candidates for president for 36 years, but never have they endorsed one during the primary season. Until now.

The magazine endorses Barack Obama for president in its upcoming issue, which hits newsstands on Friday. The cover features the Illinois senator, and the headline "Barack Obama: A New Hope."

"Politicians with gifts like Obama's are so rare that it's imperative for each of us to do our part," Rolling Stone editors write.

The publication first endorsed a candidate for president in 1972 when they picked George McGovern, a democrat. Since then, the magazine has endorsed candidates Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

Publisher Jann Wenner — an Obama supporter who has given $2,000 to his presidential campaign — also contributed to the presidential campaigns of Gore and Kerry.

Wenner has criticized the way Hillary Clinton has run her campaign, but referred to her a "capable and personable senator." The publisher contributed $2,000 to The New York senator's first senatorial campaign in June 2000, but has not contributed to her current presidential bid.

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:15 AM

Oh--and those superdelegates?

"Four of Vermont's seven party and elected officials known as superdelegates said Wednesday they were still supporting Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who continues to lead in the national delegate count even though New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won three of the four state primaries held Tuesday.

A fifth Vermont superdelegate said Obama's victory in Vermont's primary was enough to win him over.

"I'm supporting Obama because the people of Vermont did," said Ian Carleton, chairman of the state Democratic Party, who had said in the past he was leaning toward Obama, but hadn't committed.

Carleton said Wednesday his decision to back Obama was following the will of the Vermont voters.

Superdelegates attend the national party convention, which will be held in Denver in August, and can vote for whomever they choose.

Judy Bevans of Craftsbury, vice chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, called herself a "stauncher" Obama supporter after the primaries.

"The longer this goes on the more I like him," she said. "I like the way he campaigns ... I feel like it's a step into the 21st century not to be caught in an endless loop of the Clinton family.""

---

People--get ready. THere's a train a'comin'
Don't need no ticket.
You just get on board.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

Hey, Amos...if you were a Hillary-backer, you'd have looked this up instead and posted it:

INSIGHT: Why I am an African American man for Clinton
15:00 Fri 07 Mar 2008 - Dex Walcott

"I'm tired of pseudo-liberal interpretations suggesting that contempt for Senator Obama is rooted in racial prejudice. I'm disheartened by my Black brothers guilt-tripping brothers and sisters for not supporting the first Black man to run for president of the United States. So, even though I'm not eligible to vote, I'm a Black man supporting Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

Yes, I'd very much like to see a Black man be the president of the United States, but not any Black man, not if this Black man is yet another figurehead for forces that would lead us down the garden path of empty rhetoric and not deliver. I thought the idea of having Black men in a position of power was that they might introduce some empathy, dialogue and unity to our racially divided, conflict-wrought world, and I don't see a knee jerk vote for any Black man just because he IS a Black man bringing about that positive change. Obama says 'Yes we can!' Man, I KNOW that, but Hillary says 'Yes, we WILL!' 'Can' just ain't enough...we need a president who WILL do what needs to be done, and I see Hillary Clinton as that president..."


Heh! ;-) I composed it, of course, out of thin air, paraphrasing the article you copied and pasted from a female Obama supporter. Same psychology. I turned it around so as to demonstrate how it works. Just the same way, only opposite.

This is the partisan technique for changing "hearts and minds". Find the spokespersons of your persuasion, and quote them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:39 PM

Little Hawk:

Ptui. You are so full of hot shit that your eyes are brown, you broke-dick rat-bag mammalucca. It's a good thing for this proud nation that you are a damn furriner, is all I can say!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:54 PM

An interesting analysis of the actual picture of wins in Texas,as distinguished from the merdia event.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:23 PM

I am proud of my brown eyes, sir, and I will not have you slander them in this scurrilous and unjustifiable fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM

For the record, I would enjoy seeing a woman president, not this particular one it goes without saying, but I think it is at least 100 times more important to have an African American president. And since most women were married, happily or unhappily in many cases, there was a man in more or less the same sitaution as every woman who had a very difficult struggle in life. So not to minimize the lot of women, who had it very tough..but so did men..going in the coal mines, riding the ranges for months on end etc. I wish he wouldn't go around insulitng Iraquis and threatening Pakistan..the man is not in any way perfect internationally although he could do an enormous amount of good in terms of diplomacy, designing systems for improving istuations etc...but anyway, I hope and hope he wins the nomination and I probably hope that he wins the presidency although he makes me very nervous outside the borders of this country...

He has a hard row to hoe going against the_______but hopefully others will take it upon themselves to point out her various fatal flaws..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM

Have it, or have it not, as thou wilt, sirrah. I have writ my words and all the outrage in the history of Christendom will not undo them, have what you may.

As for scurrilous slander, th'art the author of such slanders as make mine own seem but a paltry moue upon a maiden's fairest visage, caused by the trifling passage of shadows in SPringtime.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

LOL!!! Oh, fabulous wording, Amos! You have outdone yourself. I shall have to reel back in temporary confusion, and attempt to marshall my verbal resources before entering the fray once more...

mg - I think it would be very cool to have either a female or a Black president...but I can't think how I would go about comparing which of the two is more important...and I don't think I'd even want to.

It interferes too much with the more objective process of simply picking the best candidate one can, regardless of such considerations. It shouldn't matter, either pro or con. One day it won't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Wisely put, Oh Hawk.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama is a better human being than Hillary Clinton. This may be, of course, a function of his newness to the gladiator's ring of national politics, compared to her years of scar tissue. But she strikes me as far more bitter, far more opportunistic, and far more conniving than he does.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:09 PM

"The bottom line is that Barack Obama is a better human being than Hillary Clinton. This may be, of course, a function of his newness to the gladiator's ring of national politics, compared to her years of scar tissue. But she strikes me as far more bitter, far more opportunistic, and far more conniving than he does."

Damn! I hate it when I have to agree with Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

I don't, BB. I take it in a spirit of brotherly celebration. Perhaps we are mutually maturing! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM

...she strikes me as far more bitter, far more opportunistic, and far more conniving than he does.

Well, she has the advantage of having been married to Bill for a good number of years. She's had ample opportunity to hone that skill set while observing a true master of the art. She's learned well. I would give her marks equal with Bill's on the conniving and opportunistic fronts, but she actually leaves him in the dirt when it comes to bitterness.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:44 PM

It's true, Bill Clinton is incapable of being bitter. Obtuse? Opportunist? Conniving? Fits him like a glove! Of course Bill is also very smart, and is a survivor. Maybe Hillary learned her survival skills from him.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:12 PM

Representative Steve King has a popular view on Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:11 PM

So do 48% of the voters of Wyoming:

Obama
1,816
61%
0

Clinton
1,110
38%
0

Gee--mebbe them folks out in the Wilde West know something about character.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

I have that same general impression...that Obama is a better human being (in the sense of his character) than Hillary Clinton is, and that's why I favour him over her. I do think she's very smart and capable, but I also think that of Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM

Amos, we have now all seen through your 'the people/voters/pundits who agree with me are brilliant' routine.

In reality, your opinions have nothing to do with Western voters' ability to read the character of politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

But, GG, it's normal human nature to believe that 'the people/voters/pundits who agree with me are brilliant'. ;-)

We all do that. It's a universal presumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:35 PM

Oh, Gigi, my dearest sparring partner, you have gone and slapped me ol' wrist and popped me bubble. I don't think our friendship will ever be the same after this heartless cruelty on your part. It...well, it hurts.

Ah, well. What is life, but endless change? Sigh.

Sniff.

I promise you, I will get over this...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:47 PM

Actually, we're into caucuses again. Caucuses, I think, explain why the Democratic party keeps nominating candidates who can't win in the general election. In Ohio media pundits were laughing that Hillary carried the day due to a bunch of Archie Bunkers.
                   And she did.
                   But in the general election, who will the Archie Bunkers vote for, Obama or McCain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM

Riginslinger-

Is this the statement from Rep. Steve King that so excites you:

"I don't want to disparage anyone because of their, their race, their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father, father might have been," King said just before doing just that.

"And I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the, the radical Islamists, the, the al-Qaida, and the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11."

"It does matter, his middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world, it has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict."

Now my father had a hell of a tough time delivering milk during World War 2, given that his first name was "Adolph." He survived but not without some close scrutiny thanks to some overly zealous townspeople who reported him to the FBI.

I think Rep. King's appeal to the Nazi in us all should be rejected by all the Presidential candidates. It's straight out of the Joe McCarthy hate book. He should be so ashamed.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM

Well, Obama has got Lake Wobegon on board anyway.

Here's what Garrison Keillor wrote to Obama a few days ago:

"I'm happy to support your candidacy, which is so full of promise for our country. Seven years of a failed presidency is a depressing thing, and the country is pressing for a change and looking for someone with clear vision who is determined to break through the rhetorical logjam and find sensible ways to move our country forward. That's you, friend.

"I can't think of a happier prospect for next January than to see you and your wife and children stepping out on the platform in front of the Capitol for the inauguration. The sight of this will bring to an end a long sour chapter in our history. It will be an enormous moment. And of course it will be exciting to have a president who can speak with grace and power to the American people. Your campaign is a great tonic for America and that's why so many young people are excited about it. I congratulate you on your awesome achievement so far and pledge my support toward victory in November."

And here's Obama's response:
"I've been entertained and inspired by Garrison Keillor's work through the years. His tales of life in Lake Wobegon tell the story of life in quintessential middle America. I'm honored to have his support and, as president, I will wake up every day thinking about how I can help make life better in places like Lake Wobegon all across the country."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM

Charley - I didn't say Steve King's comments excited me. I merely pointed out that they were a popular view. They aren't my view, but we seem to be hearing more and more of it as the campaign goes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:23 AM

King is a bit of a fool. Knowing a "Hussein" is leading America will possibly relax some of the tensions underlying the Arab community at large concerning the United States, but why would it make anyone dance? The proposition is sheer hyperbole, or panic mongering, or something. The whole point of Obamas campaign is to change the persistant dysfunctional patterns of government. One of those patterns is writhing around spewing hate-based weird irrational propositions like this one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:25 AM

By the way -- Obama did not just win in Wyoming. He won by something like 60-45, with turnouts on the order of five times what was expected.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM

BONNEY LAKE, Pierce County Ñ Casey Knowles didn't much like a recent campaign commercial for Hillary Rodham Clinton Ñ even though she's in it.

After all, the Bonney Lake 17-year-old is a big Barack Obama supporter.

"What I don't like about the ad is its fear-mongering," Knowles told "Good Morning America Weekend Edition" today. "I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future."

The well-known Clinton ad aired in Texas before last week's vote and implied a lack of experience on Obama's part. It showed an exterior of a Colonial-style home and stock footage of then-8-year-old Knowles sleeping in bed. A narrator describes a phone ringing in the White House: "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Clinton won the Texas primary 51 percent to 47 percent.

Knowles said she didn't see the ad until Jon Stewart lampooned it Thursday on "The Daily Show." Her brother noticed it was her, and the family replayed the commercial on their digital recorder to be sure.

"They were parodying this ad, kind of poking fun at it," Knowles said. "My brother was like, 'Is that Casey?' And we just erupted. Sure enough, it's me."

The file footage was originally shot for a railroad company advertisement. The Clinton campaign bought it from Getty Images.

Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama. She attended his rally at Seattle's KeyArena on Feb. 8. Her mother, Pam, told The News Tribune that Casey cried and trembled after shaking the candidate's hand.

The next day, she was a Democratic precinct captain for the state's caucuses. If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention.

Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her.

"I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary," she said. "They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 05:52 PM

"CHEYENNE, WYO -- . -- In a sparsely populated state that unexpectedly found itself at the center of the Democratic political universe this week, Sen. Barack Obama handily beat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in caucuses Saturday. The victory gave a psychological lift to a campaign that had had an uncharacteristically difficult week.

Obama bested Clinton in Wyoming with 61% of the vote to her 38%, giving him seven delegates and her five.

With Clinton's resurgence last week -- thanks to wins in the Ohio and Texas primaries -- the fight for every delegate has become intense, making Wyoming a player for the first time in years.

The fight now moves to Mississippi, which holds its primary Tuesday, and delegate-rich Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Given the heightened acrimony between the two campaigns, that seems like a lifetime away.

Obama, with 1,578 delegates, is roughly 100 ahead of Clinton, according to the Associated Press tally. To become the party's nominee, a candidate needs 2,025 delegates."...

LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:17 PM

The election of Congressman Bill Foster in Illinois brings one more super-delegate to the Obama march.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 11:55 PM

"Last Saturday a political "earthquake" struck in the ex-urban Republican leaning 14th Congressional District of Illinois. Democrat Bill Foster won the special election to replace retired former House Speaker Dennis Hastert who had represented the district for two decades. The district voted heavily for George Bush both in 2000 and 2004. Hastert was never reelected by less than 64%. Senator John McCain campaigned aggressively for the Republican candidate Jim Oberweis.

Email
Print
Comments
Buzz up!
on Yahoo!
Yet Democrat Foster won a convincing 53% to 47% victory.

How is that relevant to Barack Obama? Because Foster choose to link his candidacy directly to Obama. His literature was full of Obama. And the closing TV ad of the campaign was Barack Obama asking the people of the Republican 14th District to support Democrat Foster and his agenda for change in Washington. That message attracted independents and many Republicans. And the spirit of Obama's own campaign helped energize Democrats to volunteer and turnout to vote for Foster.

My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and I spent Saturday going door-to-door asking people to get out and vote for Foster. At door after door people talked about the need for change - their readiness to support Foster - and their support for Obama.

Obama's effect on the Foster race is emblematic of why Democratic Super Delegates are beginning to break for Obama.

Not only is Obama the most electable Democratic candidate for President this fall, he's also the candidate that will help elect more Democrats to the House and Senate. And the effect the presidential candidate has on House and Senate races - as well as races for State Legislature - will be a big factor in determining who Super Delegates support."...

Robert Creamer, writing in The Huffington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 10:22 AM

Roger COhen, a Times columnist, writes reflectively:

"...If I was to sum up this presidential race, I'd say: "It's the generations, stupid."

An American generation under 45 has glimpsed an interconnected world beyond race and tribe. They know its attainment will be elusive but, after a bitter season, they feel summoned by what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." And, speaking of experience, they know Lincoln came to the presidency with all of two years in Congress behind him, and a failed Senate campaign.

Looking out from Kenya, where he mediated an end to the tribal violence, Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary general, told me: "I think an Obama presidency would be inspirational, an incredible development in the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:58 PM

Obama is to travel today to Mississippi, where he is leading in polls ahead of tomorrow's primary. Clinton (N.Y.) will campaign in Pennsylvania, which will vote on April 22.

Still reeling from Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas, Obama's camp sent out a memo to supporters titled "Doing Whatever It Takes to Win." It characterized Clinton's strategy for victory as "tearing Barack Obama down" and said her campaign "should stop telling the American people things that they know aren't true."

With both candidates settling in for a protracted battle that appears certain to drag on past Pennsylvania, Clinton's campaign continued to hit Obama over comments from Harvard professor Samantha Power, who resigned from his campaign Friday after being quoted calling Clinton a "monster." Power had also suggested that Obama's proposal on Iraq, calling for troops to be brought home in the first 16 months he is in office, was a campaign plan by which he would not be bound if he were elected.

"Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not be mistaken for serious action," a memo from the Clinton campaign read.

With Obama holding an advantage of about 140 pledged convention delegates over Clinton, his allies argued strenuously that the outcome of the contest should be determined by delegates awarded to winners of primaries or caucuses, and not by the 796 Democratic superdelegates. Former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), a co-chair of the Obama campaign, said it would be a "travesty" if Obama maintains his lead among pledged delegates but an advantage among superdelegates allows Clinton to win the nomination.

"I don't see how we could possibly do anything other than respect the will of the people who have voted in caucus and primary states all over the country," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And what it would say to the world, to the country, that we'd overturn the verdict of those . . . elections would be travesty for . . . the party and for the country."

(WaPo, 3-10)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:26 PM

Obama, campaigning in Mississippi ahead of the state's contest on Tuesday, said he has won more states than Clinton and is leading in delegates who will decide the Democratic candidate to face Republican John McCain in November.

"I don't know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to somebody who is in first place," Obama, an Illinois senator, told supporters. The crowd booed when he mentioned Hillary's idea.

"I'm not running for vice president. I am running for president of the United States of America," Obama added.

(Reuters, 3-10-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:30 PM

Say Amos, could you give us an update whenever he takes a piss as well? Also find out if he shakes it or taps it huh?

LMAO.............damn.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:34 PM

He just did -- in the men's lav behind the meeting hall kitchen. It was a great relief as he had been holding it all through his speech and it was beginning to float his teeth. He was heard to sigh in the process, and according to local eyewitnesses, he tapped, rather than shook.

Let me know if you have any more questions, pal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:44 PM

Thanks.......I had worked myself up into a tizzie over not knowing............I feel much better now and can sit up and take nourishment for yet another day..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:52 PM

orrespondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama beat rival Hillary Clinton in Mississippi on Tuesday, giving him new momentum in their increasingly nasty presidential fight as they head into the next critical showdown in Pennsylvania in six weeks.

The win for Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, extended his lead over Clinton in pledged delegates to the August nominating convention. The Illinois senator also won Saturday in Wyoming.

Clinton revived her hopes in the Democratic race last week with big wins over Obama in Ohio and Texas, prolonging their bitter Democratic fight for the right to face Republican John McCain in November's presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:58 PM

Mississippi
Updated 1 minute ago


        
Obama
66,769
55%

---

36%
reporting

---

Clinton
52,430
43%

---

AP has declared Obama has won Mississippi.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:28 AM

Thanks to the Democratic Party's often-inscrutable method of apportioning delegates to its national nominating convention, Barack Obama's resounding victory in Mississippi's presidential primary means that this smallish southern state - with only 33 pledged delegates at stake - will likely negate Clinton's wins in the much-larger (and ostensibly more important) states of Texas and Ohio.
The final delegate tally isn't immediately known. But by winning almost 60 per cent of the vote in Mississippi, Obama could net up to nine delegates from Mississippi, more than Clinton gained on March 4.
So what does it all mean? It means, in part, that Obama got a bit lucky and escaped without any quantifiable damage to his campaign after all the hubbub over Nafta-gate in Ohio and the impact of the Hispanic vote in Texas.
Perception, however, is a trickier thing for Obama. The Clinton campaign has a powerful spin machine right now that is portraying the Texas and Ohio results as leaving Obama's campaign "reeling." This is a bit much, given that it appears Obama actually won the Texas caucuses (the less-publicized element of the Lone Star State's crazy hybrid system). But still, the Clintons can rightfully claim they blunted, at least temporarily, Obama's momentum at a time when many people were writing the former first lady's campaign obituary.
Clinton's strategists are also portraying Obama's wins as somehow less legitimate because many of them have come in smaller states (like Mississippi) and in states (like Wyoming, which Obama won on Saturday) which hold caucuses as opposed to primaries. This is a somewhat less convincing talking point....(Canada.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:21 AM

"...states... which hold caucuses as opposed to primaries."


                   I think this is a really big deal, and if the Democrats ever want to elect another president, and they don't do it this time, they need to get rid of caucuses and got to all primaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:09 PM

ANd for those who think Texas was a big embarassment to Obama's team:

"Sen. Barack Obama widen his lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the overall delegate count by picking up delegates in Mississippi and Texas on Tuesday.

Sen. Barack Obama claimed a big victory in Mississippi's Democratic primary. The Illinois Democrat won handily in the Mississippi Democratic primary Tuesday. Obama beat Clinton 61 percent to 37 percent with 99 percent of the precincts reporting.

With the victory, Obama added 17 delegates to his total while Clinton picked up 11, CNN estimates. The Mississippi win was Obama's second win in a row, having won the Wyoming caucuses Saturday.

CNN Tuesday also projected that Obama was the winner of the Texas Democratic caucuses that occurred March 4. Obama will be awarded 38 of Texas's delegates, while Clinton will win 29 delegates as a result of the caucuses, CNN estimates.   

Clinton beat Obama 51 percent to 47 percent in the Texas primary that was also held on March 4, but Obama was expected to win a majority of the 228 Texas delegates due to his caucus win." CNN

---

Let's see how many retractions or adjustments come out of the pop press on these numbers, where previously they were headling Hillary's earth-shaking "win". Eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM

Like an honor guard escorting him to his lectern, nine former generals and admirals entered a room this afternoon with military precision to try to help Sen. Barack Obama counter recent suggestions that he is not up to the job of commander-in-chief.

"After years of being told that Democrats have to talk, act and vote like John McCain to pass some commander-in-chief test, how many times do we have to learn that tough talk is not a substitute for sound judgment?" Obama said in his opening remarks.

With nine American flags behind him, as well as one for each branch of the military, Obama spoke at the Chicago History Museum, a rare Chicago appearance for a candidate who has spent much of the past 13 months on the road.

The event followed suggestions in recent days by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign that Obama is not yet ready to be responsible for America's military might, even as it has also suggested that he might make a good vice presidential candidate.

Answering questions from reporters, Obama said he believes Clinton is qualified to be commander-in-chief, just as he and McCain are. But the Illinois Democrat also said Clinton has played unfair on the topic.

"I think it is fair to say Sen. Clinton has deployed this as a political strategy," he said. "The disingenuousness of it was revealed when they started saying that, 'A well, maybe he can be vice president, which by President Clinton's own criteria means that I must be qualified to be commander in chief. Apparently the thinking is that I might not be ready on day one, but maybe on day 15, I would be prepared. This is politics."

Obama pointed to a Clinton ad that suggests he would not be ready to answer a 3 a.m. crisis phone call at the White House.

"This was a last-minute gambit prior to Texas and Ohio because in their own terms, they had said that campaign would end if they didn't win. And so, they launched this broadside," Obama said. "Here's the one good thing about it, is that this issue would have come up in the general election anyway. So, we might as well surface it now. I didn't expect Democrats to be making these arguments against fellow Democrats. They typically come from Republicans against Democrats. Certainly, if Sen. Clinton were the nominee, John McCain will make this exact same argument against her. But…since I intend to be the nominee, and I'm going to be running against John McCain, it's an argument that we would have to deal with at some point anyway."

After Obama spoke, a quartet of the former military leaders each took a turn at the lectern to offer him praise. General Merrill “Tonyâ€쳌 McPeak said the first-term senator has the temperament to lead the military, calling him "no shock Barack" and "no drama Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

Amos - Do you think Obama would offer Hillary VP, and if he did, do you think she would accept?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM

Rig:

I don't honestly know. If I were he I would be leery of the baggage she would bring that could be savaged by the bestial blades of the right, just as they sliced and diced Bill. I would definitely include her in my circle of supporters, if I felt I could trust her. Not knowing her personally it is hard to call.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:53 AM

Against McCain, he'd be far better off with someone of proven military background and knowledge. One suggestion I've heard is Jim Webb--both of the above, and --possibly-- helping bring Virginia along.

Military background and knowledge is not exactly Hillary's strong suit.

I would hope the DNC would not be so short-sighted as to insist that he pick her as VP as a condition for ending this civil war in the Democratic party.

It's fairly evident that by the convention he will have the higher number of delegates, and probably also popular vote.

Her supporters, wanting to keep a Republican from choosing any more Supreme Court justices, will support him in the fall, whether or not Hillary is on the ticket.

So he should be able to pick the VP he feels is best--no added pressure from the outside--- any more than any presidential nominee feels. (Look, for instance, at how enthusiastic JFK was to have to run with LBJ).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:54 AM

"Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 9:50 AM EDT
Obama stages unbelievable comebackThe Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area
Print Article Email Article Reprints RSS Feeds ShareThis
In one of the greatest comebacks in the history of unscientific online polls, Barack Obama outdistanced rivals John McCain and Hillary Clinton as the presidential favorite of readers of The Business Journal of the Greater Triad's website.

Obama received 49 percent of the 549 votes cast, compared to 35 percent for McCain, 11 percent for Clinton and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.

The informal poll was conducted between March 5 and March 12.

Readers were asked simply "Who's your candidate now?' among the remaining presidential candidates.

Amazingly, McCain had a comfortable lead in the poll as of Tuesday morning, with more than 50 percent of the vote. But in the poll's final 24 hours, about 170 more votes were cast -- virtually all for Obama. " (Business Journals)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:05 AM

"...The cost of a college education is soaring and Senator Obama wants to make it more affordable; he has proposed a $4,000 tuition credit for every year a student is in college. In return, students are expected to give back to their communities and their country through volunteerism.

Finally, Senator Obama represents the immigrant ethos of the American Dream: if you work hard, if you have good values, you can achieve anything. This is how he was raised and many people in our community respond to that.

It is important to note that it's not just young people who are supporting Obama. He is gaining supporters from first generation voters well. When I was calling South Asian voters in Houston, Texas, I spoke to an Indian woman in her fifties who is an avid Obama supporter. Both her children were away at college and she was volunteering at the local Obama campaign office, making phone calls and organising fundraisers.

My father, an avid and lifelong Republican, has not only donated to the Obama campaign but has also made dozens of calls to voters as a volunteer. These are only two of many examples of how Senator Barack Obama's campaign crosses generational, ethnic, religious and, yes, traditional party lines. How does he do this you may ask? That answer is quite simple: he gives us hope for a better life — and the chance to realise that hope. "

The writer lives in San Francisco where she writes fiction and film/book reviews. She is managing editor of the award-winning city guide SF Station.com and the Bay Area Chair for South Asians for Obama. (Economic Times of India)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:32 PM

FOX News, oddly enough, opines that the superdelegates are coming Obama's way:

"A funny thing is happening. While Hillary and Bill appeal to super delegates to override the will of the voters and back Hillary, the super delegates are doing just the opposite.

The latest delegate count posted on realclearpolitics.com shows that HillaryÕs lead among super delegates, once a comfortable 60 votes, has now been cut almost in half to 36 delegates. The latest tally has Hillary leading among super delegates by 247 to 211. So, with 57 percent of the super delegates decided, HillaryÕs lead is shrinking.

In fact, ObamaÕs total delegate lead has swelled to 163 votes among elected delegates and 127 among all delegates. With 1,614 votes, he isnÕt far from the 2,025 he would need, without Florida or Michigan, to win the nomination.

Of the remaining 566 delegates to be selected, Hillary should enjoy a slight edge. SheÕll probably win Pennsylvania (158 delegates), Indiana (72), Kentucky (51), West Virginia (28), and Puerto Rico (55). Obama will likely win North Carolina (115), Oregon (52), Montana (16), South Dakota (15) and Guam (4). If this turns out to be so, Clinton would lead in states with 364 delegates while Obama would prevail in states with 202. But even if we assume 10 point wins for each candidate in each state (and the margin will likely be much tighter), all Hillary would get from her states is 36 more delegates while Obama would get 20 from his Ñ still leaving Obama with a lead of 147 in elected delegates.

At that point, Obama would have about 1,900 votes, within spitting distance of the 2025 heÕd need to win. Hillary would have to win the remaining super delegates by a top-heavy margin of 2:1 in order to win (steal) the nomination from Obama, who will have won the most elected delegates.

Even if we factor in possible do-over primaries in Florida and Michigan, the nature of the proportional representation process is not likely to change this outcome significantly. Hillary might get an extra 20 delegates if she wins both states, but sheÕs not likely to get more.

Can Hillary carry the remaining super delegates by 2:1 when she is carrying the ones who have committed by only 247 to 211? Not very likely. The pressure on these delegates to vote as their states voted will be very intense and few are likely to stand up to it...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:39 AM

Australia (Sydney Herald):

In politics, there is spin and doctoring and downright monstering on message management, and it is waged with no holds barred 24/7. It's the foghorns of war. And then there is calculus and the clarity of numbers.

Notwithstanding Hillary Clinton's big wins last week in Texas and Ohio - victories that saved her campaign - the new momentum she has, and with prospects ahead of a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania on April 22, a closer look at the raw fundamentals leads to the conclusion that Barack Obama is in fact closer to clinching the Democratic nomination.

There are three key factors in this calculus:

- delegates

- popular vote, and

- electability.

Obama is ahead in all three - and is poised to finish the primary/caucus season as the leader with the biggest claim as victor.

(1) In delegates, Obama today has 1529 to Clinton's 1417 - a lead of more than 100 that she will most likely be unable to erase.

Even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania 55-45 per cent, Clinton will net a gain of only 15 delegates. In the polls today, the candidates are tied in Michigan and Clinton is comfortably ahead in Florida. Even if those two states revote, and the outcome tracks today's polls, Clinton would net perhaps 30 delegates.

Obama for his part is expected to do well in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, where 250 delegates are at stake - so he can net delegates in those contests.

The bottom line: the primary season will end with Obama leading in the delegate count.

(2) In the popular vote, Obama has won 13.005 million votes to Clinton's 12.414 million votes to date a 51-49 per cent margin. Again, barring a blowout, the primaries will end with Obama having won more votes cast overall.

In the voting to date, Obama has won 29 states, and Clinton 17, and he has more voter intensity behind him.

Obama has won 25 of those contests with 55 per cent or more of the vote, and, in 19 of those states, Clinton has received less than 40 per cent of the vote. Clinton has won only six states with more that 55 per cent of the vote (including American Samoa and Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot).

(3) Electability and the superdelegates. While Obama will end the primary season ahead in delegates and the popular vote, he will most likely still not have a majority of all delegates, and therefore the final decision will hinge on the 800 superdelegates and their choice.

What superdelegates care about is who is the best at the top of the ticket to protect them in November, win the White House and increase the Democrats' margins in Congress.

Here is where the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll (13/3/08) is instructive on Obama's electability.

While Clinton and Obama hold virtually identical slivers of leads over John McCain (47-44 per cent for Obama, 47-45 per cent for Clinton), Democratic voters, by a 48-38 per cent margin, say that Obama has the better chance of beating McCain than Clinton.

Fifty-nine per cent say he passes the Commander-in-Chief test (she rates 64 per cent).
On the pivotal issue of who has the ability to bring change, Obama gets 72 per cent, and Clinton 58 per cent.

In terms of positive/negative ratings, Obama has a 51-28 positive ratio to Clinton's 45-43. And former president Bill Clinton is now viewed unfavourably (42-45) by more voters for the first time in five years.

Obama's calculus for victory, therefore, is quite straightforward in his message to the supers: "I have the most delegates, have won the most states, have won them more convincingly, and am the more electable. Ratify the verdict of the voters of our party, and do the right thing."

It will be hard for most of the supers to reach a different conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM

"FOX News, oddly enough, opines that the superdelegates are coming Obama's way:"


                        There's nothing odd about this. Fox News is staffed by a bunch of right-wing-religious-wakkos, and the know that McCain could walk over Obam quite easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 10:29 AM

Interesting!

Anyone want to place a little bet? How about you, Rig? We could donate the winnings to Mudcat.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 11:38 AM

Step right up, there, Rig!! Substitute greenback dollars for your sour, distorted prognostication, and let the good times roll.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:39 PM

Pressure and the Prophet

By Michael Gerson
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A17

The economy is a rising issue in presidential politics, but Iraq still overshadows this election.

John McCain's nomination was ensured by the success of the surge he had consistently advocated, against intense opposition.

If Barack Obama eventually wins the Democratic nomination, his extraordinary rise may be traced to a speech on Oct. 2, 2002, at an antiwar rally in downtown Chicago. That day, Obama, then an obscure state senator, said: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

For many Democrats, this prescience has given Obama the aura of a prophet. And this early opposition lends credibility to his current promise: to swiftly end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.

Recently, this pledge was called into question by Obama's now-former adviser, Samantha Power, who said: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground."

The proper response to such a statement is: One would hope so. Power's "gaffe" happens to be an obvious truth. Would Americans expect a president to keep campaign pledges that he later determines would undermine the national interest?

But it is not only the future of Obama's antiwar commitment being questioned; it is also his past consistency. In a new article on Commentary magazine's Web site, Peter Wehner undertakes a thorough examination of Obama's record on Iraq. It is, shall we say, complex.

More than a year after the initial success of the invasion, Obama explained, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." And he was correct. In July 2004, he argued that America had an "absolute obligation" to stay in Iraq until the country stabilized. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died."

Two months later, Obama criticized Bush's conduct of the war but repeated that simply pulling out would further destabilize Iraq, making it an "extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." And he signaled his openness to the deployment of additional troops if this would make an eventual withdrawal more likely.

In June 2006, Obama still opposed "a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops." "I don't think it's appropriate for Congress," he said, "to make those decisions about what happens in the field."

By late 2006, as public support for the Iraq war disintegrated and his own political ambitions quickened, Obama called for a "phased withdrawal." When Bush announced the surge, Obama saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there" -- a lapse in his prophetic powers.

When Obama announced his presidential candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007, he stated, "I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." Then in May and again in November, he voted against funding American forces in Iraq.


Wehner concludes that Obama is guilty of "problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst." And he notes that while McCain has been consistently right about Iraq in the years since the invasion -- highly critical of the early strategy and supportive of a successful surge -- Obama has been consistently wrong in supporting the early, failed strategy and opposing the surge, even as its success became evident.

Obama did indeed oppose the war early on. But he did not become an antiwar leader in Congress. He is not Dennis Kucinich -- and thank goodness. Obama's initial foreign policy instincts -- refusing to tie the hands of the military with arbitrary deadlines -- were not radical. I find this reassuring.

But there is little doubt that Obama has gained in political support among Democrats as his positions on Iraq have become progressively antiwar. His March 2008 withdrawal deadline -- which is up now -- would have undone the Anbar Awakening, massively strengthened al-Qaeda and increased civilian carnage. And Obama will find -- as John Kerry found in 2004 -- that Americans are suspicious of a prospective commander in chief who votes against funding U.S. troops in the field.

The Iraq war determined the paths for McCain and Obama. But there is a large difference between them. McCain eventually won his nomination because he showed political courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. Obama may eventually win his nomination because he surrendered to that pressure.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM

Oh, good!! ANother lengthy explanation of why we have to resort to bloodshed and mayhem in order to promote civilization. Let's let the less monied tribes of the world provoke us into slaughtering 'em, their wives, mothers, fathers and children. That's teach them to screw around with Civilization.

JEsus, don't you guys EVER learn ?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM

all these calculations..it is like saying from an engineering standpoint car a should beat car b in a race. It does not account for sugar in the tank...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

"...Hillary Clinton's big wins last week in Texas and Ohio..." Wins, but hardly "big". Especially in Texas, where she'll very probably end up with fewer delegates than Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM

A profile on Barack Obama's mother from the NY Times -- interesting study and an impressive woman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:44 AM

Amos - That's interesting. I looked for some information on her a while back and couldn't find much.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:53 PM

"he more we hear Obama, the more the ridiculous these attacks by a desperate Clinton campaign will seem to most Democrats. First, Obama defused the Ferraro racist brouhaha with calm and reasoned low key humor. Now, weÕll hear him discuss the objectionable views of his pastor in an intelligent and spiritual manner that will speak to people of all faiths. The more one is exposed to Barack Obama the more impressive he becomes to fair-minded people disinclined to apoplectic meltdowns. The opposite is true with Hillary Clinton who increasingly is becoming the Tonya Harding of American Politics."

A blogger

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 09:34 PM

From a column by Nancy Greggs:

The inconvenient truth is that the GOP started preparing the onslaught of lies and innuendo to be aimed at Hillary years ago. They didn't foresee (just as many Democrats did not foresee) that Barack Obama would come out of nowhere and become the front-runner.

No doubt they are busily working overtime to correct that oversight even as we speak. But to say that Hillary has been "completely vetted". and there is nothing left for the Right to throw at her is, at best, naive Ñ and, at worst, delusional; almost as delusional as thinking that Obama is the darling of the MSM, and faces smooth sailing from here on in.

But the real lesson to be learned here is that the Democrats have, for far too long, made their decision of who to run based solely on what nastiness the GOP might have up their sleeves, ready to unleash on some poor, unsuspecting candidate.

... if Christ himself was to try and run on the Democratic ticket, so-called cooler heads would prevail by declaring him too vulnerable to swiftboating to be a viable candidate.

I don't pretend to be privy to the inner workings of the GOP. However, I would bet everything I own on the fact that while they consider who would be best to rally their base, and hopefully appeal to Independents and Undecideds, the Republican powers-that-be rarely waste their time considering what the Democrats will think of their choice, what the Liberals will come up with to undermine their candidate, what the other side will dig up that is unsavory, unpalatable -- or out-and-out untrue.

Although I have never been a Hillary supporter in terms of the presidential candidacy race, I give her credit for many things – and for one thing above all. Knowing she is universally hated by Republicans, having been warned that they would say or do anything to stop her, having no doubt been advised that her chances of surviving the never-ending mud-slinging that she would meet upon announcing her candidacy were slim at best, she said, "Fuck it, boys, I'm going in."

At the same time, Obama was surely warned, repeatedly so, that being a black man – and a young, fight-the-status-quo man at that – would be the end of a promising career that could have flourished if only he'd waited, if only he'd not been so anxious to rock the boat. Again, like Hillary, he said, "Fuck it, guys, I'm going in."

By my count, that's two candidates who are willing to take-on the mealy-mouthed-but-safe establishment; by my count, that's two Democrats willing to not only step up to the plate, but more than willing and able to hit one out of the ballpark for all Americans.

Yesterday's new is that Hillary's campaign has been tombstoned by the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro. Today's news is that Obama's campaign is over due to remarks by his church's pastor.

The truth is that neither of these things is equivalent to a yawn, no less certain death. Tomorrow's headlines will bring bad tidings to one campaign or the other – and so the pattern will continue, for weeks, if not months, to come.

While the vitriol between the two "camps" – Obama supporters v Hillary supportersÐ-rages on here and elsewhere, while those of us cocooned in our comfortable little website world might want to believe that our party is irretrievably divided, that cries of I will NEVER vote for that man/woman are actually reflective of the voters-at-large, the truth is that in the end, we Democrats will come together, we will unite, we will prevail.

May the best man or woman win -- and if we, as individuals, have even half the chutzpah these two candidates have shown, the battle of (D) v (R) has already been won.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:14 AM

CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama picked up nine more pledged delegates in Iowa, state Democratic officials said late Saturday night, as thousands took part in county conventions.

All but one of the delegates had been among the 14 won Jan. 3 by former senator John Edwards, who has since dropped out of the Democratic presidential race. Election-night projections showed Obama getting 16 delegates and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 15.

With the other six standing firm for Edwards at the county conventions, Obama's camp claimed 25 delegates from Iowa to 14 for Clinton.

"This is a very significant improvement for us," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters of the Iowa result. "We both fought as hard as we could here."

Plouffe said Obama's gains included blue-collar counties where he had finished third in the January caucuses.

If the Iowa numbers hold at the June 14 state convention, which sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention in August, Obama will have gained more than half of the state's delegates. On Jan. 3, he was backed by 39 percent of caucusgoers, compared with 30 percent for Edwards and 29 percent for Clinton.

The Associated Press reported late Saturday that, in final counts from California's Feb. 5 primary, Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, and Obama added five. According to AP's count, the Iowa and California results give Obama a national lead of 119 delegates, both pledged and superdelegates, over Clinton.

(From Wapo's "The Trail")

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:38 PM

From "The Suthern POlitical Report"

March 16, 2008 Ñ Bill Clinton was right: ÒDemocrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.Ó This is exactly what is happening right now with the political parties.

The Republicans, having chosen McCain, is beginning to fall in line, with conservatives in tow. Democrats are still falling in love with Obama. This was best captured in the Saturday Night Live skit of a debate between Obama and Hillary,in which one of the fictional journalists asked Obama, Òdo you really still like me?Ó

            As a political scientist, I can not identify the tipping point of this Obama love fest. I closely watch him on television, saw him speak in person with Oprah in South Carolina, and question my friends who are Obama supporters about him. His charms did not woo me over or excite me. The Obama presidential campaign is rewriting all conventional wisdom.

As my Obama friends points out, ÒObama is just a likeable guy, he a nice smile, good lucks, and speaks well.Ó

One previously non-political friend, Karla, is so taken with Obama that she signs her emails as ÒObama mama.Ó Her husband, Jeno has even registered to vote for the first time in his 68 years.

            What is the cause of the Obama surge? Some call it a Òmovement,Ó others call it a need for Òchange.Ó I call it just being cool.

            We all have experience a degree of wanting to be cool, to be the person who can do no wrong or simply be part of the ÒinÓ crowd. To get a sense of this in our culture, review all the magazines at the grocery store check-out line. The headlines point out to what is ÒhipÓ in fashion, music, and now politics.

            Other than calling for Òdhange,Ó the Obama movement does not rally around one central policy issue. He is just being cool.

            Unfortunately being cool is temporary. One day you are new and hip, the next day you are old and vintage.

            It can be painful to watch this transformation, from the old to the new. It is a part of the cycle of life. The key is to adapt and become comfortable with who you are.   

            When Bill Clinton burst to the scene in the 90s, he was cool. The first baby boomer candidate, he played the sax, was charismatic and full of new ideas. He was going to Òreinvent government.Ó He was a mix part Elvis and part JFK.   His 1992 Fleetwood Mac campaign song -- ÒDonÕt Stop Thinking About TomorrowÓ Ð gave us hope.

            Now in Clinton II, Hillary is spiteful, out of touch, and too emotional. She is yesterday, while Obama is tomorrow. Bill ClintonÕs campaign role has been eclipsed and he has a bit part in his wifeÕs aspirations.

            Regardless of the reasons, U.S. Rep. John LewisÕs switch to the Obama camp signals more than reinforce what TrumanÕs creed of politics states, Òif you want a friend in politics, buy a dog.Ó It signifies how the party insiders are moving to be part of the cool crowd.

            Hillary is not out, but if the Obama winning surge continues he will be the Democratic nominee. Being cool is fleeting, but vision and competence are needed to solve our nationÕs challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM

Obama expands delegate lead

Obama expanded his pledged delegate lead over Clinton today. Iowa finally formalized itÕs national convention delegates and over half of the delegates originally given to Edwards decided to side with Obama. Most of the rest didnÕt side with Clinton but decided to stick with Edwards (whatever that means). In the end the Iowa delegate count went from 16, 15, 14 (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) to 25, 14 (yes Clinton lost one), 6.

National delegate count (including supers) now stand in ObamaÕs favor: 1,626 to 1,503

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:07 PM

Post 1300! A small token of respect for Gigi:

ANGER
>>
>> A string of reproaches against other people
>> leads one to suspect the existence of a string
>> of self-reproaches with the same content.
>>
>>          Sigmund Freud

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:08 PM

Reverend Wright!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:11 PM

Gotta get your mileage where you can, don't you? Shrill, illogical, over-associative fearmongering the best you can come up with?

Didn't you get tired of character assassination back when your gal Hill was being hounded by jackals about Whitewater and Vince Foster? Does it occur to you that there might be a better way to do politics than this sort of limbic buttonpushing?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

Later in the day, Rush Limbaugh dwelled on Mr. Wright in his radio program, calling him Òa race-baiter and a hatemonger.Ó

In the statement he released a few hours later, Mr. Obama, known for his uplifting messages about national unity, professed a certain innocence about his pastorÕs most incendiary messages.

ÒThe statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation,Ó he said.

---

I gotta say, for Rush to accuse others of mongering hate is quite a sight!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

Yes, I certainly agree with you on Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM

Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.

Multimedia

Graphic
Some Pet Projects
Related
ObamaÕs Earmark Requests for Fiscal Year 2008 (obama.senate.gov)
ObamaÕs Earmark Requests for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2006 (barackobama.com)
Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Candidate Topic Pages
More Politics News
Enlarge This Image

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the halls of the Capitol after a vote.
The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. ObamaÕs wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.

But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects Ñ a measure defeated Thursday evening Ñ Mr. ObamaÕs presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. ObamaÕs wife, Michelle, is a vice president.

Mr. ObamaÕs aides and officials at the hospital said Mr. ObamaÕs wife had had nothing to do with the request. Campaign officials said he had voluntarily released the list of his earmark requests to underscore his promise to bring greater openness and transparency to government, an issue on which he has tried to put Mrs. Clinton on the defensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

PLAINFIELD, Ind. Ð Senator Barack Obama repudiated the ÒincendiaryÓ remarks of his former minister today, imploring Americans to set aside racial divisions and heed the words that Robert F. Kennedy delivered not far from here the night the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

ÒAt that moment of anguish, he said weÕve got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further, so that we no longer see each other as Americans, but we see each other as separate and apart and at odds with each other,Ó Mr. Obama said. ÒOr we can take a different path.Ó

See this page for the complete remarks by Mister Obama. Worth the quick read.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 05:31 PM

ÒWe all made this journey for a reason. ItÕs humbling, but in my heart I know you didnÕt come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics thatÕs shut you out, thatÕs told you to settle, thatÕs divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for whatÕs possible, building that more perfect union.Ó

ÒIt was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people Ñ where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States.Ó

ÒEach and every time, a new generation has risen up and done whatÕs needed to be done. Today we are called once more Ñ and it is time for our generation to answer that call. For that is our unyielding faith Ñ that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.Ó

ÒThe life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible. He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction. That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. He tells us that there is power in hope.Ó

ÒIf you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then IÕm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.Ó

Barack Obama in Springfield, Feb 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

A Sound Bite with Teeth (NY Times) makes for an interesting read -- the complete reversal of a cliched performance and a moment of viral "truth".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:34 PM

Has the issue of a possible Obama assassination been raised here?:

While a news report that the Secret Service had stopped scanning participants at a Feb. 20 rally in Dallas's Reunion Arena sparked criticism on the Internet, Blackford, the Secret Service spokesman, said the agency never intended to put everyone through magnetometers....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080311/pl_bloomberg/ajovqopnnsq0

I just learned recently that John F. Kennedy Jr. told Hillary Clinton that HE planned to run for the senate seat she now occupies, and look at what happened to him. He wouldn't have had to make one public appearance, and he would have won. The official report of his crash was falsified, and many believe the Clinton/Bush cartel was responsible for the death. That would explain why Ted Kennedy (surprisingly, to me), jumped on Obama's bandwagon so quickly.

But back to the article above...Dallas, lax security. Where have we seen that before? And if they whack Obama, they can blame anyone they want. In Texas they could have blamed a Mexican national and started a race war. Or the tried and true KKK.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:41 PM

I don't know what ou think was falsified; he was a green pilot who made a well-known error in dealing with a false horizon and failed to use his instruments (he was VFR-only rated) to solve his situation before he corkscrewed.

To answer your question, yes, the possibility of Obama being assassinated has been discussed on one of these threads. I am not sure what you think we should do about this possibility. His nature seems to be to accept that risk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM

The death of John Kennedy Jr. was one of the saddest things in history, but I've never heard anyone blamed for it. I don't see any reason to think that it was anything other than what Amos says it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

THe Seattle Times:

"It may be that he has just the right mix of confidence and humility to lead the nation (Obama likes to say, "I'm reminded every day that I'm not a perfect man"). But if the young senator wins the nomination, even the smallest trace of arrogance will be an issue with voters who still consider him a blank slate.

That may seem unfair to a candidate who's running against Clinton, the former first lady who is the model of overbearing pride. This is a woman, after all, who claims experience from her eight years as first lady but won't release her White House records; who trails Obama in delegates but deigned to suggest he'd be her running mate; and who has more baggage than Samsonite yet says Obama lacks "vetting."

But voters expect arrogance from Clinton and her husband, Bill. It's part of the package. It's a 90s-thing. The Clintons' utter self-absorption comes with a record of achievement and brass-knuckle passion that Obama cannot match _ and that Democratic voters know could come in handy against GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain.

Voters won't cut Obama as much slack on the humility test because he's sold himself as something different. While rejecting the "me"-centric status quo and promising a new era of post-partisan reform, Obama has said the movement he has created is not about him; it's about what Americans can do together if their faith in government is restored. The power of his message lies in its humility. As he told 7,000 supporters at a rally last month, "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams."

Nobody expects Obama to be perfect. But he better never forget that he isn't."

---

MEanwhile in Indiana, Obama promised to focus on three priorities: a responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq, health-care reforms that will cut premiums for the average family by $2,500 annually and an energy plan to reduce reliance on foreign oil.
"If we don't take care of those three things," Obama said, "we won't be able to afford any of the other initiatives that we're talking about because we will be broke."
The crowd that packed the gymnasium punctuated his remarks several times with chants of "Yes, we can," three words that have become a trademark of Obama's campaign.
That optimism for change, he said, is what has driven his campaign since he launched it early last year. As a 46-year-old man who has represented Illinois in the U.S. Senate since 2004, Obama said some people question why he didn't wait longer to run for the White House.
"I remind them of what Dr. (Martin Luther) King called the fierce urgency of now, because I believe there is such a thing as being too late, and that hour is almost upon us," Obama said. "I believe that if we can come together that there is no challenge we can't face now. There is no destiny we cannot fulfill.
"After having run now for 13 months . . . I am here to report that the people are ready for change."
The words brought the crowd to its feet, one of about a dozen roaring standing ovations Obama received. Moments later, though, the gym fell still and silent, as Obama recalled one of the rare other times that Indiana's primary election mattered.
That was 1968. Sen. Robert Kennedy, visiting Indianapolis to campaign for the presidency, broke the news to an inner-city crowd that King had been assassinated.
Kennedy, Obama recalled, told people that "we've got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further . . . or we can take a different path."
Obama said he has thought of those words often in the past few weeks as the campaign has become more heated.
"The forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," he said. "Everybody senses there's been this shift."
He then cited the controversy over comments made by the man he now calls his "former pastor," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago, including Wright's suggestion that the United States' policies had provoked the 9/11 attacks and that the nation is racist.
Obama said he rejected Wright's "incendiary" words, and renewed his call for diverse people to come together.

---

Yes, we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:18 AM

By Steve Brusk and Alex Mooney
CNN
   
Editor's Note: The following report contains objectionable language.

(CNN) -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's former church criticized the news media Sunday for coverage of his sermons, saying in a statement that Wright's "character is being assassinated in the public sphere."

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, defended Wright, saying he "has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

The statement came two days after Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a longtime friend of Wright and attendee of the church, denounced sermons that have become the subject of recent controversy. Obama called them "inflammatory and appalling."

"It is an indictment on Dr. Wright's ministerial legacy to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite," the Rev. Otis Moss III, the current pastor of the church, said in the statement.

"The African-American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery, and the legacy of prophetic African-American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken, marginalized victims of social and economic injustices," Moss added.

"This is an attack on the legacy of the African-American Church, which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world."

In the same statement, the Rev. John H. Thomas, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ -- the denomination to which Wright's church belongs -- said the news media were creating a "caricature" of his congregation.

"It's time for us to say 'No' to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," Thomas said.

The sermons in question became the subject of scrutiny last week after being highlighted in an ABC News report.

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is easier than Obama's because of her skin color.

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home; Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a 'nigger!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

Wright, who retired this year from his post, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

In denouncing those sermons Friday, Obama defended his 20-year relationship with Wright, saying that the pastor has served him in a spiritual role -- not a political one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM

"...But the conservatives have it wrong - again. The last person the likes of Osama bin Laden wants to see in the White House is Barack Obama. If anti-American terrorists had their choice, Dick Cheney would be president. Our enemy needs a hawk in the White House, someone almost everybody in the Middle East can hate from day one. Almost any white person will do, even a woman.

But not Obama.

The problem Obama presents to terrorists leaders in the Middle East and in Africa is formidable. Of course, they will hate whoever becomes president, including Obama, who they will merely paint as a dupe of Wall Street. But Obama threatens terrorist leaders because he appeals to moderates in the Islamic world. He will have instant credibility in both the Middle East and Africa because his middle name is Hussein and because he is black and, of course, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq from the very start. For these reasons, Obama presents a much more difficult target for anti-American venom. Obama is the only candidate for president who, because of his race, can bring peace to the Middle East.

He also is the only candidate who, because of his race, will neutralize terrorists in Africa, where many have found support and cover. Our failure to engage Africa has been one of America's biggest errors in international diplomacy and economic engagement. By our neglect, we helped to give terrorism a foothold on the continent. But Africa is not insignificant in world politics.

Others realize this if we do not.

Africa has oil, lots of it, and some of the world's most precious natural resources. But other than cursory visits to Africa by American presidents in recent years, we practically ignore the continent until some calamity (man-made or natural) occurs, and even then give our attention only as long as the misery appears on our television screens. But Obama's grandmother lives in Kenya! If he becomes president, when he goes to see grandma the continent will melt in his hands.

But our accomplishments in Africa will pale in comparison to what will be achieved in the Middle East. With Obama in the White House and our enemies marginalized, our prestige and influence in the Middle East will enter a new and historic phase. ..."

---

An interesting, if highly optimistic, perspective from the Tampa Tribune.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:26 AM

"*** Full disclosure: After releasing all of Obama's Rezko records and sitting with Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times reporters on Friday, the Obama campaign has upped the ante for Team Clinton. Yesterday, the Obama camp asked Clinton to release all of her tax records, disclose all of her earmarks, and make the donations to the Clinton presidential library and foundation public. The Clinton camp, in response, says Obama should release his tax returns for every year he's been in public office and every earmark he requested as a state senator. The pushback is obvious: try to cloud the lack of disclosure in the Clinton campaign with questions of lack of disclosure on the Obama front. This is the road the Obama campaign clearly wants to go down. The question is whether bareknuckles politics ultimately hurts Obama's image or whether a fight for disclosure brings back the bad news of the Clinton years Democratic voters -- and superdelegates -- might be tired of.

*** Clinton's super problem: By our count, the Clinton campaign hasn't publicly announced the support of a new superdelegate since just after February 5. Indeed, since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 47 new superdelegates, while Clinton has lost seven (including Eliot Spitzer). Does Clinton have a bigger problem on the superdelegate front than folks realize?..."


(MSNBC)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 12:10 PM

"We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days."

(Frank Schaeffer, writing here in the Huiffington Post, is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back")

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"This is the first time in a long time that I've really had any hope about the political system in America." — Jennifer Heinzelman, who attended a weekend Barack Obama speech and campaign rally with her 8-year-old daughter, Haley, in Plainfield, Ind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

(CNN) -- A majority of Democrats would like to see Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton win their party's presidential nomination, according to a national poll out Monday.


1 of 2 Fifty-two percent of registered Democrats questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say the senator from Illinois is their choice for president, with 45 percent supporting Clinton.

The poll also suggests Democrats are more enthusiastic about an Obama victory (45 percent) than for a victory by the senator from New York (38 percent).

The two remaining major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are locked in a fierce battle for their party's presidential nomination, with Obama holding a slight lead both in delegates and the overall popular vote in the primaries and caucuses to date.

"The same patterns that we have been seeing in recent exit polls are holding true for Democrats nationwide as well. Obama's biggest support comes from men, younger voters and independents who lean Democratic," CNN polling director Keating Holland said. "Clinton does best among women, older voters and whites. One interesting difference, unlike the exit polls in many states, there is no difference in the national poll between college-educated Democrats and those who never attended college."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:38 PM

Quite a follow up speech from Derrick Ashong, to whom Amos pointed us with A Sound Bite with Teeth - here's Why I Support Obama - The Emotional Response

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:01 AM

Washington Post:

The Wright Question
Sen. Barack Obama's teachable moment.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008; Page A18

THIS MORNING in Philadelphia, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will try to put the controversy over the charged rhetoric of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. behind him. The front-runner for the Democratic Party's nomination for president has his work cut out for him.

The almost-daily demands for denunciations and repudiations of comments made by supporters of Mr. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) have become wearying. We long for a return to a vigorous debate about kitchen-table issues facing the nation. But the explosive sermons preached by the Rev. Wright that have come to light require the speech Mr. Obama will deliver today. This passage from a 2003 sermon is particularly troubling: "God damn America -- that's in the Bible -- for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." The cadence is strident. The words are harsh. And the anger with which they are delivered no doubt is disturbing to many.

The sermons stand in stark contrast to the vision of America that Mr. Obama espoused in the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that catapulted him to prominence. "My parents . . . shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation," he said. "They would give me an African name . . . believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. . . . They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential. . . . I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story . . . that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."

The relationship between the preacher and the politician is as close as it is complicated. The Rev. Wright recently retired as the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. For 20 years he played spiritual adviser to Mr. Obama, who credits the Rev. Wright with guiding him on a path of faith. He performed Mr. Obama's wedding and baptized the Obamas' two children. Mr. Obama denounced the inflammatory rhetoric. But his explanation -- "the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of the controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews . . . or heard him utter in private conversation" -- has not quelled the furor that engulfs him.

That's understandable: It's hard to accept that Mr. Obama was entirely unaware of his pastor's bitter analysis of American society. That he did not distance himself from the Rev. Wright until the statements became public is bound to raise legitimate questions. Mr. Obama has presented himself as someone who can help the country overcome its racial divisions. If that is to happen, rhetoric such as the Rev. Wright's cannot be tolerable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:03 AM

Washington Post:

Obama's Pastor Problem

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; Page A19

Some questions: Why did Barack Obama take so long to "reject outright" the harshly critical statements about America made by his minister, Jeremiah Wright, not to mention the praise the same minister lavished on Louis Farrakhan just last November?

How is it possible that Obama did not know about these remarks, when he is a member of Wright's congregation and so close to the man that he likens him to "an old uncle"?

How is it possible that a campaign apparatus that sniffed out Geraldine Ferraro's offensive statement to a local California newspaper (the Daily Breeze, 12th paragraph) did not know that Wright's statements condemning America were all over the Internet and had been cited March 6 by the (reputable) anti-Obama columnist Ronald Kessler? The sermon was also available on YouTube.

In other words, how is it possible that a man who has made judgment the centerpiece of his presidential campaign has shown so little of it in this matter?

One possible answer to these questions is that Obama has learned to rely on a sycophantic media that hears any criticism of him as either (1) racist, (2) vaguely racist or (3) doing the bidding of Hillary and Bill Clinton. You only have to turn your attention to the interview Obama granted MSNBC's fawning Keith Olbermann for an example. Obama was asked whether he had known that Wright had suggested substituting the phrase "God damn America" for "God bless America."

"You know, frankly, I didn't," Obama said. "I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made."

But had you heard about them? Did your crack campaign staff alert you? And what about Wright's honoring Farrakhan? Had you heard about that? Did you feel any obligation to denounce those remarks -- not Farrakhan's, as you had done, but those of Wright himself? Don't you consider yourself a public figure whom others look to for leadership? Do you think you failed them here?

Olbermann asked none of those questions.

In a certain sense, I am sympathetic toward Obama. When he said of Wright, "Because of his life experience, [he] continues to have a lot of anger and frustration, and will express that in ways that are very different from me and my generation," anyone who knows anything about the black experience in America has to nod.

The 66-year-old Wright was born when blacks were still being lynched, when Jim Crow ruled the South -- and when raw bigotry prevailed virtually everywhere else. He knows a different America from the one familiar to most whites. I can also understand why Farrakhan has a following in black America. He may be a gutter anti-Semite, but he stands up to whites, and within parts of the African American community, he is admired for, among other things, rehabilitating criminals.

So for Obama, Wright posed a dilemma. The minister is well known and respected and, clearly, adored by Obama. His language of resentment, even of hate, has a certain context to Obama. It does not shock. I understand, really I do.

But a presidential candidate is not a mere church member, and he operates in a different context. We examine everything about him for the slightest clue about character. On Wright, Obama has shown a worrisome tic. He has done so also with his relationship with Tony Rezko, the shadowy Chicago political figure. Obama last week submitted to a grilling on this matter by the staff of the Chicago Tribune and was given a clean bill of health. I accept it. But that hardly changes the fact that Obama should never have done business with Rezko in the first place. He concedes that now, but it was still a failure of judgment.

After I wrote in January about Wright's praise for Farrakhan, I was pilloried by Obama supporters who accused me of all manner of things, including insanity. But when I asked some of them what they would have done if their minister had extolled David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan official, or Rabbi Meir Kahane, the late anti-Arab racist, they either rejected the question entirely or simply didn't answer. Don't they think that everyone, particularly a public figure, has an obligation to denounce bigotry, as well as those who praise the bigots?

As I wrote in that column, the manifest abilities and stunning political talents of Barack Obama still recommend him to the presidency. But he has been less than forthright or responsible about Wright. This does not disqualify him from the White House, but it does suggest that if the vaunted red phone rings at 3 a.m., there might be times when he will simply not answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:18 AM

Sen. Obama really can�t win the general election."
--Clinton strategist Mark Penn
"Mark did not say that."
--Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson, on the same conference call with reporters

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

BTW, the Obama speech is at 10:15 today and will be carried by MSNBC...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM

March 18, 2008Recommend (5)

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. is wrong. But Barack Obama, his most famous parishioner, has it right.

Videos snippets of Wright's sermons have surfaced in the last week, sound bites of Wright making ugly and incendiary comments from his South Side pulpit about America, whites, Hillary Clinton and Israel.

Obama has not only denounced each statement but today plans to make a major speech about race, politics and the need to come together as a nation. Instead of running from the issue, he's doing damage control and acting like a statesman at the same time.

By making what could be a historic address, Obama is forcing a conversation about the all-important American issue of race. It has been an undercurrent of the campaign for months, recently erupting to the surface. It's time to address it head-on.

On Friday, Obama removed Wright, who had just retired as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ after 36 years, from a minor role on a campaign advisory board. That followed a decision last year to rescind an invitation for Wright to give the opening prayer when Obama announced his run for the presidency.

But Obama wisely stopped there.

He did not sever his ties with Trinity, an institution that does tremendous good in the black community. This is the church where he and Michelle were married and where their daughters were baptized. Walking away would have been politically expedient. Staying with the church can only hurt him.

But abandoning his church would have denied a fundamental truth: Wright's words, as ugly as they are, are rooted in the experience of many blacks in America--an experience Obama can't ignore personally and one he certainly doesn't want America to ignore.

"It just reminds me that we've got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country," Obama said this weekend. "We've got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding."

Wright's words also reflect the disparity many blacks feel between the promise of America and their daily reality.

"This righteous anger is about making America accountable to its own creed," said Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a Trinity member. ...

From the Chicago Sun-TImes, the homie news

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 10:53 AM

Obama's post on Huffington POst includes this simple excerpt:

"With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States."

All of this smoke and fury is not about Obama, but about hell-raising on the part of those who thrive on conflict and cherish animosity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:24 AM

The much awaited speech is going on as I write; and I find it remarkable, and compelling.

I have, in the past, gotten tangled up in the noise and fog of combative threads; and in doing so, I had forgotten why I came into the Obama camp in the first place.

This speech is an excellent reminder of the man's intellect, and his ACTUAL character in sharp contrast to the slurring shadowy pictures some people would like to throw up for mass consumption.

The bottom line, clearly shown throughout this speech, is that he has twice the character and twice the intellect of Ms. Clinton, and has what is required to make a strong positive change.

He speaks from reason, and he speaks from wisdom far greater than his years, and far greater than Hillary's years.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:54 PM

Forbes, 3-18:

In terms of overall appeal, Obama outpolls Clinton 45% to 29%, and her total appeal numbers are falling while his are rising. But even more striking is how the polled population assigns character traits to each of the Democrats. Barack Obama substantially outpolls Hillary Clinton on every positive trait, while Clinton surges past Obama on every negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:00 PM

W would have to agree with you, Amos... It was a compelling speech that can only help Obama... He looked and sounded absolutely presidential...

If this was his 3:00 in the morning phone call he, IMO, got it right...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:05 PM

Here's one of the concluding statements from Obama's speech, as he tells the story of one of his white volunteers who was working in South Carolina in a predominately black community:

"Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war.   He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children."

I think it's a very good speech and well worth reading through: click here for speech

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:20 PM

Do you suppose this episode will put to rest the 'Obama is a Muslim' talk? It should but probably won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:05 PM

I rather suspect that when Rev Wright said ""God damn America -- that's in the Bible" he'd have been thinking of the version of the Sermon of the Mount in Luke, where after laying out a list of Beatitudes "Blessed are the poor" and so forth, Jesus balances that with a list of "Woe to yous" - "Woe unto you who are rich...who are well fed...when all men speak well of you".

In some translations it's even given as "cursed are you", quite as strong as "damn you".

The point being, this was essentially biblical rhetoric. That doesn't mean it was the right kind of biblical rhetoric - but set it against this genuinely damnable stuff from a site I found by accident just now, The Curse of Ham: Why Barack Hussein Oboma Will Never Be President - normally I give a taster along with a link, but I won't this time, because I don't like the taste one little bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:07 PM

Wal, KB, you know how it is. Assholes have a function in life, and they will carry it out regardless of circumstances even unto death...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

It's over. Obama is the nominee.

"It was extremely unlikely that Hillary Clinton was going to overcome Barack Obama's lead in delegates, states and total votes and take the Democratic nomination, but Obama's speech this morning -- graceful, thoughtful, nuanced, sweeping, challenging, unprecedented -- pretty much wiped out any chance at all. It was a speech Hillary could never have given -- really, few U.S. politicians ever could have given.

I write this not just because I think this will dampen the Rev. Wright controversy. I write this because Obama did an extraordinary job of presenting himself as the candidate of "the better angels of our nature," to use the phrase from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. His speech isn't just inspirational to millions of voters who are tired of cynicism and division. I think many in the political media will see it as redemptive on personal grounds. Maybe they really aren't spending their careers in swampland."

A blog in the conservative San Diego Union)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

With this speech, I think this is Obama doing what Kerry failed to during the "Swiftboat" ads and Bush failed to do after 9/11 and Katrina. He is using the controversy to shine a light on a dark corner. He is opening up the conversation and giving the country a chance to finally heal.

I don't agree with him on everything but I like his courage and his willingness to lead. He is by far the best choice of the three for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:18 PM

Blog posts after today's speech:

"My wife and I watched Obama's speech this morning. We are independent, secular conservatives and had been completely polarized by the Reverend Wright's rants . If our reactions are any indication, Obama has more than repaired the damage. We both had watery eyes when he finished. My wife called her sister to compare notes She's a fundamentalist Republican. Even she had gotten emotional. She related it to her childhood experience in Eastern Oklahoma where she was treated as white trash with Indian blood.

This man is phenomenal. Afterward, we watched the press commentaries for only a few minutes and turned the set off. Nothing they were saying seemed to matter when compared to what we had just heard.

Jerry Brown, Huntington, NY

Posted by: jerrybrown11743 | March 18, 2008 03:20 PM "

"A thoughtful, honest, solemnly paced speech. The Philadelphia Speech may well go down in history as the point at which America engaged in a real and frank discussion of race and racism in our country and where we go from here. Whether or not it helps Obama's election bid, in my mind it has already helped America start moving forward.

Posted by: john16 | March 18, 2008 03:21 PM "

"This man is simply amazing. His speech demonstrates that his actions match his rhetoric. He is telling us, not what we wanted to hear, but what we needed to hear. I have heard him say he would do this and now understand what he meant.

What he said was what we as a country needed to hear about race and racism. It definitely displays his judgement and ability to do what is right for our country.

Posted by: mbshults | March 18, 2008 03:30 PM "

"Barack Obama is the real deal.

It's so easy to go negative on someone speaking the truth to America... that we are all saddled with weaknesses but bound by greater strengths - that we are an imperfect union of far from perfect souls but that we can take all these truths together, for what they are worth, and begin to let go of the divisions that hold us back collectively and march on toward something better for our posterity - for our children - Mine and yours.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:21 PM

ANd:

"

Posted by: Vaughan1 | March 18, 2008 03:42 PM

What I heard in that speech and have heard many times before from Obama was a man who was capable of hearing many things from many people - including the outrageous. A capability of sifting through the words to extract the "right" things while having a tolerance to sit through the outrageous words in order to seek out the basis for where they are coming from. Unlike many, he clearly sees both the good and the bad in Rev Wright and understands how Rev Wright arrived at the place he did.

Whether the president is hearing Republicans vs Democrats, Jews vs Muslims, white vs black, etc, Obama, with his candidacy on the line, seems to be unafraid of looking deeper beyond the anger and the rhetoric to try to understand the whole of a man - good & bad and/or his issue and not outright ignore or shun him because he doesn't feel exactly the same way. And at the end of that, Obama stayed true to his honest judgement of what is good, ideal and "right" regardless of what others like the conservative right might think. Obama seems to indicate each side of an issue will get fair consideration while no side will get excluded because they're not perfect. I've seen this long before the Rev Wright problem. It's just a little more obvious with Rev. Wright.

Can you imagine a president without those qualities? We've had some. I think Barack proved once again today that he is especially blessed in this quality. It was a remarkable speech.


Posted by: cjnwatson | March 18, 2008 03:43 PM

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM

He has won me over by virute of these - his recent words:

http://my.barackobama.com/hisownwords

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM

Gigi-

Welcome aboard!

This will be one rough voyage though!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM

I've got a feeling there may be more than oner Gigi around at present...That's the trouble with posting as a GUEST - anyone can sign in using the same handle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:38 PM

McGrath-

I'm inclined to agree and raised that very question on the new Obama thread. Maybe Gigi will grace us with a response.

I wonder if "guest identity theft" is something our Mudcat moderators can sort out?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM

I've watched this powerful speech several times over the course of the day.

What are the little labels the media are seeking to stick onto Obama? 'Lightweight'? 'Message too vague?'

Obama's reflective and incisive remarks of earlier today ought to permanently expunge those unfair characterizations about the man and his movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM

The speech can be viewed here.

If you haven't seen the delivery, please watch it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 09:52 AM

Before I throw open my arms to GG, I want to be sure I'm hugging the right (correct) GG... Seems there are at least a couple floatin' 'round... One I know is a teacher and the other a somewhat cynical person... Doesn't seem that these two folks is one of the same...

But who knows???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 10:28 AM

Historians and others described the speechÕs candidness on race as almost without precedent. John Hope Franklin, a Duke University historian who led an advisory commission on race relations set up by President Bill Clinton, said Mr. Obama pointed out how easily the question of race can be distorted in this country, Òwhich has three centuries of experience with it and yet we act like this is something new.Ó

Julian Bond, the longtime civil rights activist, said the speech moved him to tears. Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, said he believed the speech would Ògo down as one of the great, magnificent and moving speeches in the American political tradition.Ó

ÒI hear so many people saying we want a national conversation on race but itÕs never quite worked,Ó he said. ÒHe was able to do this in one speech. But he was able to do it in a nonpartisan way in that he saw both sides.Ó

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 10:58 AM

Bobart and McGrath-

Seems as if there is not a current case of "identity thief" with regard to Gigi. We just may have another complex person to deal with. Life is hard!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 05:44 PM

How do you spell "multiple personalitie"???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 08:20 AM

To get a popular view of Obama, all one has to do is turn on Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 09:28 AM

I declare an intermission:

Would someone please play "Fox on the Run"?

Sorry about your coffee...

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM

I see and sense a unified attempt by all the cable news networks to show a clear reversal of Barak's fortune. They repeat polls showing the opposite numbers from 2 weeks ago. They speak of a Clinton miracle. They are speaking of Obama's goose being cooked. (A thread I can no longer find on mudcat)

Every hedge fund billionaire who have hopes of being bailed out by the Fed cringe at the thought of Barak's probabal call for regulations that would prevent the bankrupting of American by a handful of investment banks for a quick profit.

I speak of the tone and timbre of the cable news harangue against Obama more than substance of thier news. The often repeated words and phrases are: Naive, took no action, threw grandmother under the bus, threw pastor under the bus, and of course more video clips of a previously unknown pastor than MLK on MLK day.

imho: The banks that own the news know that Hillary will play ball just like Bill did with NAFTA and imbalanced Chinese trade. Obama scares the hell out of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:24 AM

Fox News is Rupert Murdoch, who literally stole from his own mother. He's gotta have mixed feelings. McCain wins he gets the regulations he wants. Mrs. Clinton wins he gets the ratings. But Obama is lose lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:54 AM

I sensed a similar murk of falsification and vituperation in the reportage surrounding the stellar speech of Tuesday. The articles that appreciated it for what it was were few and far between. THose who treated it as a tactical manuver, another twist in the endless positioning battle, or worse, were in the majority. The speech itself was so lucid and accurate and rhetorically fine, that in contrast the interpretative clouds laid over it by the media are remarkable as indications of the deep, inbred, stupidness of our major media forum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 11:01 AM

From the NEw York TImes columnist (South African by birth)Roger Cohen, in an interesting analysis called "Beyond America's Original Sin":


"...A racial divide, once lived, dwells in the deepest parts of the psyche. This is what was captured by Barack Obama's pitch-perfect speech on race. Slavery was indeed America's "original sin." Of course, "the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow" lives on in forms of African-American humiliation and anger that smolder in ways incommunicable to whites.

Segregation placed American blacks in the U.S. equivalent of that filthy African harbor.

It takes bravery, and perhaps an unusual black-white vantage point, to navigate these places where hurt is profound, incomprehension the rule, just as it takes courage to say, as Obama did, that black "anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

Progress, since the Civil Rights Movement, or since apartheid, has assuaged the wounds of race but not closed them. To carry my part of shame is also to carry a clue to the vortexes of rancor for which Obama has uncovered words.

I understand the rage of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, however abhorrent its expression at times. I admire Obama for saying: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Honesty feels heady right now. For seven years, we have lived with the arid, us-against-them formulas of Bush's menial mind, with the result that the nuanced exploration of America's hardest subject is almost giddying. Can it be that a human being, like Wright, or like Obama's grandmother, is actually inhabited by ambiguities? Can an inquiring mind actually explore the half-shades of truth?

Yes. It. Can. ..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 01:51 PM

I'm pretty sure the "Guest, Guest" and "Guest, guest" in this thread aren't the same as the one here.

If I'm wrong, Gigi, let us know. I hope I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 04:57 PM

From another columnist in the Times (NYT):

"Barack Obama this week gave the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960, and it derived power from something most unusual in modern politics: an acknowledgment of complexity, nuance and legitimate grievances on many sides. It was not a sound bite, but a symphony."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 05:06 PM

A have to see Barak Obama Cartoon: http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/stooge_dees.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 05:21 PM

Keep yer eyes on the media, folks...

Today's new cycle will be all about recent ABC polls that shows McWar takin' Obama or Clinton... That will over shadow the speech"es" that Obama has made this week and there's a reason for this... What the media won't be saying too loudly is that poll was taken close to a week ago when they were busy runnin' Rev Wright soundbites 24/7...

But I'll guarentee that this poll get plenty of media coverage tonight...

BTW, it was also taken before McWar showed that he didn't know squat about the Iraq war...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 06:14 PM

YEah, they're already spinning that scam, Bobert. It'd be nice if they included all the necessary data.

Sheeshe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:36 PM

Hollywood's view on the Obama Comeback Speech.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:09 AM

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nation's first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Joshua Lott for The New York Times
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico called Senator Barack Obama at a debate in Des Moines, Iowa, in Dec. 2007.

Multimedia
Video

Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

Candidate Topic Pages
More Politics News
Mr. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, dropped out of the Democratic race in January after finishing behind Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since then, he has been aggressively courted by his former rivals.

Mr. Obama's address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the "racial stalemate" that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.

In a statement, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obama's judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief — qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

"As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

Amos-

This is certainly a significant endorsement, given Richardson's long record working with the Clintons, and the timing couldn't be better.

Long ago I had posted that Richardson should head the list of vice presidential candidates to run with Obama. Maybe that's part of the campaign wisdom as well.

Wonder where Edwards is at this point, with a North Carolina primary coming up?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:59 AM

I think Obama/Richardson would be a very interesting administration.
Compared to Obama/Clinton it could be the difference between life and death, methinks.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:57 AM

PEggy Noonan, WSJ:

"...The primary rhetorical virtue of the speech can be found in two words, endemic and Faulkner. Endemic is the kind of word political consultants don't let politicians use because 72% of Americans don't understand it. This lowest-common-denominator thinking, based on dizzy polling, has long degraded American discourse. When Obama said Mr. Wright wrongly encouraged "a view that sees white racism as endemic," everyone understood. Because they're not, actually, stupid. As for Faulkner -- well, this was an American politician quoting William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." This is a thought, an interesting one, which means most current politicians would never share it.

The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics.

Here I point out an aspect of the speech that may have a beneficial impact on current rhetoric. It is assumed now that a candidate must say a silly, boring line -- "And families in Michigan matter!" or "What I stand for is affordable quality health care!" -- and the audience will clap. The line and the applause make, together, the eight-second soundbite that will be used tonight on the news, and seen by the people. This has been standard politico-journalistic procedure for 20 years.

Mr. Obama subverted this in his speech. He didn't have applause lines. He didn't give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn't summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn't hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he'd said.

If Hillary or John McCain said something interesting, they'd get more than an eight-second cut too. But it works only if you don't write an applause-line speech. It works only if you write a thinking speech.

They should try it.

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:23 AM

SeattlePi:

"A New York Times news story called it "an extraordinary moment" and "what may be the most significant public discussion of race in decades."

The Washington Post called it "an extraordinary moment of truth-telling." A Boston Globe editorial said, "Obama took the opportunity to engage the question of race in America, starting a bold, uncomfortably honest conversation."

Our front-page headline in the P-I soberly and matter-of-factly stated, "Obama confronts nation's racial issues."

But the overall tone of media coverage and commentary, both print and broadcast, was giddy and euphoric, with a few dissenting voices that wanted Obama to issue a stronger denunciation and to further distance himself from his former pastor and his church.

Like many others, I was inspired by Obama's speech and found joy and admiration in his words and delivery. If it starts a national conversation that begins to address and heal all that defines our racial divide, I'll be thrilled to say I underestimated its potential."

The writer then goes on to recite all his misgivings. His argument is that campaign speeches rarely provide really historic fodder.

PErhaps he has forgotten the Gettysburg address, spoken during Lincoln's second campaign.

I am continuously surprised by how badly the American blogosphere, and the media in general, miss the point of that speech. Either they are dull-witted, or too ignorant to see where it scales the span of American history, or they are informed by second hand soundbites without context. THey carp at him for mentioning his grandmother, for not decapitating the pastor, and for myriad other faults, real or imagined, while ignoring the bag of gold dust he has just laid before them. It is shameful.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

The byline on this excerpt from the WaPo is a great typo. I didn't know there was such a place.

"Updated 1:42 p.m.
By Jonathan Weisman
POTLAND, Ore. -- At a thunderous rally in Memorial Colliseum here, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president, appealing for peace in the Democratic Party and hailing the moment as historic.

"Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our country, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader," Richardson declared at Obama's side. "You will make every American proud to be an American."

The moment was a calculated effort to try to put to rest the increasingly divisive fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic nomination. Both campaigns had assiduously courted Richardson, one of the nation's leading Latino political figures, ever since he dropped out of the presidential contest.

Richardson made his choice not when it could have mattered most politically, before the tight contest in Texas, but at a time of spiraling accusations and counter-accusations between the Clinton and Obama camps.

Richardson praised Clinton as a candidate and a leader, and he hailed the achievements of President Bill Clinton's administration, in which he served as ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary.

But, he added, "It is time for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we have against John McCain."

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM

"Senator Barack Obama has three new ads up in Pennsylvania, his first on television, following two radio spots earlier this week. Senator Hillary Clinton, who leads in polls in the state, has not run any ads in the state so far.

Mr. Obama's first spot, which runs 60 seconds, is called "Opportunity." Made specifically for Pennsylvania, this spot is biographical and underscores the Obama campaign's sense that he still needs to introduce himself to the state's voters.

The second, running 30 seconds, is called "Toughest" and describes him as having passed the "toughest ethics law yet" against lobbyists and special interests.

The third spot,also running 30 seconds and called "Carry," refers to bipartisan legislation that Mr. Obama "carried" in the state senate in Illinois.

All the ads are running in the state's six major media markets and come as both campaigns are stepping up already-ferocious registration drives to meet Monday's deadline, by which time voters must be registered as Democrats to vote in the April 22 primary.
So far, more than 100,000 new voters have registered and an additional 58,000 have switched their party affiliations to Democratic, overwhelming local registration offices.

The ads, all of which emphasize that Mr. Obama has fought special interests and can work across party lines for bipartisan purposes, will augment the final registration push this weekend."...(New York Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM

CNN reports:

In the interview Friday, Richardson also said he called Hillary Clinton Thursday to inform her of his decision to back Obama, a conversation he described as "painful."

"It was painful and it wasn't easy," (Richardson) said. "I've spoken to others who have had that same conversation and they say at the end, itÕs not all that pleasant. "The former Democratic presidential candidate declined to elaborate further on his conversation with Clinton.Last month, Chris Dodd Ñ another former presidential candidate who decided to endorse Obama last month Ñ said he had a "not comfortable" conversation with Clinton informing her of the news.

Also in the interview Friday, Richardson said he ultimately decided to back Obama because the Illinois senator has "something special." "I think that Sen. Obama has something special,Ó explained Richardson. ÒSomething that can bring internationally AmericaÕs prestige back, that can deal with the race issue as he did so eloquently last week, that can deal with the domestic issues in a bipartisan way."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

Amos,

Here are Richardson's own words about these matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23750513#23750513

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM

"Richardson's biggest assist, though, was that he took sides in a stalled Democratic Party argument over delegates. In the numbers vs. narrative debate, the New Mexico governor backed the view that because Obama has an insurmountable numerical lead among pledged delegates, the nomination has effectively been decided. There is no story Clinton can tell to convince superdelegates to reverse that mathematical fact, in his view. "My great affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall."" (from Slate)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM

Link to Jack's reference--Bill Richardson talking about his endorsement (for those who don't want to be bothered to cut and paste). :D

Good talk, thanks Jack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

"This week, Barack Obama gave one of the most important speeches about race many of us have ever heard. And, whatever you think of his candidacy, on the merits, this speech was anything but soaring, empty rhetoric. In the way of all truly important political addresses, it reached beyond comforting blah-blah (America É patriotism É change) and challenged us with truths we'd rather not contemplate. Instead of claiming to be a victim of race politics in America, Obama asked the victims on both sidesÑwhite and blackÑto acknowledge that there are victims on both sides."

This essay in Slate goes on to pose the question of what Hillary might say if she were to give a parallel speech on gender -- and why she never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

The closer from that essay deserves citing:

"One of the most laudable things about Obama is that he always elects to rise above the politics of victimization. One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on it."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:07 PM

It was an astounding speech, Amos. I have waited most of my life to hear an American politician speak the way Obama did that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:53 AM

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth
By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 3/21/08 1:32 PM EST         Text Size:   

Clinton's campaign rests increasingly on a game of make-believe.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the partyÕs most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote Ñ which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle Ñ and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM

Senator Barack ObamaÕs campaign has gotten some good news Ñ one of several bits of good news in recent days: a new Gallup tracking poll shows him on the rebound after the firestorm over his pastorÕs comments and ObamaÕs heavily covered speech on race:

Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

(Gallup Poll)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 04:55 PM

James Carville told the New York Times that Richardson, a former member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet, had committed "an act of betrayal," adding that it "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

"I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson responded on "Fox News Sunday." "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

"I am very loyal to the Clintons," said Richardson, but he said he wanted something beyond "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton." "You know, what about the rest of us?" he asked.

He called for "a new generation of leadership," and added, "I think Obama represents this new change of not just bipartisanship, but bringing people together, bringing races together, bringing America's role in the world to be respected again."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:03 PM

From the Int Heral Trib:

"Obama, in an interview, said that "a lot of these old labels don't apply anymore."

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.

Only then, he said, could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections - a mandate to do big things.

"Senator Clinton's argument in this campaign has really been that you can't change the electoral map," he said. "That it's a static map and we are inalterably divided, so we've got to eke out a victory and then try to govern more competently than George Bush has.

"My argument is that if that's what we're settling for, after seven or eight years of disastrous policies on the part of the Bush administration, then we're not going to deliver on the big changes that are needed.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:22 PM

Look at that "30 pieces of silver" quote by Carville. And he was serious! Obviously anyone who leaves St Hillary is the worst kind of treacherous scum. Where have we heard this sort of attitude before? How about the NY NOW head remark that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was "the worst possible betrayal"?

Looks like Richardson was right when he said that attitude is "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency".

In case we still needed another reason to vote for Obama, that sounds like a pretty good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:38 AM

So, is Richardson angling for a VP spot? That's what he seemed to be running for in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:41 AM

Note to clones: Many editorials are posted for a limited time, then are removed. The only way to see them at a later is to post them here.


Washington Post:

Democrats' Obama Dilemma

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, March 24, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama's speech last week, hastily prepared to extinguish the firestorm over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, won critical praise for style and substance but failed politically. By elevating the question of race in America, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate has deepened the dilemma created by his campaign's success against the party establishment's anointed choice, Hillary Clinton.

In rejecting the racist views of his longtime spiritual mentor but not disowning him, Obama has unwittingly enhanced his image as the African American candidate -- as opposed to being just a remarkable candidate who happens to be black. That poses a dilemma for unelected superdelegates, who as professional politicians will settle the contest because neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough elected delegates to be nominated.

Superdelegates, though they were inclined toward Clinton as recently as three months ago, now flinch at the idea of rejecting Obama. They fear antagonizing African Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base. But what if national polls continue their post-Wright trend and show Obama trailing both Clinton and Republican John McCain in popular support? The Obama strategists' hope of reversing that trend depends on whether his eloquent race speech, which he continued to reprise on the campaign trail all week, can overcome videos exposing his pastor's demagoguery.

Thanks to proportional representation, which was enacted as part of radical Democratic reform a generation ago, no candidate can replicate George McGovern's nomination victory in 1972 by capturing winner-take-all primaries. It is not possible for Clinton to score large enough victories in the remaining nine primaries (starting with Pennsylvania on April 22) to move ahead of Obama in delegates or the accumulated popular vote. Those goals became unreachable with the apparent Clinton failure to force a revote in Michigan and Florida.

That means Clinton must convince superdelegates that Obama is not electable -- validating this judgment by a neutral Democratic leader: "It was a great speech, but it cannot overcome the powerful [Wright] video." Since Obama's race declaration, he has fallen behind McCain nationally in various polls and trails by as much as eight percentage points in Rasmussen tracking.

In head-to-head tests with Clinton, he is two points behind in Rasmussen tracking and has slipped in other surveys, though he is still leading. Polls in Pennsylvania taken before Obama's speech Tuesday showed that Clinton's narrow lead had expanded to double digits, and private surveys since then indicate the margin is growing.

To combat that, the Obama high command privately contacted superdelegates Friday to report that his Pennsylvania and Indiana polling numbers have "come back" (without specifying by how much). Obama agents are also trying to minimize the distinctiveness of his embrace with Wright by distributing photos and letters showing Bill Clinton's contacts with the Chicago preacher in 1998, when the president was wooing friendly clergymen in his campaign against impeachment.

The problem for Obama is that furor over Wright has reached beyond voters normally interested in political controversies. Over the past week, I have been asked repeatedly by non-political people about Obama's connection with Wright's tirades. In the process, Obama's political persona has been altered -- transformed from Harvard Law Review to South Side activist, as described by one friendly Chicago politician.

The Clinton campaign has shied away from official comment about Wright. But in off-the-record talks with superdelegates, Clinton's agents claim that the connection casts doubt on Obama's electability. Furthermore, one Democratic operative who is inclined toward Obama warns that the issue will be raised in much harsher terms by Republicans during the general election campaign. In last week's Clinton conference call with the media, senior adviser Harold Ickes questioned "whether Senator Obama is going to be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine."

The consensus among knowledgeable Democrats is that Obama will win over enough superdelegates to clinch the nomination before the national convention in August, partly because of fear about the consequences if he does not. But one longtime associate said this of the Clintons in private conversation last week: "They will do anything -- anything -- to get nominated." That reminder deepens the Democratic dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

I'm still not an Obama supporter (although that could change), but I have two things to say in response to that Novak piece. The first is that his poll numbers are out of date. Obama has largely erased the losses he saw after the Wright thing first broke, and before he gave his speech. The second is this: Last night I saw Peggy Noonan talking about Obama with the same sort of broody glow she used to exhibit when talking about Reagan, and she had nothing but very positive things to say about him. If we can see something like that happen, I think Obama can attract a cadre of "Obama Republicans" in the same way that Reagan attracted "Reagan Democrats".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM

If a Reagan supporter is heaping praise on Obama, I'm voting for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM

Peggy Noonan is one helluva speechwriter, whoever she syupports, I'll say that for her. SO maybe its just professional admiration.

Rig, ole buddy, your proposition makes absolutely no sense at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM

Interesting position to take, Riginslinger. I suspect, however, that if you didn't like Reagan, you're not going to like McCain, either.

I think the kinds of Republicans who are gravitating toward Obama are the kind who want to be inspired. I certainly don't agree with their assessment that Reagan was inspirational, and I also don't think that's the best basis upon which to select a President. But I do think that this will help Obama win a broad range of support for his candidacy if he is the Democratic nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM

"Rig, ole buddy, your proposition makes absolutely no sense at all."


                     I know, but in my book there's nothing more obscene than Reagan. Besides, this is American politics where nothing much makes any sense anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:01 PM

If Reagan was obscene, Rig, McCain will be Obscene Redux Ad ABsurdum -- the same deterioration of mind, genial soft-shoe, militariastic mindset, and ignoral on economic theory.

Let's at least put someone in who has the agility and clarity of thought to think things through with some rationality. Preferably, someone without Hill's baggage.

Why not start acting for the best outcome you can?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:15 PM

A respected conservative commentator endorses Obama:

"...Endorsing Obama
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.
..."

From COnvictions in Slate, about 2/3s down the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM

Rasmussen national polls overview:

"This week, the early numbers seem to slightly favor Obama. In polling through Sunday, , Obama held a four-point lead over the GOP hopeful while Clinton trailed the Arizona Senator by a couple of points. Clinton also has a much higher percentage of the population committed to voting against her than either Obama or McCain.
However, those early numbers do not adequately answer the question of which Democrat would be more competitive."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:11 PM

Amos that link seems to be early February!
I posted yesterdays here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM

My apologies -- the above entry was from the 7th. Obama has not qwuite caught up with Hillary after the Wright kafluffle, but is gaining.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:55 PM

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday March 25 2008 Article history
Barack Obama gained a boost yesterday when the first poll taken since his make-or-break speech last week on race put him back ahead of Hillary Clinton. A nationwide Gallup poll put Obama on 48% to Clinton's 45%. The same poll last week, taken at the height of the row over Obama's minister in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, gave Clinton her first lead for weeks, 49% to his 42%.

---

Sorry about that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: toadfrog
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:49 PM

If you read Peggy Noonan's piece all the way through, she ends up saying words to the effect of "Obama would be so great, if only he didn't have all those creepy liberal ideas." Which is sort of the way I feel about McCain, only in reverse.

I am all for Obama, especially as Edwards is no longer around. I hope I'm right. Just bear this in mind. Adlai Stevenson also gave wonderful, thoughtful speeches. But the first thing a president has to be is forceful. He/she has to have the ability to make people do what he/she wants them to do. I hope Obama has that ability, but I don't know it. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:08 PM

It's funny you'd mention Adlai Stevenson. There are some similarities between McCain and Dwight David Eisenhower.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM

Philanthropist Theresa Heinz Kerry* wrote an op ed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that expresses her strong endorsement of Senator Barack Obama:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08083/867043-109.stm

Here's an excerpt of that long op ed:

Sunday Forum: It's Pennsylvania's turn - vote for Obama
Barack Obama understands working families, offers realistic proposals to help them and has the vision to re-inspire America, says philanthropist TERESA HEINZ
Sunday, March 23, 2008

"...Mr. Obama's work taught him what happens to families and communities when factories shut down and jobs go overseas. He knows firsthand the devastation and despair the global economy can bring -- and how important hope is in overcoming setbacks and getting lives and neighborhoods back on track.

But there's more to Mr. Obama than hope. There's a practical approach to economic recovery. It starts with a tax cut of up to $1,000 -- for middle-class families, not for millionaires. And Mr. Obama believes that there can be no "free" trade without fair trade. He's committed to fixing NAFTA, so that it works for American workers. For those whose jobs are threatened by foreign trade, Mr. Obama supports reforms to the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers can be retrained before they lose their jobs.

Mr. Obama's health-care plan will cover every child in America, and help families afford the same kind of insurance he and I both have, by giving them access to the same plan that covers Congress. He'll simplify paperwork and ensure no family can be turned down, regardless of pre-existing conditions. As I saw in Sen. Heinz, and as I see in my husband, Sen. John Kerry, a personal connection to working families drives Mr. Obama in his passion to get working Americans and seniors access to affordable insurance...

In the bicentennial year of 1976, Pennsylvania took a chance on a smart, hard-working and optimistic young congressman named John Heinz and made him their senator. They made a wise choice. He worked across the aisle to tackle the tough problems of the 1970s and 1980s -- saving Social Security, reforming nursing home care, demanding fair trade, offering new solutions to environmental problems. He proved that, when you love people and put their interest ahead of politics you can make a real difference.

That is the spirit I see in Barack Obama and why I look forward to voting to make him our 44th president.

The "audacity of hope" means a vote for change. Vote for Barack."

-snip-

* Teresa Heinz is very well respected in the Pittsburgh area. She is the chairman of the Heinz Family Philanthropies. The Heinz Foundations provide a wide range of funding in community service areas including health care, education, human services, and cultural programming.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:49 PM

Rig--

Nothing makes any sense in American politics? You're certainly doing your best to ensure that goal. Well done, good job.

Fortunately there are a fair number of voters willing to think. Too bad you're not among them.   You might want to try it, just for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:00 PM

The Sidney Morning Herald cuts through the noise, counts the delegates and the money, and concludes that Obama is firmly positioned to win his nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:01 PM

Similarities between Ike and McCain?   A few problems. McCain didn't lead the US to victory in war. You might note it's actually the victorious generals who may win elections--and they don't always win--see Winfield Scott.

And there was a great dissatisfaction with Truman in 1952--a mood to throw the administration's party out. Funny thing, there is that same mood now--not exactly boding well for McCain. Especially as it becomes obvious that his prescription for economic ills is tax cuts, and a bit of retraining. It seems likely the electorate will want more than McCain's base will ever allow him to offer.

But, by all means, Rig, if you have some actual evidence--for the first time ever-- please share it. And if you mean McCain's status as a war hero, that will play considerably better against Hillary--still burdened with the 60s-- (and the 90's) partly through her own stupidity--e.g. Woodstock museum---than it ever will with Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 07:51 AM

""Obama would be so great, if only he didn't have all those creepy liberal ideas." "

This is about what I think.

Obama is the first Democrat in a long time to run on something, rather than run AGAINST something. That is why I give him some chance of winning.


While I disagree with WHAT he will be doing, I at least have the feeling that he will be doing it because he thinks it is best for the nation, rather than just a means of enriching himslf.

Does not mean I will vote for him, but I can respect him for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:31 AM

Ron - If you want to check your history, you will find that when Eisenhower first decided to get into politics there was some indecision as to whether he would be a Democrat or a Republican. He was a real middle of the road kind of guy. That's where I think he shares some values with McCain.

                         In fact, if you really try, you can find a statement by Eisenhower: "Too far to the left, and too far to the right of the middle of the road are the gutters."

                         I think you're finding yourself in the gutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM

I don't quite understand what "all those creepy liberal ideas" refers to. I can't think of any idea he has voiced that was creepy. Personal responsibility? Working to form a more perfect union? RIsing above racial divisions? Redesigning how government works? Are these the ones being referenced here? If not, which?

Or is this just a slanderous exagerrated generalization?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:38 AM

Now 1400 posts have come
To sound Barack Obama's drum,
Folks in their workclothes and their nighties
FOlks in power-suits, sleek and mighty,
Folks in jeans and in pajamas
All gonna vote for Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:33 AM

An Israeli writer explains his support of Obama.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:15 PM

Obama Girl offers advice to Hillary Clinton in a most becoming way. (Wait through ad).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 02:51 PM

Just when I thought it couldn't get any
worse
........

Obama Girl: Electioneering at its Best … or Raunchiest?
or at its nadir?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:07 PM

This one is a lot more constructive, with better music and production values.


Yes We Can

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM

Obama responds to the last State of the Union Address given by Bush.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

Amos, You beat me to that one! (I watched it before trying to post it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:22 PM

:>D Great minds post alike....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:24 PM

Richard Shenkman the author of 'Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done' stated at the time of the 2004 election....

"Any time you've got a divided country, that divisiveness just gets the blood going of these very competitive people who are in the business of getting their candidate elected, and then you tend to have more ugly politicking and smear campaigning."

"We have a tradition of ugly politics in America but this campaign is much more intense because of the Internet, 24-hour cable news and talk radio. There are so many more ways to communicate smears. It's all smear all the time."

As I've said on another thread I'm merely an 'outsider' lookin in in some disillusionment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:29 PM

Yes we can!
courtesy of U.K. preschool TV :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

Emma, By far the bulk of those smears, by far were going one way. Bush couldn't exactly have run on his record and Faux news does nothing but smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:15 PM

Little known facts about Wright's past service can be found here. Seems he may not be quite the ogre he has been painted to be...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:21 PM

McCarthy's shadow spreads over the land

March 26, ANDREW GREELEY [e-mail] :
The ghost of the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy is abroad in the land.

"Tail gunner Joe" was a master of the art of guilt by association.

Sen. Barack Obama ought not to have had to defend his outspoken pastor. The Rev. Wright is not running for the presidency. There is no evidence at all that the senator identifies with his clergyman, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yet the senator must repudiate him or lose the primary battle to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Even a repudiation would not do. The senator's brilliant speech did not help him; his polling rates have collapsed in Pennsylvania.

The United States will reveal itself to the world as a country in which a candidate can be destroyed by a single explosion on YouTube -- at least if he's black.

The media will celebrate that they have dragged down another celebrity like Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Some of my friends tell me that Obama might still carry it off. I hope they're right. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

The Tide is Turning. SPeaks for itself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:37 PM

Now they're digging up family trees!

"It turns out the woman attempting to become the first female president of the United States can count among her relations Alanis Morissette, Celine Dion and former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Madonna and "On the Road" author Jack Kerouac are also counted among her relatives.


"It is common to find people of French Canadian descent to be related to large numbers of other French Canadians, including these notables," said NEHGS genealogist Christopher Child in a news release.


Clinton is also related to Camilla Parker-Bowles, who is married to Prince Charles.


Obama doesn't have high profile genealogical connections to Canada, but is distant cousins with at least six other former U.S. presidents, including President George W. Bush and his father, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and James Madison.


Obama, who has a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, is also related to Robert E. Lee, who was a general during the Civil War.


His lineage also stretches across the Atlantic, where he can count former Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill as a cousin, though most of the ancestry from Obama's mother's side is from the southern and mid-Atlantic states, Child said. " (From CTV).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM

Nice Vid Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM

remember this election anthem folks?

A pop music title, however devoutly wished for, is not a substitute for policies and good leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

But "Things can only get better" was a pretty crap song anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:15 PM

McGrath and Emma

Three thoughts come to mind.
That music is shite.
That video is very cheesy.
That man should be slapped in the side of the head for trying to sing R&B and asking others to listen. He would get booed out of a Karaoke club.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:24 PM

On the other hand Bob the Builder - Yes We Can, that Emma linked to earlier, is a lot better. And it would stand up well as a campaign song. It's even got a politcal agenda!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

Now you're talking!!!!

B-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 08:39 PM

Obama's speech was the boldest and most direct statement on race relations by a major political figure in more than a generation. His willingness to take the risk of confronting one of America's most volatile and intractable problems head-on is striking. It gives us sense of how Obama might use his considerable rhetorical skills not just to win elections, but, also to lead and to govern.

San Francisco Chronicle ichard Thompson Ford is a law professor at Stanford University.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 08:47 PM

He's back from St. Thomas and he is telling it like it is.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:57 PM

Where they stand in the youthful sector of voters:

" MySpace and Facebook create a sense of connection to the candidates. Between the two sites, Mr. Obama has about one million Òfriends,Ó Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, has roughly 330,000, and Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, has more than 140,000. Four out of 10 young people have watched candidate speeches, interviews, commercials or debates online, according to Pew, substantially more than people 30 and older."

Hell, we don't have to leave the world to the next generation -- they're taking it!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 11:18 PM

On this page a video of Wright in which the full context of his remarks -- quoting Ambassador Peck quoting Malcolm X--is shown to be completely the opposite of what it was portrayed by Faux News to be. This clip was linked earlier as well (3-20) by Jack. If you have any question about Wright's real words, go ye here and hear them.

There was a time in the country when the Fourth Estate was an honorable profession.

This is not that time. On this issue alone, it stands wholly disgraced, let alone the others like it. You have to wonder why the Times did not announce with four-inch tall letters, "Murdoch's Minions Massacre Truth, Disgrace Profession by Resorting to Slander". On the strength of just the two versions of this clip, it would, I think, stand up in court.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:17 AM

USA TODAY -- Obama merchandise is hot on the Web: "The delegate race may be tight, but the user-generated merchandise race is clear, at least on the Web: Sales of Obama products, especially T-shirts, are soaring past Hillary Clinton gear. John McCain supporters, meanwhile, aren't making as much noise when it comes to personalizing paraphernalia."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM

Roger Cohen in the Times remarks, "Obama, in his speech on race, did important things. He confronted reality, thought big, probed division, sketched convergence. He took Americans and many people beyond U.S. shores to a different mental place. Imagine that capacity applied to GWOT, Iran, Russia, China and Israel-Palestine.

If you don't like the sound of that, there's always seasoned swagger of the sort that runs from imaginary snipers. "


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:21 PM

Obama's Economic speech is making waves.

"But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle – but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.

I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost that sense of shared prosperity. "

Full advance text can be read here in the Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:32 PM

VOA News reports:

A new opinion survey shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama continues to maintain solid support among voters, while opponent Hillary Clinton has seen a drop in her popularity.

The survey by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News shows the two rivals in a dead heat at 45 percent support from registered Democrats.

The poll indicates Obama, an Illinois senator, with a positive personal rating of 49 percent, down from 51 percent from two weeks ago. It shows Clinton with a 37 percent positive personal rating, her lowest rating in the poll since 2001.

The survey shows Clinton and Obama are virtually tied against Arizona Senator John McCain, the likely Republican Party nominee
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:38 PM

MErcury News reports:

...The poll also asked Californians about the presidential race - and, once again, the state appears poised to back the Democratic nominee. By double-digit margins, likely voters said the Democratic Party would do a better job handling issues ranging from health care to the economy to the Iraq war.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 49 percent to 40 percent lead in California over Republican nominee John McCain in a hypothetical matchup. Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a smaller lead over McCain, 46 percent to 43 percent.

The survey, available at www.ppic.org, was conducted from March 11 to March 18. It polled 2,002 adult residents, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Among the 1,077 likely voters interviewed, the error margin was plus or minus 3 percentage points
...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:39 PM

See also this Gallup poll placing Obama 4 points ahead of Clinton.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM

See "McCain: Liar or Ignorant" thread...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:58 PM

Amos that graph looks pretty much like neck and neck to me!

Then again it could be 'the media, pretending the race is close for ratings.'
BS: Hillary Adopts Tanya Harding Option???
27 Mar 08 - 12:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

Emma the that poll has nothing to do with the delegate count. Hillary would have to win every race form here on in with 70% margins to win. That is not going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

HEre is an interesting analysis of the Obama administration's foreign policy doctrine and what it implies for the future.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM

Interesting article Amos. I like Obama's national Security team.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:46 PM

LEt me just point out taht in sixty days Obama has come from 20 points behind to several points ahead. He also leads in surveys compared to McCain and compared to Hillary as against McCain.

Longer view on these Gallup polls here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:47 PM

Obama Economic speech - Bush's third term.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM

Amos - those polls show that Clinton and Obama started pretty much neck to neck too.

Today they also demonstrate that ....
'Democrats are at greatest risk of losing the support of independents if their preferred Democratic candidate loses, though the defection rate is greater for Hillary Clinton supporters (39%) than for Barack Obama supporters (29%).'

Like I said. I'm an 'outsider' who just doesn't want to see another Republican term.
But 'massaging' the figures to suit the candidate of your choice doesn't quite fit with an objective analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM

Thanks, Jack. Damn, he speaks well....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:02 PM

Polls are just a snapshot of how the people contacted feel at a given time. I could speculate why some of Hillary's people would vote for McCain. The obvious reason is that she's taking votes away from HIM. This is a little bit scary: Hillary's people would rather see a conservative Republican who wants to keep the war going indefinitely than Obama!? Who ARE these people!?

Then again, it's a poll, and her voters may be feeling a bit spiteful these days. Things may, and likely WILL change. Obama will be nominated, and if she wants her career to continue, she'll support her party and endorse him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:07 PM

Jeri, it's not 'Hillary's people' who say that they would not vote for Obama it's the 'independents'

In fact it's 'Obama's people' who have an on line petition for people to sign that they would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton if she was nominated.

I have no vote but I would like to see some objectivity in this discussion.
I haven't seen very much on the forum so far!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:16 PM

Objectivity in a discussion of US politics?


LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM

Democrats are at greatest risk of losing the support of independents if their preferred Democratic candidate loses, though the defection rate is greater for Hillary Clinton supporters (39%) than for Barack Obama supporters (29%)

39% and 29% of how many supporters? Using totally hypothetical numbers, if Clinton had 3 million independent supporters and 39% of them were going to defect, but Obama had 20 million and 29% were going to defect, I think it's safe to say that Obama would have a better chance of getting elected in the general election. What this goes to show is that numbers like that are basically meaningless unless a lot more information is given.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:39 PM

Emma, by 'Hillary's people', I meant her supporters. This poll however, was done by surveying Democrats. You quoted it. Did you see a survey of independent voters?
From the the Gallup poll:

"A sizable proportion of Democrats who support Hillary Clinton for their party's nomination, 28%, would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against Barack Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM

Oh never mind. Clue found tripped over.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:51 PM

Jeri I just quoted a little more of the poll that Amos quoted!

I agree, statistics can be made to prove anything - that was my point!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM

One of the other problems with that poll is that it fails to ask about people like me - independent voters who would vote for someone other than either Clinton or McCain if Clinton got the nomination. I suspect that there is a fairly sizable number of us who are in that category.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:55 PM

IF you have not listened to Obama's actual economics speech (see link from Jack up thread) I think you really should. If you like the man, you'll find it delightful. If you don't you will at least have a chance to see who he is and where he stands, and possibly understand why he wins voters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM

Congressman Dan Lipinski is backing U.S. Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country. (Sun-TImes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:10 AM

Senator Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, one of the state's last undecided superdelegates, plans to endorse Barack Obama during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial in Pittsburgh this morning.

(NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM

I did listen to Obama's economic speech, and while I didn't agree with everything, I thought it was a whole lot better than McCain's.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:33 AM

March 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a high-profile supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has called for Obama's opponent to drop out of the race.

In an interview on Vermont Public Radio, said "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."

Leahy said he was fretting about the impact of the protracted Democratic race.

"I am very concerned," he said. "John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said. I think that's unfortunate."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

Can I ask you all something?

The gist Obama's Economic speech is that the current crisis was caused by the lenders screwing up and that the way to overcome this in future is sensible regulation tuned to the modern concerns.

How is this radical?
How is this right wing?
How is this not the very definition of conservatism?

Conservatism is not giving the banks a license to run amok, defraud people, and make bad loans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

"Kudos to On Politics reader Kavi Grace, a New York lawyer and supporter of Sen. Barack Obama who blogs on his own time at Why We Need Obama.

He left a message overnight at my USATODAY.com community profile, pointing to a post he had written headlined "Clinton campaign lies about Obama donations."

That's a more accusatory headline than we would have written, but Kavi's findings are worth noting.

He saw our post yesterday that noted the response from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign to the economic address that Obama delivered Thursday. In this memo, the Clinton team said that Obama "has taken more money from the top 10 subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain." The memo cited CQ.com as its source.

Kavi, though, sifted through public records and figured out that if you compare apples to apples -- particularly the money campaigns have gotten from employees of subprime mortgage companies, which is what the Obama numbers were largely based on -- it looks like Clinton has taken in $1.3 million to Obama's $1.2 million.

Lo and behold, The Wall Street Journal comes to the same conclusion this morning.

The Journal writes that:

Clinton officials said they didn't mean to say that their candidate was free of Wall Street ties. The point of the email, they said, was to counter (Obama strategist David) Plouffe's suggestion that Sen. Clinton was less trustworthy on the issue than Sen. Obama.

"The Obama campaign's attack implied that Senator Obama had no relationship with these lenders so we pointed out the hypocrisy of their attack," said (campaign spokesman Phil) Singer in an e-mail response to questions.

We reached Kavi by telephone this morning to verify his identity and thank him for sending along his findings. He said he's not one of those Democrats who would vote for Sen. John McCain if Clinton becomes the party's nominee, but has become disenchanted with Clinton over time.

His law firm, DLA Piper, includes among its lawyers Democratic heavyweights such as former Senate majority leader George Mitchell and former House majority leader Richard Gephardt."

From USA Today Blogs.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM

Report from The Guardian:

"The chairman of the Democratic National Committee today tried to impose a deadline on the divisive nomination contest, urging the party's superdelegates to make their choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by July 1.

In a series of interviews today, Howard Dean urged the 800 Democratic elected and party officials who will ultimately decide between Clinton and Obama to avoid a knockdown fight at the party convention and make their decision within weeks of the last primary.

"There is no point in waiting," Dean told the Associated Press.

The proposal, which appears to have support from Democratic party elders, comes amid fears that the negative tone of the campaign - as well as the prospect of an ugly battle at the party's convention in August - could be ruinous for the Democrats' chances against John McCain in next November's presidential elections.

While Democrats have been focused on the epic struggle between Clinton and Obama, McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has been getting ready for the presidential campaign.

He launched his first television ad in New Mexico yesterday, and has been touring the country giving policy addresses.

That has the Democratic leadership worried about allowing McCain to build an early advantage.

"I think it would be nice to have this all done by July 1. If we can do it sooner than that, that's all the better," Dean told ABC television. "We don't want this to degenerate into a big fight at the convention."

Dean said he was floating the proposal after consulting with senior Democratic leaders including Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards, the one-time rival to Clinton and Obama.

Dean has also held discussions with Clinton and Obama.

About 450 of the 800 super delegates have already supported a candidate, leaving about 350 still undecided. With the primary season set to end on June 3 when Puerto Rico holds its primary, Dean argued there was no compelling reason to leave the Democratic nominee undecided throughout the summer.

Although Clinton initially led among superdelegates, Obama has been quickly catching up as the contest wears on. Obama picked up yet an important superdelegate today with an endorsement from senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

He got an additional psychological boost with a call from Patrick Leahy, a senator from Vermont, for Clinton to get out of the race. "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama," Leahy told Vermont public radio.

The support from Casey, an anti-abortion and anti-gun control Democrat popular among working-class male voters, could help Obama narrow Clinton's double-digit lead in the state.

"I believe in my heart that there is one person who's uniquely qualified to lead us in that new direction and that is Barack Obama," Casey told a rally in Pittsburgh yesterday. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:51 PM

COndi Rice chimes in:

"Condoleezza Rice today entered the race debate that has been a simmering undercurrent of the presidential campaign when she said it had been "important" for Barack Obama to give his landmark speech on race and defended the patriotism of African Americans.

The US secretary of state also decried the "birth defect" of slavery that she said has left Americans struggling to confront racism.

"Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together - Europeans by choice and Africans in chains," Rice told the Washington Times. "That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

Rice, the second African-American and second female in US history to lead the state department, grew up in Alabama at the height of the civil rights movement in America. One of her childhood playmates was killed in an infamous 1963 church bombing committed by white supremacists, whom Rice has called "terrorists".

She declined to comment directly on the presidential campaign in the Times interview, saying only that it was "important" that Obama "gave it for a whole host of reasons", but strongly defended the patriotism of African Americans. ....

"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them - and that's our legacy," Rice said."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM

And a young voter writes to Newsday:

"As Hillary Rodham Clinton's kitchen sink slowly erodes Obamania, I've taken quite a bit of flak for sticking by my candidate. Surely, I hear, I should "come around" and realize that Clinton, a one-and-change-term senator and former first lady, is the logical and responsible choice for the Democratic presidential nomination in the fall. I've had my fun, but now it's time to settle down and return to reality.

I turned 18 in January, and thus represent the lowest boundary of the youth vote, that elusive demographic Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer love to analyze to death. In my 10 or so years of cultural cognizance, I've seen two presidents lie to their countrymen, our current president sling disgustingly false mud at two decorated war veterans who dared run against him, and our governor bring shame to his office and the state. I've seen a woman from Arkansas move to New York 13 months before the senatorial election and then claim to represent my interests.

I shouldn't believe in politics. I shouldn't even care about this election. But Barack Obama made me care, gave me something to believe in when no other politician in our generation even came close. I don't care if he's only been in the Senate for about four years, and I don't care he's never been married to a two-term president. George W. Bush had experience. Dick Cheney had experience. Eliot Spitzer had experience. That argument doesn't work in these times.

It sickens me that Clinton has the gall to ridicule those who choose to believe in Obama, who offers nothing but hope. No baggage, no mudslinging, just the hope that we can and will do better for this country. Here's hoping voters see through the political smoke screens and put Clinton back in her place. "

Not bad for a l'il sprout...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:27 PM

Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Gallup's daily national "tracking poll" grew to 8 percentage points today -- putting it just outside the survey's margin of error.

Gallup says Obama has a 50%-42% advantage over his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Yesterday, he held a 48%-44% lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM

A charming essay on the robustness of core democracy, and why folks should tough the process out through thick and thin.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 07:55 PM

A real crack up: Gay for Obama!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:06 PM

Did anyone besides me watch The View this morning? I normally do not see it but last night they promoted Senator Obama's appearance on it so I turned on the television.

As usual he was good. What I really truly like about him is that he stops to think before he replies. Never comes across as canned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM

he stops to think before he replies


Exactly what differentiates him from the pushbutton relics of past hogwashery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:44 PM

"Senator Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania" endorsement of Obama is a major step, along with his willingness to campaign with him in Pennsylvania.

I'm curious who we think the 100,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania who have re-registered as Democrats will be voting for in the primary. I haven't a clue but find it interesting.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:21 AM

Casey's endorsement talk includes the story of his four daughters finding out about Barack Obama.


And here's a recap of his performance on "The View".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM

Sen. Barack Obama has raised twice as much money as Sen. Hillary Clinton from donors who had previously been bankrolling John Edwards's presidential bid, according to a new analysis by CQ MoneyLine of contributions given in February, the first full month after Edwards dropped out of the running.

The analysis found that 287 former Edwards contributors donated to $200,000 to Obama last month. Clinton received contributions from 138 former Edwards backers, giving her $114,000 from the group.
Both camps aggressively pursued the Edwards crowd in the days before Edwards formally dropped from the campaign.

Mitchell Berger, a Florida lawyer who migrated from Edwards to Obama, said in an interview with The Trail yesterday that he went with Obama because he "appeals to the better angels." Berger said he is being joined by a number of former Edwards backers to host an April 9 Florida fundraiser for Obama that will be headlined by the candidate's wife, Michelle Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM

I'm not at all sure that Michelle is an asset, but does anyone have any idea what John Edwards is up to in all of this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM

Michelle is bright, articulate and impassioned. The point where she became less of an asset is when what she said was twisted and fed into the D&D machine. Same stunt they pulled on Dean. Destroy the original, feed the distortion and blow on the flames. Sigh.

If people would try understanding instead of reacting, they might grow older happier.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:29 PM

"Obama has social engineering plans as ambitious, in their own way, as the Bush administrationÕs failed social engineering plans to change the psyche of America and the Middle East.

ÒI think the president needs to use the bully pulpit to change our culture,Ó he said Thursday, talking energy at a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser in Manhattan. ÒWe are a wasteful culture. ItÕs always been that way because of our history. We do everything big.Ó

He wants to make government ÒcoolÓ again. He wants to banish the red-blue culture of conflict on TV and in Washington. And he wants to make the country healthier, thinner and smarter. ÒI want our students learning art and music and science and poetry,Ó he says, in a crowd-pleasing line.

Using his preacher voice, he urged a black audience in Beaumont, Tex., to be better parents, to put away chips and cold Popeyes for breakfast, and to turn off the TV and video games. ÒBuy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table,Ó he instructed. ÒWatch them do their homework.Ó..."

Maureen Dowd, writing in the NY Times. The rest of the essay is very good reading, acerbic and sharp.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:59 PM

The Washington Times citing a Pew Research study:

"Mrs. Clinton is more "phony" and less inspiring than Mr. Obama, according to respondents. Twice as many Democrats think Mrs. Clinton lacks sincerity: 28 percent said she was a phony, compared with 14 percent who said the same about Mr. Obama.

"Democratic voters are considerably more likely to attribute positive traits to Obama than to Clinton, while negative traits are more often associated with Clinton," the analysis said.

"Eight in ten Democratic voters say Barack Obama is down to earth (82 percent), inspiring (82 percent) and honest (80 percent). By comparison, about two-thirds see Hillary Clinton as inspiring (66 percent) and honest (65 percent) and slightly fewer say she is down to earth (62 percent)."

But the New York Democrat has the upper hand in the flag-waving department over her Illinois rival.

"When it comes to being seen as patriotic, however, Clinton has a slight edge over her opponent; 86 percent say she is patriotic, while 78 percent say that about Obama," it said.

There are divides within the party in race and gender, though."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:21 AM

Some fine, ice-cold Kool Aid for my friends. :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:29 PM

Et tu, Fox?

"The law school where Barack Obama once taught is coming to his defense after Hillary ClintonÕs campaign accused him of embellishing his record at the university and falsely claiming he was a law professor.

The University of Chicago Law School posted a brief explanation on its Web site, saying Obama served as a ÒprofessorÓ there, first as a lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Òsenior lecturerÓ from 1996 to 2004, Òduring which time he taught three courses per year.Ó

Though the Clinton campaign argued that lecturers arenÕt the same as professors since they donÕt have tenure, the law school differed.

ÒSenior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track,Ó the university statement said.

The school piped up after ClintonÕs campaign circulated a statement Tuesday detailing what it alleged was a pattern of Obama embellishments and mis-statements. The campaign memo came as Clinton was facing sharp criticism that she embellished when she said she landed under sniper fire during a goodwill trip to Bosnia in 1996."

---

This is an embarrassing rebuttal, which leaves the HRC clan with egg on their face for not understanding the meaning of the word "professor". IT shows they are just a little too desparate to find some button--any button! -- to push, and are overreaching in consequence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:31 PM

Hmmm--what pollster d'you read?

The Sun Times of Chicago:


Because Pittsburghers Ñ in all shades Ñ came out en masse, filling up the auditorium at the Soldiers Military Museum where his more-than-40-minute speech was interrupted repeatedly with raucous shouts, whistles, clapping and stomping.
Children too young to see over the heads of standing adults stood on the seats and clapped as if they understood every word.

ÔHalf hour too longÕ

Seith Reighard, a 20-year-old microbiology major at Pittsburgh University, sat with a row of other young white males as they waited for Obama to appear.

ÒI think Obama is the most genuine politician I have seen in a long time,Ó Reighard said. ÓMy generation had lost our faith in politicians to actually do something, and finally I see a guy come along who will. It doesnÕt matter, the color of his skin.

ÒI am here because I feel for once my views will be heard.Ó

National polls put Obama behind by double digits in Pennsylvania, but given the enthusiastic turnout (all of the free tickets were taken), you couldnÕt tell heÕs an underdog in the state."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

(Full disclosure: This excerpt is from a campaign press release):

"With more than 56% of the results tallied from today's 284 Democratic district conventions across Texas, Senator Barack Obama currently is projected to earn a 38-29 pledged delegate win in the Texas caucuses, exactly as projected on the day after the March 4th precinct caucuses.

The nine delegate margin in the caucuses means Obama will gain a net margin of five pledged delegates from Texas because Senator Clinton narrowly won the Texas primary by only four delegates, 65-61.

"Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama's important delegate win in the Lone Star State," said Obama spokesman Josh Earnest. "Today's record-shattering turnout sends a clear message that the American people are ready for change in Washington and new leadership in the White House that will stand up for working families.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

If the Democrats don't get rid of these caucuses, they never will get a candidate elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:18 PM

Rig:

I am sorry, pal, but they are bound for a nomination by the end of Spring, and a battle royale for the White House by November.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:35 PM

Yes, I can see they are going to nominate somebody, but without a total economic collapse, I don't see that person beating McCain in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:44 PM

Maybe you do not, Rig; but you may have a cataract in your inner eye. I can see it plainly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:48 PM

Baltimore Sun:

Gallup: Obama lead over Clinton largest this year

by Mike Dorning

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Barack Obama now has a 10-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton in a national tracking poll conducted by Gallup, the largest lead he has posted in the poll this year.

Gallup reported Obama now leads among Democrats 52 percent against 42 percent for Hillary Clinton, the third day in a row he has held a statistically significant lead against Clinton in the poll.

The movement in the national poll follows a week in which Clinton was widely lampooned for exaggerated accounts she gave of a visit to Bosnia in which she claimed she ran for cover under sniper fire. After the pilot of her plane and reporters who were on the trip with her disputed the account, she conceded she her account was a "mistake" and chalked the incident up to campaign-trail fatigure. But the exaggeration rapidly became fodder for late-night comics and video spoofs on the Internet.

Allies of Barack Obama, most notably Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), also last week promoted arguments that Clinton now has little chance of winning the Democratic nomination and that a prolonged Democratic primary would damage the eventual nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:52 PM

Obama draws thousands to rally on Penn State lawn, says he will win Democratic nomination

The Associated PressPublished: March 31, 2008


UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa.: Shivering in blankets of Penn State's colors, some 20,000 people filled a campus lawn Sunday to hear Barack Obama say he can win the Democratic nomination even if rival Hillary Rodham Clinton stays in the race.

Supporters stood in long lines for hours to hear Obama ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

On a sunny day with temperatures in the low 40's, most bundled up for the type of large-scale rally that has become the candidate's trademark.

"It's been a while, and it's a little cold, but we really like Barack. He's inspiring," said 19-year-old Caitlin McDonnell, wrapped in a blue Nittany Lions blanket.

Pennsylvania's primary is the next contest in the Obama-Clinton fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. The Keystone State, which will allocate 158 delegates, is the biggest single delegate prize remaining in the Democratic primaries.


Some Democrats, particularly Obama's supporters, have voiced concern that the hard-fought, drawn-out race is already hurting the party's chances to win in November.

The Illinois senator told the crowd not to worry.

"As this primary has gone on a little bit long, there have been people who've been voicing some frustration," Obama said.

"I want everybody to understand that this has been a great contest, great for America. It's engaged and involved people like never before. I think it's terrific that Senator Clinton's supporters have been as passionate as my supporters have been because that makes the people invested and engaged in this process, and I am absolutely confident that when this primary season is over Democrats will be united."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:54 PM

Obama-a unique moment in American history

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:59 PM

It's funny he's at Penn State. He already has those voters. Hillary's voters are in the working class neighborhoods of Pittsburgh

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:34 AM

>>It's funny he's at Penn State. He already has those voters. Hillary's voters are in the working class neighborhoods of Pittsburgh<<

Doesn't conventional wisdom say that she already has those?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:37 AM

It does, Jack, but I thought he was trying to improve his numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM

I thought he was trying to get enough delegates out of Pennsylvania so that Hillary's lead will be small enough so that he can make it all back in North Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:09 AM

While Sen. Hillary Clinton promised over the weekend to fight for the nomination all the way to the convention, the Wall Street Journal reports on its front page this morning that "slowly but steadily," a "string of Democratic Party figures is taking" Sen. Barack Obama's "side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up." North Carolina's seven Democratic House members "are poised to endorse...Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say."

Klobuchar Endorses Obama The AP reports Obama picked up the endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) last night, "giving him another superdelegate supporter. In a statement provided to the Associated Press, Klobuchar said Obama 'has inspired an enthusiasm and idealism that we have not seen in this country in a long time.'" Obama handily defeated Clinton in Minnesota's primary last month, which Klobuchar said contributed to her decision to endorse Obama
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:20 AM

Dallas Morning News:

"...Obama won 2,235 delegates to the state convention, or 60 percent, in the Saturday caucuses, compared with 1,511 delegates, or 40 percent, for Clinton, according to an ongoing count Sunday by The Associated Press. There were still about 3,500 others to be counted.

Obama's campaign predicted he would win the overall delegate race in Texas because of caucus support, even though Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in primary balloting March 4.

The caucus delegates ultimately will be winnowed and divvied up in June.

Clinton's campaign trumpeted its caucus successes in predominantly Hispanic regions along the Texas-Mexico border and elsewhere in South Texas and said it was too early to tell the Texas outcome.

"Hillary's delegates came out in full force," said Clinton spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod. "The Obama campaign may want to take a step back and wait until the official caucus results come in before declaring victory."

Obama's camp accused Clinton's of aggressively pushing to challenge and disqualify Obama delegates based on technicalities.

"Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama's important delegate win in the Lone Star State," said Obama spokesman Josh Earnest.

As he did in earlier precinct caucusing, Obama scored some lopsided victories in senate district caucuses Saturday in Houston, Dallas and Austin. Those were among the largest and most delegate-rich, often lasting into the night. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:09 PM

Quote of the Day (AP):


"Between Barack and a hard place, I chose Barack." — Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who endorsed fellow Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president on Monday, saying it had been difficult being uncommitted in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:53 PM

So she's sold our her sisters for the sake of dumping her guilt, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:10 AM

Oh, Rig, that was profpundly shallow.

"
Text size – + Poll supports Obama's case to party
Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 31, 2008 07:47 PM
The latest Gallup poll is like manna from heaven for Barack Obama it so neatly backs up two key arguments he and his supporters are making -- that he is the stronger candidate for the fall, and that the marathon nomination fight is hurting the party.

In the poll, 59 percent of Democrats said that Obama would have the better chance as the Democratic nominee in November, compared to 30 percent for Hillary Clinton. Among Republicans, 64 percent said their presumptive nominee, John McCain, would have a better chance to win against Clinton, while only 22 percent said Obama would be the weaker Democrat.

"Clearly at this point, the party rank-and-file thinks Obama would present a stronger challenge to McCain in the fall than Clinton would," the pollsters said in a release. "Those attitudes could certainly change over the remainder of the campaign, but it is notable that Obama maintains a wide lead in these perceptions shortly after the Jeremiah Wright controversy knocked his campaign off stride."

The poll, released today, also found that 56 percent of Democrats believe that the drawn-out nomination battle is doing "more harm than good," while 35 percent believe it is doing "more good than harm." A growing drumbeat of Obama backers, most notably Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, have urged Clinton to consider dropping out for the party's good.

The survey, conducted March 24-27, has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points and a margin of error among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents of plus or minus 5 percentage points.


"

Boston.com

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:03 PM

US News and WOrld Report:

"HARRISBURG, PA.—Presidential candidate Barack Obama's "Road to Change" bus tour rolled through this city of 47,000 on Sunday evening, drawing 1,500 who had stood in line on a cold Saturday morning for hours to get free tickets. The event followed a stop in State College, Pa., earlier in the day and drew a diverse crowd that often rose to its feet and chanted Obama's name. Both candidates have been crisscrossing the state in advance of the April 22 primary, and Clinton had an event scheduled in Harrisburg for Monday.


Sen. Bob Casey Jr., who announced his endorsement of Obama on Friday, introduced the candidate to supporters at the city's Forum Auditorium. The town hall-style meeting consisted largely of Obama answering questions from the crowd, from attendees young and old, and addressing such issues as healthcare, the war, wage discrimination, energy policy, mental health parity, and substance abuse.

Obama often bantered and joked with the audience and maintained a casual style that seemed to impress many attendees. He thanked the audience for its support during a long presidential race. "There have been babies that have been born and are now walking and talking" since he first announced his candidacy 15 months ago, Obama said jokingly. "I am running because of what Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] called the fierce urgency of now," he added, dismissing the concerns of those who suggested he not run for president now because he is young enough to wait.

But what the crowd seemed to appreciate most were answers perceived as frank and straightforward that didn't so much tell people what they wanted to hear as they did urge collaboration and participation from ordinary citizens in addressing issues such as wage discrimination and education. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:06 PM

"It could happen. On MSNBC's Morning Joe this a.m., Sen. Chuck Hagel said he'd be open to endorsing Barack Obama." Marc AMbinder, MSNBC. Probably launching an APril Fool joke.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:07 PM

"Posted March 31, 2008 10:24 AM

Despite several weeks of bad publicity stemming from the controversy over his affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama has taken a double-digit lead over his Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, according to the latest poll.

Obama picks up more superdelegates
A new Gallup Tracking Poll conducted March 27-March 29 shows Obama leading Clinton 52 to 42 percent, his largest lead of the year so far. Obama also leads Clinton in two other polls, giving him an average lead of 4.6 points over his primary opponent. The Illinois senator also holds a slight, but statistically insignificant lead over Sen. John McCain in the general election polls."
(Daily Voice)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:15 PM

Leading Pa. Jews endorse Obama
E-mail article
Share on Facebook
Digg this
Tell the Editors
What bloggers
are saying

Published: 04/01/2008


A group of prominent Pennsylvania Jews endorsed U.S. Sen. Barack Obama in advance of the state's April 22 primary.

In a letter to the state's Jewish community, some 60 Jewish politicians, rabbis and community leaders dismissed concerns raised about Obama's commitment to Israel, praised his response to the controversial statements of his pastor and urged them to support the Illinois lawmaker in the Democratic primary.

Among the signatories were two Jewish Pennsylvania legislators -- Reps. Josh Shapiro and Daylin Leach.

"Senator Obama has earned our respect and gratitude because of his support for traditional Jewish values and his commitment to a peaceful and prosperous Israel," the letter said.

(JTA News)
The letter also lauded Obama's recent speech in which he repudiated the views of his controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and compared support for Obama to Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel's famous description of marching for civil rights in Selma as "praying with his feet."

"We have each chosen to pray with our feet and stand with Barack Obama because he is sensitive to the issues of the Jewish community and a stalwart supporter of Israel," the letter said

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:52 PM

Walking in Another Person's Shoes -- a really nice thing to see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:01 PM

Former Indiana Rep. Hamilton Endorses Obama


Lee Hamilton is not a superdelegate. Nonetheless, there are several reasons for Barack Obama to welcome the support of the longtime Indiana congressman and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who announced his endorsement of Obama this morning.

Hamilton's support helps Obama in Indiana, where the May 6 primary looms as perhaps the most evenly matched of the remaining contests, and thus a possible media bellwether. Until now, Hillary Clinton has held an edge in establishment support in the state, thanks mostly to her backing from Evan Bayh, the senator, former governor and son of a former senator.

As importantly, the nod from the respected co-chairman of the 9/11 commission bolsters Obama's claim as a credible candidate for commander in chief, a point on which the rookie senator has been hammered by both Clinton and McCain. (In fact, Hamilton is not the first 9/11 commission member from Indiana to endorse Obama -- former congressman Tim Roemer came out for him last month.) There is the added twist of the 9/11 commission co-chairman passing over the senator from the state that suffered the worst of the attacks, though the symbolism is not as stark as it was when Tom Kean, the former New Jersey governor and Republican co-chairman of the panel, endorsed McCain instead of Rudy Giuliani, the presidential candidate most closely identified with the attacks.

Hamilton told the Associated Press that he was supporting Obama because he practices "the politics of consensus and not of partisan division."

"I think he is driven by the search for the common good," Hamilton said. "I begin by asking myself what kind of leadership the country needs at this juncture and I think, for me at least, the answer is that you want a candidate that will try to bring together a country that is very evenly divided, a country in which partisanship has been very sharp and to try to get a candidate who will create a new sense of national unity and will try to transcend the divisions within the country."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:04 PM

Obama: Gore "Will Be At The Table"


Asked on "60 Minutes" recently who he is supporting in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Al Gore said he's "tryin' to stay out of it."

But the Associated Press reports that Barack Obama wants him to be very much in it, if and when he takes the presidency.

Asked if he would consider Gore for his cabinet or a higher position to address global warming, Obama told the crowd at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania that he would.

"Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem," Obama said. "He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues but climate change is real."

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have courted Gore, the climate change activist who backed Howard Dean in 2004. The former vice president and presidential nominee has also been discussed as someone who could serve as a broker to help settle the hard-fought Democratic race.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:07 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.

"They paid attention and were riveted and reactivated, and trying to be part of an America that's bigger than just their own self-interest," Freudenthal told The Associated Press. "And you hope that can work. Because something has got to dig us out of this morass that we've gotten into, where it's sort of gotcha politics."

Freudenthal is the second Western governor and former Clinton appointee to endorse Obama in recent weeks. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former energy secretary and UN ambassador under Clinton, announced his support for Obama two weeks ago.

Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, who was the top Democrat on the Sept. 11 Commission, also endorsed Obama on Wednesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:27 PM

If Richardson sold out for thirty pieces of silver, you've got to wonder what Lee Hamilton got.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM

If Richardson is Judas, then Hillary is the Virgin Mary. I don't know what is the bottle in that paper bag that Carville is handing around, but I sure as hell ain't drinkin it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:42 PM

Actually, if Richardson is Judas, and he betrayed Hillary, Hillary's role is even less likely than Virgin Mary.



But it will all be over when Hillary releases the Clintons' taxes----I'm not necessarily talking about the 2007 taxes--which her spokesman says will happen 3 or 4 days before the PA primary. There's no way her candidacy can survive what those taxes will reveal.

And it's a lose-lose proposition for her. Either she releases them, and sinks her campaign, or she finds some flimsy excuse not to--and it will be obvious she's hiding something serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM

I hear ya Ron I just thought it would be funny calling Hillary a virgin.

I still don't want any of what Carville is drinking.

I think the whole idea is creepy that the Clintons would expect personal loyalty over a considered judgement of what is best for the party. I am glad that they are not going to be President again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:06 AM

I am not sure this is going to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:47 PM

A Canadian perspective from Price George, BC:

"...This is going to be one of those contrary days.
For openers, electing Barack Obama as the next U.S. president would be the best thing to happen in American politics since former president Dwight Eisenhower, and for a lot of the same reasons. His election could be good for Prince George as well, and I'll get to that later.
To open on Eisenhower, if he were alive today I think he'd be supporting Obama.
Eisenhower, a Republican and Allied commander during the Second World War, understood better than most the horrible cost of war. Not only in the death it caused, but in the responsibility and consequences of its aftermath.
When he left the presidency in 1961, Eisenhower offered this warning, saying: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex."
He went on to say: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Eisenhower would not be happy with the current gunslinger policy of the Bush White House.
To push the text of his warning, current American foreign policy has come unmeshed and the country's security and liberty have not prospered in the least.
Now to Obama and his take on the Bush war on Iraq.
On the invasion of Iraq, Obama said this: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaida."
Wow, did he nail that one. Moreover, he made that speech in October 2002; the invasion of Iraq came less than six months later, in March 2003.
In one short paragraph, Obama not only correctly laid out the faulty military strategy of an Iraq invasion, but the terrible geo-political consequences as well.
..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

I'm with you also, Ron...

The so-called blue collar Clinton supporterd are gonna have some reased euebrows when they find out just how filthy rich the Clintons have become... And that's just the tip of the iceburg... Where they got the dough is what is gonna sink the USS Hillary...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:53 PM

This is a long thread. Maybe we ought to start calling it a yarn!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:13 PM

SOme of is fluff, some of it stringing you along. And never the twine shall meet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM

Carter is cagy, but it looks like Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:28 PM

You're right, Jack. In fact Carter has already said as much while in the US--along the lines of how wonderful it is to see the positive campaign Obama is running and the way he has energized the young like nobody else in decades. He's in Obama's corner--it's only a matter of time before he declares.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

On the face of it, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's statement this morning on CNBC that he reserves the right to defect if Clinton loses the popular vote sounds more inside baseball than headline news. But consider these factors: Corzine endorsed Clinton more than a year ago as part of Clinton's initial sweep of superdelegates. (Yesterday was the anniversary of that announcement.) A defection by Corzine would mean the foundation is crumbling. Also, Clinton won the New Jersey primary by 11 points on Feb. 5. Jersey is in her backyard, and the fact that the governor would consider siding with the popular vote over the overwhelming opinion of his constituents won't go overlooked by other superdelegates from states she won. If Richardson is "Judas," what would that make Corzine?

Meanwhile, Obama announced $40 million in donations to his campaign in March, including more than 200,000 first-time contributors, according to the press release. The Clinton campaign was reticent on their own figures, which likely won't become public until the campaign files with the FEC down the road.
(Salon.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:24 AM

Last month we found that Obama raised 55 million in February and that Clinton raised 35 million, this month we find that of that 35, 20 could only be used for the General election because she had retapped donors who had maxed out to inflate her numbers and appear to be competitive when in fact she was not. Yet I am still seeing articles in places like MSNBC and the LA Times saying that "Obama raised 55 and Clinton raised 35.

This month Obama announces that 400K donors gave him 40 million, of those 200k were new donors. Chinton, "leaks" that she raised 20 million but will not release the official numbers until April 20th, two days before the primary. The have hit the iceberg and Hillary is telling the band to keep playing and telling the passengers there is no reason to panic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

Then there's this from Froma Harrop!


Obama and the Skeptic-Free Campaign

Big-time political writers are busy people. With all the blogging, the parties and appearances on TV, skeptical examination of widely accepted beliefs seems a waste of time. The Obama campaign has done many a time-starved commentator a great service. It has composed the story for them — that Hillary Clinton can't possibly win the Democratic nomination and is a horrible person besides.

But now and then, the liberties taken with reality reach a pitch where protest is unavoidable and the bias against Clinton becomes the center of conversation. A recent barrage of ludicrous assertions has created another of those breaking points. The writers at "Saturday Night Live" should have an easy week.

The latest collapse started some days ago on what is normally a four-star destination for good journalism, PBS's "NewsHour." The news summary started off with this: "Clinton's fellow Democrat in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, today urged her to leave the race for the good of the party."

The "fellow Democrat" also happened to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters, but whoops, they forget to mention that. For days even mainstream media were portraying Leahy, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and other members of the Obama team as "elders" thinking only of the party.

Over at The New York Times, columnist David Brooks purported to explain how "it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes." And to buttress this view, he quotes two writers for Politco.com quoting an unnamed "important Clinton adviser" who reportedly said that Clinton has no more than a 10 percent chance to win the nomination. "Now, she's probably down to a 5 percent chance," Brooks opines. And to give his instant statistic weight, he dramatically repeats it: "5 percent."

Who, pray tell, is that masked Clinton adviser? Could it be someone about to be fired? Or negotiating for a job with Obama campaign? Politico.com has real journalists, and so I'm going to assume that the adviser exists.
But how credible is an adviser who would drop that kind of stink bomb on his or her employer's prospects for success?

This comes a mere month after the Times suffered a prolonged spanking for a story that suggested a possible romantic involvement between John McCain and an attractive female lobbyist — based on the testimony of two former McCain associates who were never identified. (McCain and the lobbyist both denied the account.)

Clinton's misstatement about coming under fire in Bosnia — whether a memory lapse or a tall tale — was lamentable. But the stampede to portray her as a consummate liar, as opposed to everyone else on the campaign trail, was an extraordinary media pile-up.

No one made a big deal when Obama, eager to portray himself as an adopted Kennedy, said that his father had come to the United States thanks to Kennedy largesse. In fact, the clan had nothing to do with it. Obama also claimed to have played a big part in crafting the immigration legislation, which even his ally Dodd said was not so.

Thank goodness for the independent voices that have called attention to the ongoing gang warfare against Clinton. The Washington Post's media writer, Howard Kurtz, has listed the particulars of the obsessive "Hillary-bashing." Over at CNN, the tenacious Lou Dobbs hacks nightly at the weak assumptions underpinning the agitprop that Clinton can't possibly win.

Why do so few commentators worry about defending their Obama-centric viewpoints? Because much of the public already has been indoctrinated and believes them to be fact. The Obama campaign really knows how to plow those fields — those guys are good.

COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:57 PM

Possibly the idea that Obama will win (I think he will, btw) springs from the desire to see someone honest and real in the White House. I am tired of seeing the American people getting sucked in by sleaze and hype. Perhaps it's that simple. When senile folks like Reagan or guys like Billy--fu#k, gimme a break, what the hell kinda president gets his tweeters woofed in the Oval Office--or this present clown get elected, dontcha think it undermines the office of the president?

It may be the most powerful office in the world, but right now (after decades of tripe being in there) it's a sick joke. Maybe the USA needs someone real. Maybe Obama is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:54 PM

Clinton invites a certain amount of the bashing by (a) her own duplicity and (b) her own or her campaign's evident ruthlessness.

Obamas strives to maintain a level of honesty and dignity and intelligence not often seen in the American political theater., People sense his fundamental decency and are opting for it left and right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:14 AM

Congratulations Riginslinger,

You have found a very biased wannabe columnist on a vanity press website who agrees with some of your more dubious assertions.

But even you can't possibly believe that "the Times" printed that thing about McCain because the Obama campaign told them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:21 AM

Ms Harrop,

I have taken your advice and applied skeptical examination to your opinion piece. Your website suggests that I ask my local editor to include your columns in his paper. I will not be doing so. I am not interested in reading the opinions of people who wrap their libel as innuendo and print it as opinion. You have hinted that PBS and David Brooks are attacking Hillary because the Obama campaign has told them to do. You offer no proof, just more innuendo. You also seem to be blaming McCain's trouble with "the Times" on the Obama Campaign. Also you seem to be giving them credit for CBS's showing film to expose Mrs. Clinton's exaggerations.

Calling that series of lies a misstatement after Mrs. Clinton repeated them three times and Her campaign denied them twice, demonstrates that you have a bit of bias yourself. Did Hillary's campaign instruct you to do that? Maybe you should consider some skeptical examination of your own.

Please consider that the "onslaught" may have been because she did not address the issue honestly and forthrightly from the start and that the lack of an onslaught over the Kennedy thing may have been because Obama, admitted his mistake and corrected it as soon as it was pointed out to him.

Congratulations for getting yourself on a website that claims that you have talent.

I however, am skeptical. Jack

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM

Jack - You might want to check out Froma Harrops credentials. She certainly dosen't qualify a "vanity press," and her columns are carried all over the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:37 AM

I could not care less about her credentials. She writes with less logic and clarity than almost everyone on this forum. Have you read the article that you posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:46 AM

Froma Harrop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born March 18, 1950 (1950-03-18) (age 58)
Birth place Template:New York, NY
Education New York University

Occupation Columnist
Notable credit(s) Top 100 Syndicated Columnists

Froma Harrop (born March 18, 1950 in New York City) is an American writer who "displays an independent voice on politics, economics, and culture."[1]

She is best known for her nationally syndicated column which appears twice-weekly in more than 150 newspapers including The Seattle Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Detroit News, and Newsday.[2] Media Matters for America ranks Harrop 20th among the top 100 syndicated columnists for total reader reach and 14th based on average circulation.[3]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:10 AM

What is a columnist, anyway? Is that a print version of a 'talking head'? Another member of the punditocracy commentariat?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:14 AM

Carol - If you're making the case that the wrong people have captured the radio station, I'm with you. But Jack was under the impression that Froma Harrop was a "vanity press" creation, which she obviously is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:27 AM

The website, creators syndicate I found your copy pasted article in looked like vanity press. Apparently it was not. So I withdraw that remark and apologize for it.

On the other hand, she is lying in that article as well as making absurd, non sequitur statements. I hate to admit this, but Guest, Guest often make more sense than this woman.

I now repeat my question. I hope that you will read the article and answer it.

This is the thesis of the article.
>>Big-time political writers are busy people. With all the blogging, the parties and appearances on TV, skeptical examination of widely accepted beliefs seems a waste of time. The Obama campaign has done many a time-starved commentator a great service. It has composed the story for them<<

It is repeated and reinforced at the end of the article.
>>Why do so few commentators worry about defending their Obama-centric viewpoints? Because much of the public already has been indoctrinated and believes them to be fact. The Obama campaign really knows how to plow those fields<<

In between there is this.
>>Times suffered a prolonged spanking for a story that suggested a possible romantic involvement between John McCain and an attractive female lobbyist — based on the testimony of two former McCain associates who were never identified. <<
Do you believe what she is clearly implying? That the Obama campaign's spin is so good that they convinced the New York Times to make false accusations about John McCain?

If she is getting tripe like this printed in one hundred and fifty news papers then we are all in the wrong business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:31 AM

I was just struck by the term that was being used to describe her. Even though I've been seeing and hearing it used for a long time, it just suddenly came to me that I had no idea what it really means. I know what the word 'journalist' is supposed to mean (although most who bear that descriptor really aren't journalists, but corporate shills). A columnist is one who writes columns? What's a column? A bunch of words in some sort of print media? How do we determine who deserves to be seriously called a columnist? One whose credentials arise entirely from the number of people who read their words?

I don't know. Sometimes things just hit you in a way they never did before and in a way that you didn't ever expect them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:48 AM

For anyone who equates Columnist and Journalist, please remember that Bill O'Reilly and Robert Novak and Dave Barry are columnists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:36 AM

Full version of Obama on Hardball

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:59 AM

I think the theme of Froma Harrop's column is basically correct. The media simply is not critical of Obama in the way they have been of the other candidates.

             As far as Carol's concern about how people managed to get elevated to the ranks of the most printed columnists, I think it would be worth while to check to see who is in control of the many media outlets, and then try to determine what the political objecives of "those people" are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:14 PM

Already did that, Riginslinger. It's bleak.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

Yes Riginslinger, I know that you believe that. But neither you nor Froma Harrop can back up that feeling with facts.

Can you point to one thing in the article that proves that anyone is saying any of those things because Obama's campaign is telling them to.

I happen to think that the media has been a lot easier on McCain than on Obama. It is also clear that the Media is buying Mark Penn's narrative about the horse race lock stock and Barrel.

They are still saying that she raised 35 million to Obama's 55 million even though she is not allowed to spend 20 million of it.

They are still saying that she won Ohio and Texas even though Obama won the delecates in Texas.


I think that the main reason for the difference in the coverage is that Obama is running a better campaign and to prove that, I will use your columnists own example.
How about this?

>>Clinton's misstatement about coming under fire in Bosnia — whether a memory lapse or a tall tale — was lamentable. But the stampede to portray her as a consummate liar, as opposed to everyone else on the campaign trail, was an extraordinary media pile-up.

No one made a big deal when Obama, eager to portray himself as an adopted Kennedy, said that his father had come to the United States thanks to Kennedy largesse. In fact, the clan had nothing to do with it. Obama also claimed to have played a big part in crafting the immigration legislation, which even his ally Dodd said was not so.<<

Have you followed these stories? The Clinton story was a big deal because she repeated the lies even after they were pointed out, because she defend the statements, after Sinbad contradicted her until she was proved wrong on tape and because her story was so patently silly. That the President sent his wife, his daughter, a comedian and a female singer because it was too dangerous for him to go himself, when he had actually gone there himself months before.

The Obama story had no legs because it was a much more understandable mistake and because it was corrected right away.

>>Writes Dobbs: "Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently 'started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.'" <<

http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2008/03/obama-airlift-f.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

It is in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

And Obama wasn't alive at the time anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 02:04 PM

"Already did that, Riginslinger. It's bleak."


                                    Yes it is!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 08:37 AM

Sorry, Rig, you're all wet.

Hillary has made her own bed, and is now lying in it. The media just reflect this. You may think the sniper incident was blown out of proportion. Her problem is it is part of an ongoing pattern-in her supposedly strongest suit--experience.   In every one of her supposed areas of foreign policy experience---Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Macedonia, China and Rwanda, her claims have been exposed as a house of cards.

You have provided precisely no evidence to counter this.

And the sniper incident assumes even more importance when you realize--if you are capable of thinking this through--that it is likely to hurt her in an unexpected way with a group she desperately needs--blue collar white men--who include many veterans and others who know what sniper fire really is--and that you would know if you had experienced it.

If anything, the media--so far--have mostly let her off the hook in the most recent example of her spectacularly bad judgment---her most vulnerable area. The visit of Mark Penn, her main spokesman, to Columbia--to promote a trade agreement she supposedly strongly opposes, highlights her wretched record in judgment.

And you might also note that Mr. Penn's firm also represents John McCain--another fact the media have let slip by to a large extent.

She and her supporters have no cause to whine about the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:29 AM

Well, there is no doubt in my mind right now that Obama is definitely a mainstream candidate. We're taking some food to the volunteers at the Obama headquarters this afternoon. We called ahead to see what time to bring it, and they said wait until about 1:30 this afternoon because all but one of the volunteers are in church.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM

We've got some real weirdos in Colorado. I just received this from a media watchdog group:

Discussing Sen. Barack Obama, guest John H. McWhorter of the conservative Manhattan Institute stated on the April 1 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show, "Obama didn't grow up with two black parents like I did. Barack Obama has something to prove. Barack Obama decided 20 years ago, 'I am going to be black.' You know, if you have a white mother and an African father -- and I've tried not to say this too loud in public, but it's true -- you're not black-American culturally if that's your background. You're just some kind of mutt. I am a great admirer of the man, but that's not black."

Unbelievable...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:08 PM

Oh yes, one more thing about this, Rig.

It is actually absurd to complain about "the media"--since there is no such thing. There is a huge difference, as I've pointed out before between the WSJ and the NY Daily News, as between Olberman and Limbaugh. And they are all part of "the media".   Now, more than ever, "the media" is a totally meaningless term--especially with the ongoing splintering of opinion due to the Net.

Even "mainstream media" is close to meaningless--since there are huge differences even between the large newspapers and between the various broadcasters.

So your chosen column is nothing but a rather desperate attempt to fill up the space the columnist was allotted for that day. No surprise that you would cite it--it's right up the alley of an unthinking conspiracy theorist.

Cheap entertainment--but full of sound and fury and signifying....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:22 PM

"...there is no doubt in my mind right that Obama is a mainstream candidate. We're taking some food to the volunteers at the Obama headquarters this afternoon. We called ahead to see what time to bring it, and they said wait until about 1:30 this afternoon because all but one of the volunteers are in church."


                Wow! That is scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

Well, it might just be a cautious spin. I mean - "they haven't come back from the pub yet" might backfire. Especially if it was the truth...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 04:20 PM

Going to church on Sunday is pretty ordiary, although I have never engaged in the practice since I was old enough to squirm out of it, myself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 05:24 PM

And coming back at 1.30 would give time to drop into the pub for a drink after Mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 05:27 PM

It's a little ironic that he's only "African-American" in a literal sense, and not in the normal politically-correct sense of that expression. That means that some black Americans may not identify with him as someone who has not really had the black American experience, whereas some whites may be sufficiently racially prejudiced to vote against him (though I imagine not many of them would vote for Clinton instead if she were the Dem candidate).

It's unfortunate that what might have been a dream Dem ticket is now unthinkable because their respective camps are tearing the two of them to pieces, making McCain look statesmanlike just by virtue of the fact that he can just sit back and leave them at each other's throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

"And coming back at 1.30 would give time to drop into the pub for a drink after Mass."


                      Tis it Mass you think they've gone to then?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

Well, so far as the ones who'd drop in for a drink on the way back, very probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 09:00 PM

It seems that they went to several churches, they were trying to register voters. They were mentioned from the pulpits as people from the Obama campaign who would help people register, if they wanted that help.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 10:12 PM

Sounds like they're trying to turn him into another George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 10:22 PM

They are just going where the people are. Politicians have been going to churches since there have been politicians and churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:15 PM

It's the kind of people we're conerned about!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM

Rig:

Stit, stir, stir....yawn.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:50 PM

Rig

I have no idea what you are talking about. These are nice young men and women. They are going where the people are to help them register to vote. Its pretty simple, but If you have any further questions or concerns, I will try to answer them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:32 AM

an essay on America and religion - Neil MacDonald CBC News

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM

I think Obama has run a great campaign. What I doubt is his electability against McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 10:28 AM

"'It is actually absurd to complain about "the media"--since there is no such thing. There is a huge difference, as I've pointed out before between the WSJ and the NY Daily News, as between Olberman and Limbaugh. And they are all part of "the media".'"

                     Ron - I don't think you've begun to grapple with the problem until you consider that the sources you mention above might all be on the same side, in the greater scheme of things.

                     Amy Goodman with "Democracy Now" is probably not on their side, for instance, but she's not considered very mainstream either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 11:22 AM

Olbermann and Limbaugh are NOT on the same side.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:10 PM

Jack - I know it seems like a stretch, but you'd only have to watch one episode of the "Hannity and Colmes Show" to see how this works. Hannity is so far out in right field he's about to fall off the edge of the planet, and Colmes is just a little right of center, then they argue the issues and end up at some point in the middle. They call this "fair and balanced."

                  It's perfectly plausible for two newspapers to do the same thing. Pick two: The Washington Post and the Washington Times, they do it all the time. They don't ever come to any agreement, the the reader is given these two points of view, and neither point of view is in agreement with my own.

                  I might be way out is space: but that's the way it looks to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 02:25 PM

Views and policies that count as pretty extreme left in the USA would count as centrist or centre right in many European countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM

"Olbermann and Limbaugh are NOT on the same side."

             Maybe they don't seem to be, but they might be serving the same master.



                     McGrath - I've picked up on what you are saying whenever I give my views on illegal immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM

David Axelrod interview. He's no Mark Penn.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:15 PM

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is moving within striking distance of rival Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll, out Tuesday.

Obama is now trailing Clinton — who weeks ago had a comfortable double-digit lead — 50 to 44 percent among likely voters surveyed in Pennsylvania from April 3-6. In a previous Quinnipiac Poll released April 2, Clinton was leading Obama 50 percent to 41 percent. The margin of error was 2.7 percent, meaning the poll does not show a statistical tie.

However, one of the most notable shifts, according to the poll, is among women — Clinton's stalwart base. In the latest survey, she leads Obama among women 54 to 41, compared to 54 to 37 percent in the April 2 poll. She is also dropping among white voters, where she leads Obama 56 percent to 38 percent, compared to 59 percent to 34 percent a week ago.

Obama is for the first time in the Quinnipiac poll doing better than Clinton among men, leading Clinton 48 percent to 44 percent, compared to a 46 percent to 46 percent tie on April 2.

"With two weeks to go, Sen. Barack Obama is knocking on the door of a major political upset in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Obama is building his own constituencies, but is taking away voters in Sen. Hillary Clinton's strongest areas — whites including women, voters in the key wing Philadelphia suburbs and those who say the economy is the most important issue in the campaign," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:40 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will win several state nominating contests in the coming months but has little chance of becoming the party's candidate for the November 2008 election, traders were betting on Tuesday.

Traders in the Dublin-based Intrade prediction market gave Democratic front-runner Barack Obama an 86 percent chance of being the Democratic presidential nominee, versus a 12.8 percent for Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

Results were similar on the Iowa Electronic Markets at the University of Iowa, with traders giving Obama an 82.9 percent chance of winning, versus a 12.8 percent chance for Clinton.

Intrade traders were betting the Democratic nominee would ultimately become president. They gave the Democrat a 59.1 percent chance of winning, versus a 48.8 percent chance for the Republican. Iowa traders gave the Democrat a 57.1 percent chance of winning, versus 46.3 percent for the Republican.(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

"Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will win several state nominating contests in the coming months..."

                What this tells the discriminating voter is, the primaries that Obama was most apt to win came early, and the ones that Hillary was most apt to win came later. If they decide to count Florida and Michigan, we'll have a more honest count.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 10:00 PM

How do you reckon it will be "honest" to count votes cast in an event in which one candidate wasn't even on the ballot? Doesn't that strike you as... unintelligent?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM

Not really. I don't think it was a good idea for him to take his name of the ballot, but we've already discussed the mistakes he's made in the campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:41 PM

>>From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

"Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will win several state nominating contests in the coming months..."

                What this tells the discriminating voter is, the primaries that Obama was most apt to win came early, and the ones that Hillary was most apt to win came later. If they decide to count Florida and Michigan, we'll have a more honest count.<<

That does not follow at all. All along Obama has won more contests by larger margins. Why is this concept so easy for Irish handicappers and so difficult for a certain American voter?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM

What it tells the discriminating voter is that early or late, Obama is demonstrating more momentum than Hillary, and appears to have the stamina to continue to do so, has outpaced her in fundraising, and will carry the popular and pledged delegate counts with an unambiguous edge.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 08:06 AM

Well, if he ends up with the nomination, I guess we'll just have to get used to John McCain as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 08:51 AM

I think you are being disingenuous. McCain has shot himself in the foot so often people will walk away from him.

There are milliions of Hillary rooters who would sigh, but turm to Obama long before they'd vote for McCain. THe reverse camp is much, much smaller.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:22 AM

"There are milliions of Hillary rooters who would sigh, but turm to Obama long before they'd vote for McCain. THe reverse camp is much, much smaller."


                   I really think you're wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:26 AM

Oh, fine, Rig.   I will not rant at you for that, beyond saying that your thinking has frequently impressed me as being a little bit lopsided. Mine probably looks the same to you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:31 AM

Six months ago supporters boasted that Clinton was unbeatable (in Pennsylvania). But as a new Quinnipiac University poll shows the contest narrowed to 6 percentage points, it's looking like Pennsylvania could be Clinton's last stand.

"She's getting dangerously close to the edge to losing this," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "It is a game of horseshoes, and close for Obama is a victory for him."

Pennsylvania is the "make it or break it point for the Clinton campaign," he said.

Clinton, who once led by a 16- to 20-point margin, has watched as Obama cut her advantage to 6 points — 50 percent to 44 percent — in the Quinnipiac poll of 1,340 likely Pennsylvania Democratic voters.

Across just about every demographic — old, young, blacks, whites, women, men, rich, poor and in Democrat-rich regions such as southeastern Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, Clinton's numbers are slipping.

At the same time, Obama has played his own expectations game as he constantly reminded voters that he's the underdog during a recent campaign swing through Pennsylvania. ...

(Atlanta Journal)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:54 AM

"There are milliions of Hillary rooters who would sigh, but turm to Obama long before they'd vote for McCain. THe reverse camp is much, much smaller."

Lop sided or not it is simple common sense.

Hillary's base is the Democratic base and much of her success comes from having state and local political machines behind her. Die hard Democrats will support Obama.

Obama is appealing to the Democratic base but he is also picking up new voters, independents and Republicans. A lot of those people will not be voting for Hillary.

Obama puts a lot of red states and swing states into play that Hillary does not.

Look at the "anti-establishment" voters. McCain is much more and outsider than Hillary, Obama is more of an outsider than McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:03 PM

Well, I agree on one thing. If Hillary loses Pennsylvania it's probably over for her. That would piss off a lot of folks here in Oregon who are changing from Republican to Democrat just to vote in the primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM

They will still get to vote. I believe that Hillary will not suspend her campaign. I think she will just scale it down and use the platform to bash McCain and promote the Clinton brand until the convention. There is always Chelsea in 2020 to think about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:56 PM

I doubt if Chelsea will run, they'll still be trying to get her to bite on Monica Lewinsky.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 01:05 PM

By that time she will have had her own scandal to talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:34 AM

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, moving within range of an April 22 upset that could end the hard-fought Democratic presidential race months earlier than expected.

Less than two weeks before their next showdown, opinion polls show Obama cutting Clinton's once big lead in Pennsylvania to single digits and making gains among some voting blocs that have been her most reliable backers.

An Obama win would be a shocking twist in a Democratic race filled with them, effectively scuttling Clinton's hopes of overtaking him in the fight for the right to face Republican John McCain in November's presidential election.

"If Obama wins Pennsylvania, the race is over," said Cal Jillson, a political analyst at Southern Methodist University in Texas.

"That would be a signal to the Democratic Party to move decisively to end this nominating race now and to start looking to the general election," he said.

A loss in Pennsylvania would destroy Clinton's central argument in the race against Obama -- that she is the strongest Democratic candidate in the big states the party needs to win in the election battle with McCain.",,(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:52 PM

Colin Powell says he's considering all three candidates, praises Obama's race speech: "I'm looking at all three candidates," former secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, said during a pre-recorded interview with Diane Sawyer for today's Good Morning America. "I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet." Powell said some of the things said over the years by Rev. Jeremiah Wright are "deplorable," and he praised the way Barack Obama has handled the controversy over the senator's former pastor. "I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well," Powell said. "He didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:51 PM

"'...he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith.'"


                   Of course, it's his faith that bothers a lot of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:55 PM

Rig:

His faith is none of our business, as he shows no sign of trying to foist it onto his political channels --unlike Bush and a few other fanatics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM

I would agree that his faith would be none of our business, if he wasn't running for public office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:20 PM

It is STILL none of our business as long as he does not insert it into the commons of his public office, which he has not done.


The Constitution of the United States, good Rig, forbids any religious test for public office.

But he is required to support and defend the Constitution, as regards separtion of Church and State, likewise.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:35 PM

Okay! I won't talk about it if Sean Hannity doesn't talk about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

Mwaahahhaaa. Talk about UnAmerican, Sean Hannity would probably love to throw such constitutional provisions out the window if it forwarded his tantrum and awe campaign.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 07:35 PM

Yes, that's probably true. We can agree about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:27 PM

But where would Rig get all his information if he didn't watch Sean? He relies on him (and Rush, Ann etc.) for all his political knowledge. And without them his brilliance might be slightly dimmed. And we certainly wouldn't want that.



Separate topic:

Those of us who are in favor of Obama should watch out for the old inflated expectations scenario---as in NH and TX. In both situations Obama made up a huge amount of ground, but the curse of positive coverage, and we on Mudcat who report polls should be aware, is that if general reporting is an uptrend, any dip down is magnified. Both in NH and TX, Obama's own people tried to reduce unrealistic expectations.   But the polls predicting a continuing surge in his favor dominated coverage. And in both instances, Hillary claimed victories--which then became the "story"--but actually were not triumphs--particularly considering how far ahead she had been a few weeks prior.

Similarly, we are in danger of setting ourselves up for another Hillary "victory" in PA. A few weeks ago she was expected to take PA by 15 to 20%. Now if we cite a poll of 50 to 44% (6 percent separating them) that becomes the new benchmark, allowing her supporters, known for expert grasping at straws, to claim that if she wins by 10% that is a "famous victory". Which it isn't.

Far better to insist on a 15% difference to be a win for her. Which is in fact what she needs, since she will lose NC-- which has about 2/3 as many delegates as PA-- badly. Anything less than a 15% win in PA is a loss for her. If she comes out of the PA, NC ,IN, clump of primaries having only made up about 10 delegates, she has no chance to convince superdelegates to trend towards her.

Especially since Dean and the other DNC people are well aware of her huge negatives--and the equally great opportunity Obama presents.   Rig Blfsttsflk-- (affectionately named after the Li'l Abner character who always had a cloud over him)-- notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:42 PM

The problem is with the Press but not as you say.

Clinton did claim victory in New Hampshire, but she tied. 9 delegates to 9.
She claimed victory in Texas but she lost by 4 delegates.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 11:45 AM

"Standing together in City Hall yesterday afternoon, 11 city and
state elected officials endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The group was composed of six City Council members, three state representatives, and two state senators.
In addition, City Council President Anna C. Verna, who did not attend
the news conference, has informed Obama that he has her vote as leader of the 36th Ward in South Philadelphia.

"This decision is in her capacity as a political leader, not a
councilwoman," Verna spokesman Anthony Radwanski said. He said she
was confining her endorsement to her ward position so as not to speak
for the leaders of other wards in the Second Council District that
Verna represents.

Some of those wards back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton; others are behind Obama.

Verna did not take a formal vote in her ward, Radwanski said, "but
she knows her committee people well enough to know who they are supporting."

The intent of yesterday's endorsements was to boost the show of local
support for Obama, given that heading into Pennsylvania's April 22 primary Clinton has the backing of two high-profile officials: Gov. Rendell and Mayor Nutter.

Council members announcing their support of Obama yesterday were Curtis Jones, Bill Green, Jannie L. Blackwell, Donna Reed Miller, James F. Kenney and W. Wilson Goode Jr.

With them were State Sens. Shirley Kitchen and Vincent Hughes, and State Reps. Jewell Williams, Harold James and Tony Payton Jr."

(Philly.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:04 PM

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will push on Friday for passage of a bill to put the huge pay packages of some U.S. corporate executives under greater scrutiny.

The Illinois senator has introduced "say-on-pay" legislation that would give investors more of a voice in setting executive compensation packages.

"We've seen what happens when CEOs are paid for doing a job no matter how bad a job they're doing. We can't afford to postpone reform any longer," Obama said in prepared remarks for delivery later on Friday.

"That's why Washington needs to act immediately to pass this legislation."

Amid fears the U.S. economy may be in recession, many U.S. voters are anxious about a weakening job market, the mortgage crisis and higher gasoline prices.

At the same time, many are also expressing outrage over big pay packages given to executives of some of the companies at the center of the financial and mortgage crises, such as Bear Stearns Cos Inc and Countrywide Financial Corp."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 04:10 PM

Ron - You surprise me. I didn't think you were old enough to remember Lil' Abner.



    "The Illinois senator has introduced "say-on-pay" legislation that would give investors more of a voice in setting executive compensation packages."


                   Nobody is more frustrated with executive pay than I am, but if the US passes these kinds of measures to control the actions of corporations, what's to prevent them from pulling up stakes and operating from some place else, like Blackwated did?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 04:16 PM

They could probably use some power under your Patriot Act to get them as "economic terrorists". If they wanted to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 08:54 PM

Actually Rig, my grandpa told me about Li'l Abner when he was telling me about the Depression and other ancient times. Look Rig, if you read widely enough, you learn about all sorts of things. And there was a musical based on Li'l Abner--I love a lot of musicals. Great song from that musical about one Jubilation T. Cornpone, as I recall.

And I do think you fit the Joe Blflltstk--spelling may be off-- character to a T. How long has this cloud been following you?


Jack--

We both realize that neither NH nor TX was a triumph for Hillary--though I have to say I didn't realize they tied 9-9 in delegates in NH. Is that so?

My point is that unrealistic expectations for Obama allowed them portrayed as victories for her. And that we'd best be careful not to let the same thing happen in PA. For her to claim victory in PA, especially considering the likely shellacking awaiting her in NC, she will need to win by 15%. And we should stick to that requirement. When we mention polls showing the race already closer than 15%, we can fall into the trap of assuming the PA race will be very close. One poll may say 6% difference, but others say over 10% still. So let's stay with 15% as her required margin to claim any advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 09:40 PM

Ron - Again, you need to check your history. The musical about Jubilation T. Cornpone came out in the mid 1950's and the Joe Blisflik character--who I think I mentioned in an earlier thread--was not only a prophet of doom, but disasters followed him everywhere he went. So I don't fit the stereotype unless "Oh Bummer" gets elected.               

    And then there's Oh Bummer's latest comments about the small town folks of Pennsylvania. That ought to play well in Wilkes Barre.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:11 PM

Ah, but Rig, I think you're off base (again), much as it pains me to say it.

First, the most important issue--I suspect my spelling of Joe's name is closer than yours. I think his last name has no vowels at all.

Secondly, you are the Joe character. You endorse Hillary--and her campaign goes to hell in a handbasket.   You're the cloud that follows her. Sorry to have to say it.

We Obama supporters are also so grateful that she has Bill speaking for her--he's just pointed out, resurrecting the Bosnian sniper fire disaster, and pointing out that she can't be expected to think straight or talk sense--especially since she's so ancient (60!) and needs her sleep--11 PM is too late--(what was that drivel about being alert for the 3 AM phone?--not likely). And she's forgetful (at 60).

On top of that, their taxes establish him as the #1 lobbyist of the world. Just what the president needs--as a spouse.

Conflict of interest? Nah, not a chance.

He's our secret weapon.


I still think it's interesting that all your worst opponents seem to be black or brown-skinned.

Would you mind giving us a clear statement now that if Obama is the Democratic nominee--as is very likely-- you will support the Democratic nominee?

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 11:13 PM

I know that Ron. My point was that it doesn't matter what expectations are set. The press is bending over backward to make it look like she is doing better than she is. Making the horse race look closer makes for better ratings than telling the truth.

BTW NH was 39 Clinton, 36 Obama and nine delegates each and to hear the press Hillary won like The USA vs Granada.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 12:02 AM

Ron - As the truth comes out about your candidate, I will admit he becomes increasingly more difficult to support.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:44 AM

Specifically and exactly what truth ghave you seen that could have that effect, Rig? Or are you just being slimey ?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 07:07 AM

Rig--

You didn't answer the question. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, will you support him--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:13 AM

this from the Houston Chronicle:

    "'Obama said, "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...   
   And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"


                It's funny that he accuses them of clinging to religion when he sat in a pee-you in front of Reverend Wright for 20 years himself.

                And he says they "cling to guns?"

                They are "anti-immigrant." Of course illegal immigrants took what few jobs there were at wages way below the poverty level, and sent the money back to Mexico or Costa Rica, or...



                   These are the statements of an elitist Democrat speaking to other elitist Democrats in San Francisco, like the ones who run Moveon.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 12:18 PM

Oh, horse pucky. Those statements are general descriptions, and fairly accurate of the way a lot of people find emotional shelter in special activities.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 12:38 PM

This "elitist" crap is coming from Hillary and McCain at the same time. Are they Comparing notes of does Mark Penn work for McCain too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:29 PM

True or false what the hell is he thinking? He doesn't need rural or working class voters? Has he never heard of George W. Bush? Major screw up. Those rural voters gave us Bush and they can give us McCain. He may have nailed his own coffin with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM

"...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Many people blame others for socio-economic circumstances that they do not understand.

I don't understand why you think this is an elitist expression of the situation. Its an educated perspective. Elitism and education are not the same.

I suppose you prefer a president you could invite to a barbecue but who wouldn't be able to explain or wouldn't bother to give you a reason for anything. At least Obama attempts to understand the fear and frustration of others.

Why do you think people are anti-trade and anti-immigrant? Why do you think people cling to guns and religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:04 PM

Why does Obama cling to religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:15 PM

I don't think he has nailed anything. I think a lot of people will be delighted to hear that someone out there is trying to understand their situations. If Obama is elite about anything, it is in understanding. The oddly synchronized Greek chorus from Hillary and McCain about elitism is a complete straw man and it won't wash--it is just hollow phrase-slinging and has no bearing on anything real about the man or his promise as President.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:23 PM

I'll keep reading Amos and I shouldn't be shooting from the hip, but this strikes me as somewhat analogous to Jimmy Carter's famously imprudent "malaise" comments. Obama should have this thought through by now, since he wrote the Audacity of Hope. Rural, working class, or dispossessed sorts don't need to be told what's wrong with them, and that we'll help them up (and help them to straighten out their thought processes!) They need to be told they've survived tough times and we will work together to make things better for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 03:37 PM

I think even Obama recognizes that while he was saying something fundamentally true, he could have phrased it more artfully. However, it is, in my opinion, a ridiculous place to try and drive a wedge.

Two samples of response:

"Ed Mitchell, a Democratic consultant in Wilkes-Barre who supports Mr. Obama, said that while he did not agree with the comments, he still supported Mr. Obama because of his vision.

ÒIÕm a Pennsylvanian and an Obama supporter, but I donÕt share those sentiments,Ó Mr. Mitchell said. ÒI think heÕs right that voters are frustrated, but I donÕt think they seek refuge in anything so much as they want leadership and change. ThatÕs why I support him. I think he offers that best.Ó

Justin Taylor, 30, the mayor of Carbondale, Pa., has not declared a preference for president. But he said he was leaning toward Mr. Obama and his remarks about small-town voters would not dissuade him. ÒPeople are bitter and at the end of their rope,Ó he said. Referring to Mr. ObamaÕs comments, he said, ÒI donÕt believe it is a problem.Ó"

---

Well, if the Hillary Harpy squad decides to make it a problem, they can; it is doubtful, I think, that their Greek chorus will really sway tings very much, except in a small number of cases. The same frustrated Pennsylvanians she is exhorting to react against Barack's "elitism" are too smart, generally, to get het up on false grounds.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:03 PM

"Elite" is cognate with "elect" - it's about being the best, and chosen as such.

There are a lot of false elite people around who try to fool others that they actually are elite - but if anyone doesn't believe that they are the best person for the job they have no right running for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

It doesn't change my support for him, either, I just think it was moronic. People will drive a wedge wherever they can, but more to the point, the rural voters will vote for him or not, and at best this race will be close enough for them to make him sink or swim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:19 PM

I agree it was moronic as in what was he thinking? I like the man immensely but he has some serious blind spots and needs apparently a team to keep him from saying things like this. It is very insulting to people with strong religious beliefs...and it is not flattering to gun owners...people in these subcultures already had strong traditions and didn't necessarily make them up when good jobs were lost or try new stuff...which is not what he said but registered with me as what was implied, even though I am sure he didn't mean it like it sounded. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:23 PM

Obama about voters' frustration - seems pretty sensible stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:49 PM

Thanks for the link, McGrath. I think it was a very good rebuttal; I don't exactly who the crowd was, but he sure turned them around on the question. Very well done. The man has "it".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:10 PM

Well. . . The first question was:

(1) Why are you having trouble getting working class people (in PA) to vote for YOU.

In the clip he doesnt go near that question.

The second question, the one for today, is why did you say:
"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This time around he dropped the word "cling" (good for him.) He said they've given up on government fixing the economy so they only vote guns or religion. (That is not a sensible statement IMHO.) He doesn't go anywear near xenophobia and bigotry allegations - he just dropped that part of it.


You see, he is the next in line to be a uniter not a divider, following in the tradition of GWB. His goal is to make people vote for him so he can be our leader, incusive of rural white America. If a young Republican came and asked you for your vote so he would address your bitterness that causes you to reject trickle-down theory and focus on wrong-headed things such as illegal aliens, you would not be likely to VOTE FOR HIM. Would you, honestly? This nonpartisanship thing is a bit elusive. Tricky altogether, but he a wrong note in that speech. And he didn't unring it, I'll bet , if you ask the voters in question - i.e. the voters in question (1), above, which is whatthis is supposed to be about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:28 PM

following in the tradition of GWB

I should hope the differences between the two are so palpable as to make this proposition appear as ridiculous as it is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

sorry, a joke. it will happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:57 PM

But isn't what he said true? Or doesn't that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 08:00 PM

Yes it is true, and it does matter -- but only to those who consider truth an important end.

To those who merely want to know which button is being pushed so they can know how to jump, truth is not an index of merit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM

I don't know if it's truth. I'd call it an educated opinion.

Heric is right. If he wanted their vote, he should have stated his opinion differently but I admire him for having the guts to call a spade, a spade. I am more interested in a politician who tells it like it is rather than saying what people want to hear. His timing may be a bit off but other than that, he spoke his own truth.

Rig - I doubt if Obama clings to his religion as much as he does the congregation. I believe that church creates community and that if he clings to anything, its the friends he has made within his church. Attending church is a far cry from clinging to religion. People who cling to their religion are the people who use religion for an excuse to be unreasonable. I do not believe that religion and reason are mutually exclusive.

He should be hitting really hard on the fear factor. "I am here not to invoke fear but to help you become fearless. America has had enough of responding to fear. Lets fight fear together and become strong once again." ...or something like that.

Maybe I should be a speech writer. ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:33 PM

"I do not believe that religion and reason are mutually exclusive."

            dianavan - I guess that's where we differ. I might be why we interperate the comments differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:01 PM

Must be a troubling thought to believe you live in a world where only an extremely small proportion of your fellow human beings are reasoning creatures...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM

Rig--

You still didn't answer the question. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, will you support him--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 07:32 PM

"Must be a troubling thought to believe you live in a world where only an extremely small proportion of your fellow human beings are reasoning creatures..."


                   It is, but I'm encouraged that some day they'll get smart and catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM

What's the answer, Rig? Your question-dodging skills could earn you a place in the smoking wreckage of the Bush "administration"--even in its waning days.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:12 PM

"I'm encouraged that some day they'll get smart and catch up."

What was that you were saying about "elitism", Rig?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:18 AM

There's nothing elitist about being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:35 AM

There is if you are honestly elitist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:12 PM

Nothing elitist about "some day they'll get smart and catch up"?

You might be able to argue that it's justifiable and honest elitism - but hardly that it isn't elitist. "I can't pretend that I'm not a lot smarter than other people..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

Well, I used to be conceited, but since I gave that up, I'm perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM

I guess I'll just have to wait!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM

YEah -- good luck with that Rig.

You might want to reflect, while you wait, on those who are in turn waiting for you, and what you might do to ease their wait.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 02:30 PM

It sounds like a big freeze!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 11:20 PM

But Obama wants to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, if he gets elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

>>Obama wants to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, if he gets elected.<<

I hadn't heard that. But, on principle the "Faith Based Initiatives" were not such a bad idea. It was the politicization that was.

If the office continues under Obama, you can rest assured there with be provisions for minority rights and fair hiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

Rig:

A. WHere did you hear this?
B. What do you think the implications are?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

..Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:


"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:14 PM

"A. WHere did you hear this?"
"B. What do you think the implications are?"


             I watched the CNN Forum on Superstition and Ethics. Both Obama and Clinton participated, McCain declined. Obama made the statement during that program.

             The implications to me are unsettling. I don't like the intermingling of church and state. It also gets tangled up with Catholics only wanting to hire Catholic members to work on their programs, and Methodists only wanting to hire Methodists and so on. Frankly, I don't think there really is any fair way to distribute the funds between the denominations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:38 PM

Aha!! We now agree on TWO things!!!

I forget what the first one was, but, never mind that...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM

Well, that's a start!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 10:35 PM

Clinton losing traction over Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana

By Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:00 PM PDT, April 15, 2008
WASHINGTON -- With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

The race remains volatile, however, because many likely voters in the Democratic primaries are still undecided -- 12% in Pennsylvania, 19% in Indiana and 17% in North Carolina....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

Don't be surprised if Bruce Springsteen songs start opening and closing Barack Obama's campaign rallies.

The Boss is endorsing Obama for president, telling fans on his website, "I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest."

The legendary rocker, who has generally supported liberal Democrats and who objected to then-President Ronald Reagan using his "Born in the USA," says that Obama "speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years."

The Illinois senator, Springsteen says, is the best candidate to "lead us into the 21st century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:00 AM

U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indianapolis, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president this morning, according to a former aide to Carson's late grandmother.

Chad Chitwood, who previously worked for the late Rep. Julia Carson and now is spokesman for State Rep. David Orentlicher, confirmed the endorsement.

The Obama campaign declined to comment, but has scheduled a morning conference call with reporters today to announce what it said would be a major endorsement.

"I have heard that, on the record, from sources both in D. C and Indiana," Chitwood said.

The endorsement, the first that a current Hoosier member of the U.S. House has made in the presidential race, will be a coup for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:05 AM

AN interesting essay reflecting on Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:08 AM

A voice from Bethlehem:


"The campaign visit by former President Bill Clinton to Hotel Bethlehem stirred up memories for this baby boomer and recent retiree. It was October 1960 and a dynamic young Democratic candidate, John F. Kennedy was staying at the hotel. Upon his departure, I had my handshake and hello with him. That campaign and presidency helped shape and energize many of my generation to participate in the political process.Today, Barack Obama is inspiring a new generation of Americans and recharging the batteries of their parents and grandparents.

Obama suggests that the cynics will try to divide and marginalize us in this campaign. But, he also states, ''When we stop listening to the cynics and try to make a difference, extraordinary things can happen.'' Kennedy offered a similar message to the Irish Parliament in June 1963: ''Our world needs leaders imbued with hope, confidence and imagination.'' He further said that the problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics whose horizons are limited by the realities of the day.

Indeed, the realities of our world today are troublesome; a continuing war in Iraq, an economy that is working for a few and not all, health care that is becoming unaffordable, and a planet that is heating up. But, our history has been enriched with leaders who viewed difficult times as opportunities to do great things.

Barack Obama is poised and ready to lead our nation if we give him the honor to serve us all.




Greg Zebrowski

Bethlehem (PA)"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 12:51 PM

"As the underdog, Clinton's positive message will not work unless she is able to undermine Obama's candidacy. The Illinois senator's success has been largely built upon his claims that he is a unifier who can work above partisan politics, that he will bring change to our government and that he will bring a new style of leadership to Washington. Without bringing a strong amount of skepticism to these claims, Clinton will not be able to make significant inroads in Obama's lead and cannot persuade the superdelegates to go against the will of the American people.

Clinton needs to argue that despite what Obama has said, he has done very little to actually promote and create bipartisan solutions in Washington and that he is, in fact, probably the Senate's most liberal member. She needs to argue that his values are out of step with voters, as evidenced by his recent comments about why people are religious or seek to own guns. She also must argue that because of Obama's lack of legislative accomplishments, he is ill-equipped to achieve what he sets out to do.

By making these arguments compellingly in public appearances, through television and radio advertisements, and direct mail, Clinton can take advantage of the clear majority of American voters who have already said that they wholeheartedly disagree with the views Obama expressed last week in San Francisco.

Although voters and the media look favorably upon a positive campaign message, and Clinton is acutely conscious that too much negativity and too many personal attacks will hurt her party in November, a positive message is simply not enough to alter the race at this point. It is too late for Clinton to wait for Obama to make another mistake. She must seize the opportunity that Obama's self-acknowledged mistakes last week presented to her campaign; it is almost certainly her last chance. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 12:55 PM

Washington Post

Better Than the Bitter
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A15

Barack Obama, it turns out, has a knack for undermining his own political strengths.

He was supposed to be the post-racial candidate. But he has associated himself for decades with a tradition of black liberation that views all of American life through the prism of pigment. His response to criticism on this count has been, in essence: The bitterness of my church is historically understandable but misdirected. You know me. I'm better than that.

Obama was also supposed to be the Democrat who finally "gets" religion, after a series of Democratic presidential candidates who seemed to suffer from a theological disability. But now, in the suddenly indispensable Huffington Post, we learn of Obama's unguarded reflection on Middle American economic anxiety: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

During Sunday night's CNN "Compassion Forum," Obama tried to smooth this statement over with the observation that "Scripture talks about clinging to what's good." So, evidently, in hard economic times, people find shelter, comfort and refuge in religion -- and anti-immigrant sentiments and antipathy to people who aren't like them. All those tried and true sources of American strength and steadiness during a crisis.

This is the downside of eloquence and intellect -- a belief that anything can be explained and thus explained away -- a temptation to substitute cleverness for remorse.

It is generally a bad political idea for a candidate to psychoanalyze swing voters, who tend to view their beliefs and motivations as more "real" than the deceptions and illusions the political class believes them to be. Few would enjoy being a pinned and wriggling specimen in Professor Obama's seminar for San Francisco Democratic donors.

But the setback is more than political. One of Obama's genuine contributions had been a renewed, liberal appreciation of the role of religious motivations in politics. His 2006 speech at a Call to Renewal conference in Washington recognized that the religious impulse has uncontainable political consequences. "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

In 2006, Obama argued that religious belief was authentic, well-intentioned and essential to the common good. In San Francisco, however, he seemed to slip into a crude academic Marxism, claiming that religion is an epiphenomenon, the outgrowth of deeper social trends; that the deepest realities of politics are economic instead of moral; that God and guns, bitterness and bigotry all somehow distract Middle America from real issues of justice.

During Sunday night's forum, Obama dismissed this interpretation as inconsistent with his life story. "It is very important to understand . . . that I am a devout Christian, that I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago." In other words: You know me. I'm better than that.

Looking back over recent months, there is a common thread in Obama's response to both the Wright revelations and his "bitter" gaffe. In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama talked of "the anger and the bitterness" of Wright's oppressed generation. He referred to "a similar anger" existing within "the white community" that politicians have routinely exploited on issues such as crime and welfare. America, in this view, is beset by anxiety and fear and resentment and racial stalemate, which can be overcome by Obama's broad understanding and audacious hope.

A part of me wants to believe. Racial discrimination is the poorly healed scar of American history, and Obama's election would be a happy arrival on a national journey that began with African Americans considered only three-fifths of a person.

But Obama's political approach is wearing poorly. Obamaism seems to consist of the belief that the candidate transcends the understandable but confused anger of black and white Americans. And so Obamaism requires an unfavorable comparison of the American people to Obama himself.

This message is inherently prideful: I understand your bitterness and confusion, but I don't reflect it. You know me. I'm better than that.

The problem is: We really don't know Obama very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:38 PM

Bruce would you please post your own opinions and link to log articles.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:51 PM

Jack,

Would you please apply the same standard to others, and ask Amos to do the same?

I think the points brought up are worth thinking about.

Should you care to think, please let me know what.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

as I have stated numerous times, the Post article are NOT available a few days after being online- unless you register. It seems that not having the information available would justify the insertion of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM

Valid point about the Post
Are there comments from you on the posts? When there are, could you put them at the start and make them stand out more.

In fairness to Amos, he generally posts news articles with a single focus or summaries of opinions. You generally post opinion pieces where the writer tends to ramble. You could at least tell us which specific parts are your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:25 PM

No doubt Michael Gerson is clever, but he obviously is looking for excuses to tear Obama down. He knows as well as you and I do that Obama is not Elitist. I am sure that he has seen the Charlie Rose interview and knows what Obama meant. He is just stirring the pot of controversy so that he will have more to report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:26 PM

In fairness to ME, I present the articles as being worth thinking about.

I do not always agree, but think that the information as presented in the article is worth thinking about. The facts that are presented can be looked at, and each of us can decide what we think. When I state what my opinion is , there seem to be a vast group that decides to think the opposite without even looking at the facts- so I try to let the original text stand without MY comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:28 PM

"No doubt Michael Gerson is clever, but he obviously is looking for excuses..."

You attack the person presenting the viewpoint, NOT what he has said- See? you don't even need to read what he says to decide it must be wrong, as it (might) disagree with what you want to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Bearded Bruce

That's the problem that I have. There is no information in either article. There are no facts. There are just opinions and arguments.

Michael Gerson's opinion that

"Barack Obama, it turns out, has a knack for undermining his own political strengths."

May be worth thinking about, in your opinion, but it certainly is not a fact. Your opinion of Obama is just as valid as his. The thing is I am not interested in his opinion. I am interested in yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:43 PM

"But the setback is more than political. One of Obama's genuine contributions had been a renewed, liberal appreciation of the role of religious motivations in politics. His 2006 speech at a Call to Renewal conference in Washington recognized that the religious impulse has uncontainable political consequences. "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

In 2006, Obama argued that religious belief was authentic, well-intentioned and essential to the common good. In San Francisco, however, he seemed to slip into a crude academic Marxism, claiming that religion is an epiphenomenon, the outgrowth of deeper social trends; that the deepest realities of politics are economic instead of moral; that God and guns, bitterness and bigotry all somehow distract Middle America from real issues of justice. "

MY OPINION is that Obama is going to lose the substantial lead that he ( presently) has if he keeps trying to satisfy the extreme liberal side of the Dems- His strength was that he seemed honest enough to be worth the vote by the center ( Independents and conservative Dems) : He seems to be risking that to appeal to those that will vote for him regardless.... Unless this is his true viewpoint, and he was not expecting it to get out to the unwashed masses.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 03:27 PM

That was not what I understood him to be saying in San Francisco, and it should not be distorted that way.

He was making a simple point: people who grow accustomed to being neglected by government will grow apathetic about the important issues and will gravitate tot hose issues that are personal tot hem, where they feel they may still have some influence.

This says nothing about the provenance of religion or its importance to individuals, but rather why people will resort to using it as a political standard, feeling unable to be heard on more important issues.

That's what I thought he was saying anyway. Looks like someone saw an opportunity to distort his statement and make a paper tiger out of it again. Yawn.

If all Hillary can do is campaign against things Barack did NOT say, its going to be a real show-in. Does McCain have more sense than to try to foist this kind of intentional alteration on voters?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 03:34 PM

Amos,

Re many comments here on mudcat about "what McCain wants"

That was not what I understood him to be saying, and it should not be distorted that way.

Yet when I comment I have abuse heaped upon me.



Or do you mean that you only want YOUR understanding of what people say to be mentioned?

I think that Obama is a good candidate, and might make a good president ( in spite of the fact I disagree with his political bent) BUT it is not fair to pound on Bush ( as you have) and then complain when someone has a criticsm of Obama. HOW MANY times have YOU distorted what Bush said in order to bash him?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 04:27 PM

I have not heaped abuse on you, Bruce--I would never hardly ever do that!!

As to how many times Ihave distorted something Bush said, I can't say; I think he usually distorts his own ideas before they escape from his mouth, and even when he doesn't it is sometimes hard to see the idea clearly. But, on balance, I suppose Ihave done so a number of times.

My complaint was that this creation of paper tigers is bad poltiiciking. It's bad for the orignators, for the voting public, for the targets, and for the elective process.

But it seems to be an inevitable byproduict of ideological competuition.

I agree with you he could make a good president, and I hope he gets the chance to prove it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:14 PM

JtS,

Michael Gerson is a certified partisan Obama hater... I've been reading him for a long time and I don't take him too seriously anymore...

As for the cut and pastes, I like Amos's style over bb's... Amos tends to post less of the article or op ed but enough for one to get the main idea... Then a link...

BB, on the other hand just lets 'um fly... I dobn't know if he actaully reads them fully or not but I'd like to see more personal opinions and obervations that accompany the C 'n P's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

And Bobert is a certified partisan conservative hater... I've been reading him for a long time and I don't take him too seriously anymore...


It seems like the Obama supporters are trying to outdo what they claim Bush has done, in ignoring any dissent from the "obama-line"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:35 PM

No, not really, bb... I like conservastives just fine,,, Not too many of them around anymore.. They have all capitulated...

I view Obama as far more conservative than Bush... Bush is a radical... He has acted wrecklessly on just about every front...

We need more cautious and thoughfull policies... There hasn't been much, if any, of those qualities in the Bush administration...

I know that you can't accept Bush as a radical but he has shown to be just that...

And I know that you can't see Obama as more conservative than Bush and that is the sad part about partisanship... I don't believe, bb, that you could begin to list the tenents of the conservative movement without Googling it up...

That's why, IMO, I see you as a partisan... Partisans don't much care about core values, only that they are or aren't in the winner's circle...

This isn't meant to be mean... Or disrespectfull... Just observations of your positions over the years...

Oh sure, you love to try to turn that back onto me but it don't stick...

I don't vote parties... I vote (or not) candidates... The last Dem I voted for for presdient was Carter so you can't stick "partisan on me"... I've carried my values with with me for a long time now and believe me, if Obama screws up I'll be on him like ugly on a gorilla... I just haven't seen the screw up yet but you can take it to the bank that if I see it I won't rationalize it and defend him...

Wish you could say the same about your 7 years of defending Bush at every turn...

Yeah, bb, tell us what it is about Bush that fits the conservative mold... This oughtta be quite enlightening...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:39 PM

"believe me, if Obama screws up I'll be on him like ugly on a gorilla... I just haven't seen the screw up yet but you can take it to the bank that if I see it I won't rationalize it and defend him..."


Unfortunately, I cannot believe this of most of his supporters- If ANY criticism is met with denial, how can you ever know if he "screws up"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 09:24 PM

I'm watching his every step, bb...

Now, when are you going to answer my question about conservastism... BTW, I worked for a "conservative" poli-sci professor in college so don't try to bs me 'cause I know the in's and out's of conservatism...

I'm reaaly anxious to here where you agree with Bush as a conservative...Have at it...

B~

ps Now I goota go back to watching Obama... The debates are on...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM

Gerson was one of the major speechwriters in GWB's first term. Anything he says therefore should, it seems, be taken cum (monstrous) grano salis.

Also, he is a columnist. Sense and logic are not required for this job--but there is pressure to come up with a column periodically-and if it's absurd enough to stimulate letters to the editor, that's not considered a minus.

I have more to say on the column--later, if time permits.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:45 PM

Curses, missed the debate tonight--totally forgot it. So I could only check the analysis afterward.   Consensus seemed to be that Obama was on the defensive, especially in the first part. 4 supposedly hurtful topics for him were the subjects: Rev. Wright, William Ayers (Weather Underground figure who seems to have been involved in putting on a fundraiser when Obama was running for IL state senator (or something like that--I'm sure Rig or another helpful cynic will be along to fill in the gaps)---, flag lapel pin, and of course "bitterness".

What's interesting is that aside from "bitterness", which is a gross oversimplification of Obama's views on blue-collar people, all of these "issues" are in the past--some quite a while ago.

On the other hand, on the horizon coming up very soon--25 April-- will be a status conference hearing in the case of Paul vs Clinton.

This a supposed scheme by the Clintons to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery expected to start in May.

Complaint says that Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options, and massive contributions to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul alleges he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic party leaderss to produce, pay for, and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

So much for Hillary's being "thoroughly vetted".




And of course, undeniably, for the foreseeable future, a President Hillary Clinton would be married to the #1 lobbyist in the world.

Conflicts of interest? It's just possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:48 PM

"This is a supposed scheme...."

"leaders"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:32 AM

Yeah, it looks like Obama was like a pecan tree in a hurricane.
They blew at him until the branches touched the ground then he snapped right back up.

It was very brave of him to take a debate where Clinton poodle snuffleupagus was the "moderator".


On the other hand when asked if Obama could win. "Rocky" Clinton said "yes yes yes."
She also said "thats why I am still in the race. She seems to be admitting the inevitable at last.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:00 AM

The curious thing about these debates they have in elections is that people always seem to think that the person they favour did best.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:10 AM

Well, it sho nuff was a George 'n Charlie ambush of a debate... Like I have pointed out in another thread, the UP gathering last Monday when the Obama was called "Obama bin Laden" to the laughter of the media signaled that the media has turned on Obama...

And this morning's New York Times has declared last night's debate Obama's worst performance...

I watched the debate and thought that seeing as it was the worst moderated debate of them all that Obama hung in there and refused to allow himself to be baited...

It's sad when the media views a candidate who refuses to get nasty as weak...

BTW, Obama has been endorsed by Bruce Springstein which should give him a slight boost with the blue collar workers that Clinton/McCain/BigMedia is so intent on riling up against Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:49 AM

Barack Obama's comments on small towns have not been lost on his campaign. On the heels of picking up three superdelegates yesterday, today they announced the endorsement of superdelegate Reggie Whitten from Oklahoma. Whitten makes sure to speak positively of Obama's connection to small town voters three times in a single statement.

"I have decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama and will work wholeheartedly to see him become the next President of the United States. Some say there is no particular need to endorse at the present time. However, I believe this is a defining moment, not only for our Party, but also more importantly for our country. Therefore, I made the decision to commit now.

"While deciding to support Senator Obama, I thought of my history and my future. I'm from the small town of Seminole, Oklahoma: a city that is predominantly hard-working middle class citizens. It is important that our next President keep small towns like Seminole in mind when he talks about our economy. I am very sincere in my belief that Senator Obama will do just that. When I talk about my future, I, like most people, think of my children. The next administration will have a great deal to say about their future and the world they inherit. As a parent, I am confident Senator Obama has the courage, skill, and experience necessary to lead America forward.

"Whether it is his willingness to tell corporate America what it needs to hear instead of what it wants to hear, restoring America's standing abroad, or inspiring young Americans to commit themselves to public service, Senator Obama's message is equally refreshing and inspiring. It is no coincidence that voters, especially young voters, are turning out to vote in record numbers."...

HUffington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:12 AM

Obama gains support, now leads among elected superdelegates
For those of you keeping score, Barack Obama has now moved past Hillary Clinton in terms of announced support from elected superdelegates (governors, senators and representatives).

He picked up three more on Wednesday.

Obama still trails Clinton slightly in overall superdelegates, 257-234.

But in overall delegates he leads by 141, 1,650-1,509. This according to the authoritative NBC count.

Still, not enough for anyone's victory. Next stop: Pennsylvania come Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:49 AM

I don't think that Springsteen helps among blue collar workers. But he will erode Hillary's base of elitist liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:31 PM

Michele went on the Cobert Report the other day, and she ran circles around him.

(Not verbatim)

Colbert: "We all know you and Barack are elitists. How elitist was it, growing up on the South side of Chicago? How many silver spoons did you have in your mouth??

MO: Well, we had...four. Four spoons.

Colbert: FOUR? So that tag sticks?

MO: Well, then Daddy got a promotion at the plant and we had five spoons.

Colbert told her she was a beautiful woman and then asked if his saying that would make Obama mad enough to come on the show and punch him.

MO: Well...maybe if you sang to me, also...

Colbert: (Sings a few lines)

MO: Oh, well, Barack has a better voice than you do, anyway..."


She was terrific.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

Well, JtS, it all depends

on what songs Bruce is willing to allow Obama to use at rallies... "Born in the USA" might be a tad thred worn but it still gets blue collar folks pumped up, especially if Bruce performs it live at Obama rallies...

Hey, folks... I've been thinking that after Obama gets hillary off hos back that it would be a very good idea for him to approach Colin Powell about returning as Secretary of State, but with a new "mission"... Powell, interestingly, has not endorsed McCain and I think that Powell would shut up the folks who are saying that Obama doesn't have any foreign policy experience...

What do you all think???

(((Lunch break is over... Back to work))))

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:02 PM

If Barack could convince Colin that he woudl be returning to a kinder, gentler Administration, capable of spreading a million points of light, he might nibble on it. Don't forget that Colin got bit pretty hard in the ass by the duplicity of the Bush Admin for doing that hokey-pokey U.N. slide and pony show.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:37 PM

You've got to wonder how 2 black candidates on the same ticket would play deep in the heart of Dixie.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

Rig, I don't think SecState applicants are placed on the ticket for the national election.

And I don't think catering to bigotry is advisable or amusing. There's enough swole-headed, one-eyed penis-brained ignorance at play in the world as it is, without adding to it, don't you agree?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Powell as VP.

                And I would agree, catering to bigotry is bad form, but electability is something one cannot lose sight of.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

Posted so that you won't have to log in.


In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC
ABC News moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos seemed to be playing a game of gotcha at last night's candidates' debate.

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Washington Post.

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:45 PM

"HILADELPHIA: Hillary Clinton, already fighting with her back to the wall, got more bad news - Democrats now see her rival Barack Obama as better able to defeat Republican presumptive candidate John McCain.

A poll by ABC News/Washington Posed released yesterday shows that Democrats now believe that Obama is more likely to win in November elections by a huge margin of 62 to 31 per cent. This takes away her major argument to super delegates, who are likely to finally decide on the candidate, that she is more likely to win the election.

This new figures show dramatic support for Obama who was trailing Clinton by five percentage points in February.

The poll finds other pronounced problems for Clinton. Among all Americans, 58 percent now say she's not honest and not trustworthy, 16 points higher than in a pre campaign poll two years ago. Obama beats her head-to-head on this attribute by a 23-point margin. "

...

Economic Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:47 PM

"Senator Barack ObamaÕs debate performance last night may have been panned, but he was endorsed today by the Philadelphia Daily News. That makes it a sweep for Mr. Obama among PennsylvaniaÕs major newspapers.

ÒMost candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington,Ó the paper writes. ÒBarack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.Ó

The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed him back in February, before neighboring New Jersey voted on Super Tuesday. On Wednesday, he was endorsed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Patriot-News in Harrisburg.

But perhaps the most significant catch for Mr. Obama was the nod from the Times Tribune, which is based in Scranton Ñ the largely white, working-class, Catholic town where Mrs. ClintonÕs family has deep roots and which she has adopted as her hometown in this campaign.

With the exception of The InquirerÕs, the endorsements came after Mr. Obama made his comments about small-town voters being bitter because of their economic condition, making them cling to their guns and religion...."

NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 09:00 PM

Thanks for posting this, Jack. I wouldn't normally run across this article.

Maybe ABC was just trying to "toughen up" Obama for the fall campaign, not let him get too cocky. I do agree that they neglected a lot of important National issues that voters should be considering, in their determination to probe the personal ones.

Charley noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM

No matter who one supports, the things that were raised in the debate last night were just a nibbling around the edges of what the Republicans will come forward with in the general election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:41 AM

Here's news about another endorsement for Barack Obama:

"Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades... intends [to] formally to declare his support for Obama on his blog.

...Reich insists that the endorsement does indeed come as a surprise — to him. As we chatted in Washington, where Reich had come from Berkeley, where he teaches, to give a speech and meet with some Democrats on Capitol Hill, he explained that, despite the criticisms he's made of the Clintons ("I call it as I see it"), he had planned to refrain from offering an official backing for Obama out of respect for Hillary. "She's an old friend," Reich said, "I've known her 40 years. I was absolutely dead set against getting into the whole endorsement thing. I've struggled with it. I've not wanted to do it. Out of loyalty to her, I just felt it would be inappropriate."

So what's changed? I asked Reich.

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."...

In his disgust with Hillary's increasingly harsh tactics, Reich is hardly alone. Indeed, the feeling seems to be spreading more broadly in the party with every passing day. It's been clear for some time that Hillary's attacks on Obama were driving up her negatives. You could certainly argue this might be a price worth paying if those attacks were amping up doubts about him. But it's hard to see any logic — or even sanity — in the tactic if the result is to drive even people who once regarded Hillary dearly into Obama's arms". — John Heilemann

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:43 PM

Obama keeps rolling as Clinton running out of time
Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:57pm EDT   
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After a tough six-week stretch of campaign gaffes, roaring controversies and heightened scrutiny, Barack Obama's presidential bid appears as strong as ever -- and rival Hillary Clinton is running out of time to change the script.

Obama has expanded his lead on Clinton in many national polls and gained ground on her in the next battleground of Pennsylvania ahead of Tuesday's vote, despite furors over his remarks on small-town residents and inflammatory comments by his former pastor.

Clinton's image appeared to take a heavier hit after wrongly claiming she faced sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. A Washington Post poll this week found more Americans have an unfavorable impression of her than at any time since she entered the national limelight in 1992.

"It hasn't been a bed of roses for Obama. He's had some problems. But she is the one whose negatives are going up," said Phil Noble, head of the South Carolina New Democrats group and an Obama supporter.

Obama has a nearly unassailable lead on the New York senator in delegates to the August nominating convention and in popular votes won in the first three months of the primary battle.

Clinton hopes a big Pennsylvania win ignites a strong run through the final nine contests, fundamentally reordering the race and giving her fresh evidence to argue she is the strongest candidate to face Republican John McCain in November's presidential election.

But polls show Obama has whittled her once substantial double-digit lead in Pennsylvania to single digits. A Zogby poll on Friday put her lead at 4 points, a Rasmussen poll showed it at 3 points and a Los Angeles Times poll earlier this week had it at 5 points.
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 03:48 PM

In spite of all the flap
Obama is closing the gap

I check this poll every day.

All week Hillary has been 6.0 ahead. Not it is 5.6.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:51 PM

Spaekin' of "nibbling around the edge", Rigs, just wait until you see what Obama has fir McWar after he sheds McClinton...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:55 PM

Well, it looks like Clinton will be out after Pennsylvania, so I think the fireworks are about to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:13 PM

RCP is a great site, Jack, thanks.

Here are major poll shifts in the last four months. I think they tell the tale:

oll        Date        Sample        Obama        Clinton        Spread
RCP Average        04/07 - 04/17        -        49.2        40.3        Obama +8.9
Newsweek        04/16 - 04/17        588 RV        54        35        Obama +19.0
Gallup Tracking        04/15 - 04/17        1231 V        47        44        Obama +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking        04/14 - 04/17        900 LV        46        41        Obama +5.0
ABC/Wash Post        04/10 - 04/13        643 A        51        41        Obama +10.0
Reuters/Zogby        04/10 - 04/13        532 LV        51        38        Obama +13.0
AP-Ipsos        04/07 - 04/09        489 LV        46        43        Obama +3.0
CBS News/NY Times        03/28 - 04/02        510 LV        46        43        Obama +3.0
Hotline/FD        03/28 - 03/31        342 LV        50        38        Obama +12.0
NBC/WSJ        03/24 - 03/25        RV        45        45        Tie
Pew Research        03/19 - 03/22        618 RV        49        39        Obama +10.0
FOX News        03/18 - 03/19        388 RV        38        40        Clinton +2.0
CBS News        03/15 - 03/18        LV        46        43        Obama +3.0
CNN        03/14 - 03/16        463 RV        52        45        Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup        03/14 - 03/16        530 A        49        42        Obama +7.0
Reuters/Zogby        03/13 - 03/14        525 LV        47        44        Obama +3.0
NBC/WSJ        03/07 - 03/10        RV        43        47        Clinton +4.0
Newsweek        03/05 - 03/06        573 RV        45        44        Obama +1.0
ABC/Wash Post        02/28 - 03/02        629 A        50        43        Obama +7.0
Rasmussen        02/28 - 03/02        900 LV        44        45        Clinton +1.0
LA Times/Bloomberg        02/21 - 02/25        LV        48        42        Obama +6.0
AP-Ipsos        02/22 - 02/24        473 RV        46        43        Obama +3.0
USA Today/Gallup        02/21 - 02/24        1009 A        51        39        Obama +12.0
CBS News/NY Times        02/20 - 02/24        427 LV        54        38        Obama +16.0
Pew Research        02/20 - 02/24        633 RV        49        40        Obama +9.0
Rasmussen        02/19 - 02/22        900 LV        44        43        Obama +1.0
FOX News        02/19 - 02/20        391 LV        44        44        Tie
Hotline/FD        02/14 - 02/17        361 LV        43        45        Clinton +2.0
Reuters/Zogby        02/13 - 02/16        494 LV        52        38        Obama +14.0
Rasmussen        02/12 - 02/15        900 LV        47        43        Obama +4.0
AP-Ipsos        02/07 - 02/10        520 A        41        46        Clinton +5.0
USA Today/Gallup        02/08 - 02/09        525 A        47        44        Obama +3.0
Rasmussen        02/05 - 02/08        900 LV        42        48        Clinton +6.0
Newsweek        02/06 - 02/07        602 RV        42        41        Obama +1.0
Time        02/01 - 02/04        439 LV        42        48        Clinton +6.0
CNN        02/01 - 02/03        500 RV        49        46        Obama +3.0
Cook/RT Strategies        01/31 - 02/02        376 RV        43        37        Obama +6.0
Pew Research        01/30 - 02/02        596 RV        38        46        Clinton +8.0
USA Today/Gallup        01/30 - 02/02        985 LV        44        45        Clinton +1.0
CBS News/NY Times        01/30 - 02/02        491 LV        41        41        Tie
ABC/Wash Post        01/30 - 02/01        LV        43        47        Clinton +4.0
Rasmussen        01/29 - 02/01        900 LV        37        45        Clinton +8.0
FOX News        01/30 - 01/31        377 LV        37        47        Clinton +10.0
NBC/WSJ        01/20 - 01/22        Adults        32        47        Clinton +15.0
LA Times/Bloomberg        01/18 - 01/22        532 LV        33        42        Clinton +9.0
Rasmussen        01/16 - 01/19        900 LV        34        38        Clinton +4.0
AP-Ipsos        01/15 - 01/17        453 RV        33        40        Clinton +7.0
CNN        01/14 - 01/17        448 RV        33        42        Clinton +9.0
USA Today/Gallup        01/11 - 01/13        1021 LV        33        45        Clinton +12.0
Reuters/Zogby        01/11 - 01/13        459 LV        38        39        Clinton +1.0
Pew Research        01/09 - 01/13        621 RV        31        46        Clinton +15.0
Hotline/FD        01/10 - 01/12        380 LV        35        38        Clinton +3.0
CBS News/NY Times        01/09 - 01/12        508 LV        27        42        Clinton +15.0
ABC/Wash Post        01/09 - 01/12        423 LV        37        42        Clinton +5.0
CNN        01/09 - 01/10        443 RV        36        49        Clinton +13.0
USA Today/Gallup        01/04 - 01/06        499 A        33        33        Tie1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:28 PM

Amos if you can see a tale in that jumble you have proved yourself to be superior to me in yet another area of endeavour!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:46 PM

Baracky!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:35 PM

Sam Nunn Endorsement!!

Woo Hoo!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:05 PM

Just scan the right hand column from the bottom up, Jack. It shows the sad fate of the MV Hillary Clinton, whose deck chairs, in the end, did not even serve as life preservers.



And in other news: (NYT)

"Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. ObamaÕs Òguns or religionÓ comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters Ñ in part to offset Mrs. ClintonÕs baggage in this area. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted March 28-April 2 with 1,196 registered voters nationwide, 60 percent of them believe Mrs. Clinton shared the values that most Americans tried to live by, and 34 percent did not. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain fared better, with Mr. Obama performing best Ñ 70 percent said he shared those values, and 21 percent said he did not."


That quote from Eleanor Roosevelt at the end of "Baracky" is a genuine lightning bolt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:41 PM

I'd still, as I did earlier in the thread, like to counsel against euphoria. The predictions for PA are all over the map. I've seen one that put Hillary 14% ahead. The recent "debate" did not help Obama.

Hillary still has to take PA by 15% or above-- and it's unlikely. We should require that sort of margin for her to claim any kind of "victory". If we start citing 6%, 4% etc., then if she does better than that, we'll hear--yet again--about a "miraculous" recovery. We don't need that.

If she doesn't narrow the gap by a lot more than 10 delegates after the PA, NC, IN, group of primaries, it will be obvious--above all to her own fundraisers--that she has no chance. So she will fold--and give a wonderfully magnanimous speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 03:08 AM

The Nation --"As Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor, he was the liberal conscience of the Clinton administration. A friend of the Clintons for decades, the academic and author worked closely with Hillary Clinton before and during the 1992, while she was First Lady and after she left the White House to become the U.S. Senator from New York.
Few Americans know the Clintons better.
Few Americans know Hillary Clinton better.

Here is what Reich says about the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in a new blog titled: "Obama for President."

'The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 10:17 AM

In the end, it will be business as usual once McCain takes office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 11:15 AM

Rig:

Being humorous again? That sort of smug tone is the clue...it comes from having your tongue in your cheek, so people will THINK you have your head up your ass when you really don't...right?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

Funny thing. Rig claims to be against John McCain. But the only way to keep him out of the presidency will be to support Obama, the Democratic nominee.

So, Rig, once again--

Will you support the Democratic nominee--who will be Obama-- in the fall?    Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:30 PM

"April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama is gaining support from Democratic establishment figures after a week of repeated attacks from his Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.

Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, two of the most prominent members of the party's conservative wing, endorsed Obama yesterday. Robert Reich, labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton and a longtime friend of the couple, also threw his support behind the Illinois senator, saying he was ``appalled'' by ``mean-spirited'' attacks.

Obama's remarks earlier this month that some Americans in communities hit by job losses had ``gotten bitter and cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them'' ignited criticism from Clinton's campaign, which called him ``elitist.'' Even after those attacks, Obama, 46, won the backing of several superdelegates, the lawmakers and party officials who vote at the national convention.

Local party officials who moved this week to Obama are ``like the canary in the coal mine for the Clinton campaign,'' said Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist unaligned with either campaign. ``What they're saying reflects what a lot of people are thinking but not yet saying.''

Reggie Whitten, an attorney and superdelegate from Oklahoma, announced his support for Obama on April 17. He said he ``could have waited a while'' to endorse the Illinois senator, yet it wasn't ``fair'' for Clinton to focus on ``that one comment out of context.''

`Tired of Negativity'

``The American people are tired of the negativity, I think they're tired of fighting among the party and I think its time for the party to unite,'' Whitten said. ``I hope that my coming out will be one tiny little thing that will push in that direction.''

Nancy Larson, a DNC member from rural Minnesota, said Clinton's ``bothersome'' response contributed to her April 13 endorsement of Obama.

Today, the Obama campaign said that Steve Achelpohl, the Nebraska Democratic Party chairman, was backing Obama. Achelpohl told the Lincoln Journal Star that people could rally behind Obama's ``positive campaign.''

The seven superdelegates who endorsed Obama this week also include three members of Congress and one city council member from the District of Columbia."

(Bloomberg.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:32 PM

If Hillary is eliminated, we're back to the same age old choice again, the lesser of two evils, McCain or Obama. It's sad, given there were a number of good Democratic choices we had to start out with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 05:04 PM

Ah, Rig,

If Hillary is eliminated, the best man will win the nomination. What's to mourn in that?

If she is not, and she wins the nomination, she will demonstrate she's as good at dirty fighting as anyone in the Rove century, and will probably become President.

At least Bill will be back in the house.

Could do a lot worse, in any case.


As demonstrated by the last eight years of chaos and greed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 05:17 PM

Well Amos, I would certainly agree that I couldn't think of anything worse than the last 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM

PARIS -- The more things change, say the French, the more they remain the same. But France of 2008 is no longer the distant 1950s France of my youth. I admit nostalgia.

In those days, most French refused to speak English, a process they found undignified and painful. Today, the new globalized generation loves English. France is becoming bilingual. Even France's entry into the Eurosong competition is -- mon dieu! -- in English.

Paris taxi drivers, who once sought to install plates in their rear seats to electrocute passengers, have become shockingly polite. Retailers and waiters actually seem pleased to see you. The French have discovered a new happy pill.

Wine and bread consumption, once staples of French life, are way down. French are drinking less but better wines. Oppressed French can't smoke in bars and restaurants any more. Youth live on junk food. The wonderful old smoky, black and white France of my youth, with her riots, Edith Piaf and Yves Montand, army plots, silly Left Bank intellectuals, and weird little Panhard and Simca cars has vanished.

Europeans are fascinated by the U.S. presidential race. During two weeks of TV and radio broadcasting, the No. 1 question I was asked is who will win the U.S. primaries and November vote.

LANDSLIDE

If all non-Americans had a vote -- I've always favoured a one-tenth vote for non-Americans -- then Barack Obama would win in a landslide. Like North Americans, most Europeans really don't know much about the experience-light senator, but what they see, they like beaucoup. You can feel a passion here for Obama that is quite remarkable.

He is, of course, the non-Bush. But so is Hillary Clinton, yet she inspires surprisingly little support even though hubby Bill, for reasons that elude me, was widely admired abroad. Hillary is regarded simply as an avatar of the Clinton political machine which, however formidable, is seen as empty of substance, and dedicated only to power and money.

The three Americans most respected internationally are Obama, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. They are seen as representing America's best qualities. They are also a potent antidote to the rednecks, holy rollers, and totalitarian neocon ideologues who hijacked the Republican Party -- my life-long party -- and blackened America's name around the globe.

Obama is widely seen abroad as the candidate who can end the shameful Bush era and return America to a moderate, productive role in world affairs. He is expected to end the Iraq war and Bush's militarized foreign policy, and reintegrate the United States into the company of law-abiding, environmentally conscious nations, of which the European Union is now the leader.

Obama comes across to Europeans as dignified, decent, eloquent, and truthful -- qualities notably lacking in Bush and Dick Cheney who often represent some of America's cruder instincts and synthetic patriotism. Much of the world would hail and admire America for electing a man of colour, but even more so, one who appears to capture so much of what is great and admirable about the United States.

There are fears here the bitter Clinton-Obama contest may ruin both candidates, leading to four more years of Bush under John McCain.

TOUGHEN UP

But it may also benefit Obama. He needs to toughen up before facing the ferocious Republican attack machine that sunk war veteran John Kerry's campaign under a torrent of "swiftboat" lies. McCain is a gentleman, but not so Carl Rove's character assassins in waiting.

Obama could sharply improve America's highly negative image as a determined enemy of the Muslim world. Not because his father was Muslim, but because of his image of fairness and sensible foreign policy proposals calling for open dialogue instead of confrontation.

If Americans want to lower the terrorism threat against their nation, electing Obama is a good way to start....

(Edmonton Sun)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 10:42 PM

Rig--

Exactly why do you refuse to answer the question?--since you supposedly want to keep McCain out.

Will you support Obama in the fall if he is the Democratic nominee--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 12:20 AM

1700

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:09 AM

Very mature Amos.

Tee Hee!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

"Will you support Obama in the fall if he is the Democratic nominee--yes or no?"


                  Ron - This is a hard question to answer. First we had the Jeremia Wright thing, then we had Obama announcing that he intended to keep the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open. We just went through 8 years of a president having god telling him what to do through one mouthpiece or another. I just think it's time for change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 08:05 PM

"FOX's objective in this presidential race has been painfully clear to us for a while. They have been carpet bombing Barack Obama with negative stories, distortions, and smears in the run up to tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary in an attempt to skew the outcome. But how could FOX have guessed that the "liberal" media would be such willing accomplices?

We bring to you our latest episode of the gameshow sensation sweeping the nation: THE FOX IS WRONG: OBAMA!

Watch the video:

http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/20423909/36370?utm_source=rgemail

While the FOXification of the mainstream media is a serious matter, we've used humor here to get our message across more effectively. Play along as FOX guests and personalities distort and misrepresent the statements of Obama and those around him, only to have that pesky "liberal" media pick up the smears and keep on running! For the finale, watch in wonder and amazement as ABC's George Stephanopoulos allows Sean Hannity to spoon-feed him a question on Hannity's radio show, then parrots it almost word-for-word a day later during ABC's infamous Democratic debate in Pennsylvania!

If you haven't yet, sign the petition and demand that the media stop spreading the FOX virus. Then send the petition and the video far and wide to all your friends and colleagues. We need to get our message across faster than the media can spread FOX's lies.

Sign the petition: http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/20423909/32376?utm_source=rgemail

For an added bonus, check out our last video to see what nine minutes of FOX on Obama looks like (don't worry, the video is just 54 seconds). There you can get a small taste of FOX's strategy to saturate their viewers with as many negative Obama stories as a cable line can carry - FOX spews more Obama smears in nine minutes than most networks deliver all day! And remember, this is just a summary of NINE MINUTES on FOX - there are 1,440 minutes every day...

Nine minutes of FOX on Obama:

http://foxattacks.com/blog/35789-fox-news-more-smears-in-9-minutes-than-most-media-deliver-all-day?utm_source=rgemail"

(Brave New Films)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 08:16 PM

Thomas Explains Switch From Clinton to Obama
Harry Thomas Jr. told the D.C. Wire yesterday that he decided to throw his "superdelegate" support behind Barack Obama last week to honor the "will of his constituents."

Thomas, the council member for Ward 5, had gotten the pot boiling in the District when, after winning a superdelegate seat to the Democratic Convention by just two votes, he announced he was not sure whom he would be supporting, Obama or Clinton. Thomas had declared himself a Clinton supporter early on.

Being an unpledged superdelegate of course put Thomas in the spotlight and he was flooded with calls and emails from District residents, where Obama had soundly defeated Clinton in the District primary.

Thomas also got some primetime with the candidates themselves. He said he spoke with Obama

the week before the Philadelphia debate and with Clinton on the morning of the debate. That's when he told her of his decision.

"She was understanding about it," Thomas told the Wire. His family, he said, had been longtime Clinton supporters. "My father and mother were delegates for Clinton when he first ran, and our family supported her when she ran for senate. There's a lot of history there."

But Thomas said he told the former first lady that he could not go against the will of his constituents. He went public with his decision at a debate watch party.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 10:18 PM

Well, Rig--it sounds like we may be approaching a meeting of the minds. If you've noticed, change is exactly what we Obama supporters are advocating. And with Hillary you will in fact not get change--especially with the #1 lobbyist in the world, Bill, sharing Hillary's bed in the White House. Where do you think the $109 million the Clintons have made since 2000 came from--Bill's great speeches? The US will be on sale to the highest bidder--with the slickest salesman in the country offering the deals.

By the way, news on the guilt by association front. I know you Hillary supporters like to flog Obama for alleged connections to Farrakhan. I'm afraid you'll have to strike Farrakhan off your list of sins Obama has committed--unless you're also willing to accept that one of Hillary's strongest supporter in PA, Gov Rendell, has praised Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam to the skies---You Tube footage of a rally in 1997.

Perhaps somebody can link to this footage.

That's the problem with your guilt-by-association approach--it's a 2 way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 10:42 PM

Ron - I have never said anything about Louis Farrakhan. If I had had to walk in his shoes, I would probably look at things much in the same way he sees them.

                        As a logger in Oregon, I walked in calked boots with 16 inch tops and had my ass mashed by falling trees. I look at the world from a very different point of view than that of Louis Farrakan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:35 PM

Rig--

You say you've never attacked Obama on the basis of connection with Farrakhan. Whatever you say, (though I could have sworn I've seen posts from you do just that). At any rate, we'll hold you to it, you can bet.

And just why do you think Hillary would bring change, when she's not only given to brilliant observations like "lobbyists are people too", but is also, as I've noted, married to the world's #1 lobbyist?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 10:33 AM

Ron - You might have seen posts connecting Obama to Farrakhan, but they weren't my posts.

                Frankly, I think the most important thing is to get superstition out of government. Obama said he wants to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open. I think that's the worst thing any president can do. But in his case, we would probably end up shipping millions and millions of tax payer's dollars off to wiered-out buffoons like Reverend Wright.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

Thanks for the link, Amos. I have written and signed a statement.

I don't watch FOX NEWS so those excerpts from their various 'news casts' are shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 03:46 PM

The Philly Enquirer endorses Obama:

"Editorial: In Support of Barack Obama
Inspiring vision

The Democratic presidential primary Tuesday presents Pennsylvania voters with a choice that is more about style than substance.
On the issues, there's scant difference between Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. The biggest difference comes down to their styles of leadership.

Obama wants to bring about change by inspiring people to accept his vision of social justice. Clinton bills herself as the more competent leader, who knows how to effect change incrementally, due largely to her extensive government experience.

The Inquirer Editorial Board endorsed Obama before New Jersey's primary Feb. 5. Since then, the race has focused less on the subtle distinctions in the candidates' policy proposals and more on personal attacks. Before Pennsylvanians head to the polls, it's time to restate our support for BARACK OBAMA.

The 46-year-old Obama offers the better chance of rising above the partisan rancor in Washington to achieve bipartisan goals. After eight years of George W. Bush's my-way-or-the-highway rule, Obama could become the uniter that Bush never was. His campaign has attracted people of all backgrounds and political persuasions.

Throughout his career as a community organizer and state legislator and senator, Obama has pursued justice for working-class people. The recent charge that he's an elitist doesn't wash, in light of his background and his life's work.

Opponents argue that Obama isn't ready to be president. Compared with Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama has the least amount of Washington experience. But that is likely one reason he's winning over so many voters. People crave change.

And Obama has demonstrated the resilience to bounce back from challenges in this long campaign. His speech in Philadelphia on race relations quelled the immediate political furor over his former pastor's anti-white rhetoric.

But Obama's address did more than serve his own political needs. It called on blacks and whites to consider each other's legitimate motives, and to move beyond conflicting perspectives. Turning a tempest into an opportunity for national reflection and action is a sign of leadership.
...
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 10:15 PM

It's interesting that the people who changed registration from Repuplican to Democrat voted in larger numbers for Obama. Is that what Rush was telling them to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 01:08 AM

He wasn't telling them to change to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 02:35 AM

Hillary won all of the places that Bush won the last time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 06:35 AM

Will the Democrats Commit Political Suicide? (mind: the German journalist never liked Obama and was wrong in most of his predictions about the primaries)

How Iran Sees the US Primaries (article from TIME)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 08:41 PM

Wolfgang, I realized you point this out, but I have to restate that the article you posted "Will the Democrats Commit Political Suicide?" was exceptionally poorly written.

The main premise seems to me that Obama can't win because independent and undecided voters didn't vote for him in Pennsylvania. Of course we know that that would have been a hard bar to cross because they were not allowed to vote in Pennsylvania.

I think that Obama does have something to celebrate because, in spite of the pounding he took, he still closed by ten points in the polls.

Gabor Steingart also doesn't seem to be taking the opponents into account.
Hillary's social policies are about at the same level as Obama's and both will do a lot more to stimulate the economy with less debt than McCains plan of continued expensive policing of Iraq combine with tax cuts for the wealthy.

George W. Bush, had no landslide, he squeaked a victory, 300,000 votes in Ohio was the margin. and now 70% of the country is against the war and 82 percent say the country is on the wrong track.

Hillary has not expressed caution about the war, she has gone promise for promise with Obama.

It is idiotic to say that Obama is the party favorite. He won favor by winning but Hillary is the penultimate Democratic party insider next to her husband.

Gabor Steingart is twisting and torturing the facts to fit his preconceptions. It is refreshing to see that so many US journalists are not alone in this trait.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 09:04 PM

I just wrote a note with similar points to Spiegel Online.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

"I think that Obama does have something to celebrate because, in spite of the pounding he took, he still closed by ten points in the polls."


                      He out spent her 2:1 in Pennsylvania, and 5:1 in Wisconsin. Has anybody looked into who the management of Moveon.org is really working for?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 10:29 PM

I don't think that they have looked into the mosquito population of Guam either.

Obama is spending donations to him. Moveon does its own thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:22 AM

And Moveon's thing is rounding up donations to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 03:31 PM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon Rep. David Wu, one of Oregon's 12 Democratic superdelegates, announced Thursday that he'd back Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, citing Obama's stand against the Iraq war "from the very beginning."
Wu joins Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer in backing Obama. Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Rep. Darlene Hooley are supporting New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The rest of Oregon's superdelegates have not yet announced their choice.

"We need new policies both at home and abroad," Wu said in a statement. "Like Americans, the international community wants to see real change in America and I believe that Senator Obama embodies that change."

The endorsement is an important win for Obama in one of the few states still to vote. Oregon's primary ballots are counted on May 20.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:45 PM

>>And Moveon's thing is rounding up donations to him.<<

I get at least 2 emails a day from them. I've never once been asked by them for money for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

This is the lead it to the Moveon.org web-site.

    "Vote on Obama ads. More than 1100 funny, inspiring, and amazingly creative ads were submitted for the Obama in 30 Seconds contest. Now, you can help choose which one gets aired on national television."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:24 PM

Winning in November: Colorado
by Christopher HassThursday, April 24, 2008 at 02:01 PM
One of the advantages of this long primary process (fourteen months and counting) has been the opportunity it's provided for us to campaign and organize in all fifty states. In cities and towns across America we've seen record voter registration and participation, with many people finding their way to the political process for the first time. The end result: a radically altered electoral map that gives us the opportunity to compete across the country in November, in swing states and "red states" as well as "blue states."

Once case in point: Colorado.

In 2004, George W. Bush won the state of Colorado by less than 100,000 votes. Last winter, our grassroots supporters in the state spent months organizing, helped out at the end by field staff, multiple offices, and Barack himself. On February 5th Barack won the Colorado caucuses by a overwhelming margin, defeating Hillary Clinton 67% to 32%.

Two and a half months later, a recent Rassmussen poll shows that against Hillary Clinton, John McCain would easily carry the state right now, leading 50% to 36%. But in a head to head match-up, Barack leads McCain 46% to 43%, flipping the state and its nine electoral votes.

It's a pattern that we've seen repeat itself in states like Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin and more.

And our grassroots networks that are still at work, still organizing and still contributing, helping lay the groundwork for the general election against John McCain in November.

Visit CO.BarackObama.com to find active grassroots groups and ongoing event in Colorado.

(From an individual Blog)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:48 PM

I think that McCain will have to spend money here and in Georgia to keep from losing them. The regular Democrats, plus a higher percentage of Blacks plus the new voters and organization Barrack has engender will make a difference.

Ad that to the fiscal and Evangelical conservatives staying home....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

"The torrent of speculation about the end game of the Democratic nomination contest is creating a false sense of suspense - and wasting a lot of time of the multitudes who are anxious to know how this contest is going to turn out.

Notwithstanding the plentiful commentary to the effect that the Pennsylvania primary must have shaken superdelegates planning to support Barack Obama, causing them to rethink their position, key Democrats on Capitol Hill are unbudged.

"I don't think anyone's shaken," a leading House Democrat told me. The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed - and by their very nature are unlikely to. ..."


(Huffington)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:55 PM

Total delegate count to date, inckluding Pennsylvania:

1,724 Barack Obama
        
1,589 Hillary Clinton

Needed to win: 2,025

Pennyslvania primary: 83 delegates for Clinton; 73 delegates for Obama.

Not exactly an earthshattering result.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

Yes, McGrath with 158 delegates the worst possible final outcome would be 85-73. If Obama wins NC By 10 and he will get most of the delegates back and 3/4 the popular vote, if he wins by 15 he'll get it all back.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:09 PM

Hopefully, the NC Republicans with their Wright Ad Scam will be able to keep that from happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:20 PM

Rig:

You say "hopefully" as though you think Republicans thwarting Obama's nomination would be a good thing for the country.

Is that what you actually believe?

Enquiring minds want to know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:46 PM

Well, that's not what I really think, but I'm still holding out for Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:00 PM

I appreciate that, Rig, and I respect it.

But I have to tell you that when you say things like that, it really makes the hair on the back of my head stand up, and I wonder what kind of third-degree maroon I am dealing with. I am sure you do this for a laugh, but I would appreciate it if you would shift over to representing yoru real beliefs a little more rigorously so I don't get shocked by your sense of, um, humor!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:08 PM

I didn't actually do it for a laugh. I simply want to see Hillary get the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:08 PM

There is a difference between Mrs. Clinton earning the nomination and having her destroy Obama, and the democratic party with the help of Republican dirty tricks.

As I have said before I'm tired of died in the wool republican commentators cheering her on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:16 PM

Well, I sympathize, but I do not believe your wish is going to be fulfilled this year. Perhaps in 8 years, when she is John McCain's age?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:21 PM

April 25, 2008
Major Clinton fundraiser switches to Obama
Posted: 05:00 PM ET

Clinton lost a big fundraiser to Obama.

(CNN) Ñ A ÒHillraiserÓ Ð a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton Ð said Friday he had defected to Barack ObamaÕs campaign. The official announcement will be made next week.

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon Ð who served as ambassador to Chile during the Clinton administration Ð had raised close to half a million dollars for ClintonÕs campaign, reports Chuck Todd, who broke the story.

"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragon told the Washington Post. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over, the quicker the better."

He added that leaving the Clinton campaign for Obama's "was a very, very difficult decision for me to make. I am an old and longtime friend of Senator Clinton. And I continue to think she is a fantastic and formidable person. But I am first of all a Democrat." (CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:24 PM

How come is Chuck Todd being quoted by the best political team on television?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:35 PM

"Perhaps in 8 years, when she is John McCain's age?"


                  Do you really think somebody that age should be president?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:00 PM

Obama's television ads are starting to air here in Montana now. They are very positive, talking about his ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 09:40 PM

Rig--


As usual, you don't seem to have been paying attention. If you hope to get "superstition" (i.e. religion) out of public life, Hillary is not your girl. She has talked quite a bit of how important faith is in her life. She's not even likely to remove the chaplain from Congressional sessions, much less anything more significant.

She believes in separation of church and state; so, emphatically, does Obama.

If desire to keep church and state separate is your stated basis for preferring her over him, you are either ignorant of the facts, or being devious--refusing to say your real reason for opposing him.

It's still fascinating how your main opponents seem to have either brown skin ( the alleged terrible danger of the Mexican invasion) or black skin.

And you still have not given a clear statement, which should follow based on your alleged opposition to McCain, that when--not if--Obama is picked as the Democratic nominee, you will support him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 10:39 PM

"It's still fascinating how your main opponents seem to have either brown skin ( the alleged terrible danger of the Mexican invasion) or black skin."

                      Well, Ron, if you take into consideration the reality that the Latinos and people with African heritage in America seem to have become bitter enemies, I guess if you sided with one, you'd automatically be against the other.

                      So which side are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 10:59 PM

Rig--

Your question-dodging skills are truly legendary. When Obama is picked as Democratic nominee, will you support him or not?

Your posting is, not to put too fine a point on it, total drivel--especially since you, from all indications, are against both Latinos and blacks. So your question is meaningless--unsurprisingly.

So will you support Obama or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 01:22 AM

Has the story of her tight link to The Family been rebutted? If not, she may not believe as firmly in separation of Church and State as she asserts. Anyone really know the truth of the matter?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 11:16 AM

"the story of her tight link to The Family"; apparently I've totally missed whatever that is about. Reference?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 11:26 AM

One reference re Hillary and the "Family" cult, from Mother Jones.



Another, from "The Nation" which references the Mother Jones piece.

Excerpt:

"There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.


You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposŽ The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells"--their term--and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family's home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners--alone."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM

An excellent rebuttal on the Wright flap.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:50 PM

Here's the same interview with Father Michael Pfleger on YouTube. Very eloquent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:37 PM

Father Pfleger: good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Serenity
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM

The story about Clinton and the so-called Fellowship is a weak one at best. To claim she is part of a secret elitist ruler religious cult for participating in the National Prayer Breakfast with the rest of the Congress, is a bit of stretch.

From Chronicle of Higher Ed:

April 4, 2008
Questions About Hillary Clinton's Religious Ties Put College's Archives in the Spotlight

A series of recent news reports examining Hillary Clinton's connections to a secretive religious group are drawing attention to the archives of a small Christian college in Illinois.

The Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College keeps in its archives more than 50 years worth of records from the Fellowship, a Christian organization that has played a role in Washington politics since the 1940s. While best known for organizing the National Prayer Breakfast, the group also has played a significant behind-the-scenes role in national and international politics, advising and bringing together many members of Congress and world leaders, most with decidedly conservative leanings.

Outside interest in the Fellowship—also known as "the Family"—has surged over the past year as Mother Jones, The Nation, The Atlantic, and, most recently, NBC News have published or aired pieces examining Hillary Clinton's ties with the group.

Jeff Sharlet, a former Chronicle of Higher Education reporter and an associate research scholar at the NYU Center for Religion and Media, infiltrated the Fellowship for a March 2003 Harper's Magazine article and is the author of a soon-to-be-released book on the group, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (HarperCollins, 2008). In an interview this week, he said Mrs. Clinton is not formally considered a member of the group, but she has attended its prayer meetings since 1993 and has turned to its leader, Douglas Coe, for spiritual advice. "Her connections are strong enough that, through the Family, powerful conservative activists were able to go through back channels to her," Mr. Sharlet said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:28 AM

>>The story about Clinton and the so-called Fellowship is a weak one at best. <<


>>"Her connections are strong enough that, through the Family, powerful conservative activists were able to go through back channels to her," Mr. Sharlet said.<<

Enough said?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 12:04 PM

If anyone with the spite of Fox gets this story out on national channels with enough bzazz behind it, it would outshine the Wright flap by an order of magnitude.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 12:45 PM

There are a host of questions I'd like Hillary to have to answer. My current favorite is why she is taking money from a firm now under sexual harassment charges by over 100 women. And it's not Walmart---much smaller than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

What I want to ask her is why she has not openly considered Chongo as her running mate. He can pull in the entire primate vote. That would probably doom Obama's chances for good and all. Primates are sitting on the fence now, wondering which way to go, because Chongo has not given his official endorsement to either Hillary or Obama. He's making them both sweat it out and wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:20 PM

Obama and Grandma

Worth watching.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:49 PM

Can't Change America...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:51 PM

Life Long Republican ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8Sx1AEoGI

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:54 PM

Are ya ready?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:58 PM

Being proud of what's yours...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:02 PM

Rep. Lois Capps
2 hours, 29 minutes ago (APril 30 2008)



"Today, I am announcing my endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

This wasn't an easy decision for me. Democrats were blessed this year with many talented and capable candidates, and I believe both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama would make fine presidents. But Sen. Obama's proven judgment, his hopeful vision for America, and his unmatched ability to motivate millions of Americans eager for change made the choice for me.

I have enormous respect for Sen. Clinton. She is smart, dedicated and a champion of those often underserved and forgotten. She has a remarkable record of achievement that inspires us all. And her election would fulfill a life long dream for so many of us who have been fighting for women's rights. She would make a great president.

But for me, Barack Obama is the best choice.

There are a number of reasons I could cite. He has promoted smart policies to address our nation's greatest challenges. He was right on Iraq when so many were wrong. He speaks with an eloquence that most public officials can only dream of and is inspiring millions of Americans to reconnect with politics or connect for the first time. And he can win in November.

These are all true and good reasons, but I also believe Barack Obama is the better choice because of something larger and perhaps more important. Simply put, he has made a call to the better angels of our nature. He is challenging us to lift ourselves out of the ugliness that increasingly consumes Washington, where the heat of your argument counts for more than the light it should bring. He is asking us to stand together as Americans and transcend the traditional lines that have so often divided us by party affiliation, economic status, gender, or race. He is calling on us to rethink our approach to problem solving in the face of the enormous challenges facing our country, like Iraq, economic recession, global warming, record energy prices, and 47 million Americans without health insurance, to name just a few. I believe in his effort to put our country on a new path and want to help him make that happen.
..."


(Yahoo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:05 PM

"It may be that America will look back at this election and conclude that we owe a great debt to Rev. Wright. However painful the rebirth and perfection of a new 21st-century America may seem now, ultimately he may be the unheralded, indeed unpopular, "hero" who enabled us to reembark on a new journey of recovery for social justice, initiated earlier by Dr. King, the greatest moral leader in our country in the 20th century.

The millions of white people who have voted for Senator Obama in the democratic primaries may be telling us something that we are unable to "hear" and understand. They just might be saying, in spite of all of the negative media and a political pundits, the time has come when they want to finally cross over the bridge to a new 21st century based on a color/race-irrelevant and multiracial society. ..."

Clarence B. Jones is a former lawyer and draft speechwriter for Martin Luther King, Jr and author of What Would Martin Say?, published by Harper Collins. Currently he is a Scholar in Residence/Visiting Professor at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research & Education Institute at Stanford University.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:20 AM

May 01, 2008 7:19 AM

Joe Andrew was appointed to chair the Democratic National Committee in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

The youngest DNC chair ever endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential bid last year, saying, "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to compete and win across this country. I have seen up close her intellect, character, and fortitude, and I am convinced she is the best prepared to handle these challenging times. Her 35-year record fighting for America's families is as impressive as she is, and demonstrates why she will be a great President of the United States."

"Joe was a strong leader who put the Democratic Party on the right path,Ó Clinton said. "I'm honored to have his support."

Not so fast, senator.

Today Andrew, former chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, will announce he's switching to Sen. Barack Obama's camp, the AP reports.

In an Indianapolis press conference he will so in order to urge his "fellow superdelegates across the nation to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Barack Obama," as he writes in a letter he's sending to superdelegates."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 09:51 AM

April 30, 2008
Categories: Democrats

Limbaugh calls for restart to 'Operation Chaos'


A day after he called for a pause in his "Operation Chaos" plan to keep the Democratic primary going, Rush Limbaugh today opened up his show by urging his conservative listeners to keep up the hijinks.

"You are to go out and sustain the primary season by virtue of voting for Hillary Clinton," Limbaugh said.

On Tuesday, assessing Jeremiah Wright's appearance at the National Press Club and a new AP poll showing Hillary Clinton's strength against McCain, Limbaugh considered a change of course.

"My gut reaction here, after hearing Obama, was to issue orders changing directives, i.e., vote Obama in remaining primaries," Limbaugh said.

But, he continued, it would depend on how the "Drive-Bys" responded to Obama's response to Wright.

Today he said "the operational pause is now lifted."

To explain why he played a montage of clips from reporters and pundits praising Obama's press conference, in which different individuals used the words "courage" and "anguish."

"Operation Chaos is back at full speed," he reaffirmed.

If Clinton clips Obama in Indiana by under one-thousand votes and the race goes on, this may actually matter.

---

What a country, eh? One of the loudest mouths in the mindless-leaders community runs a campaign dedicated to distorting the American political process by getting people to lie in their voting, and the Republicans block the Fair Pay act, and the nation watches TV.

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 01:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama has a 7-point edge over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential race for Democrats in North Carolina, though she has closed in on his lead, a new survey finds.

Obama has 49 percent, compared with Clinton's 42 percent in the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. poll.

Obama has the support of 87 percent of black voters, while Clinton leads among whites with 62 percent. He also has the backing of younger voters; he leads Clinton 63-26 among voters under age 35. The two candidates almost split voters over 50.

By party registration, Obama led 48 percent to 43 percent among Democrats and 55-38 among independent or unaffiliated voters. Fifty-five percent said they were looking most for a candidate who "represents change and a new approach," while 36 percent said they wanted someone who "has the right experience."

The poll was conducted April 28-29 for WRAL-TV in Raleigh and WBTV in Charlotte. It included interviews with 400 likely Democratic primary voters, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

(AP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Washington Post

Obama's Misplay

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, May 1, 2008; Page A19

"That is just terrible, absolutely dreadful," a prominent supporter of Barack Obama said Monday morning after listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's screed at the National Press Club. He proposed to me that the presidential candidate at long last must denounce his former pastor, unequivocally and immediately. It took 28 hours after a tepid early reaction Monday, but Obama finally did it Tuesday afternoon.

Did that solve Obama's pastor problem? Leading Democrats certainly hope so, but they are not sure. His vulnerability transcends relations with a radical preacher. If Obama comes to be seen not as a presidential candidate who happens to be black but as a black candidate in the mold of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, he will face a difficult struggle in the general election against John McCain even if he bests Hillary Clinton.

The problem goes back to the reaction Obama and his strategist David Axelrod crafted about two months ago, when videos of Wright's racist sermons first circulated. Insisting that Wright's incendiary remarks had been taken out of context, Obama took the high road in delivering a widely praised speech on race March 18 in Philadelphia. The issue surfaced again, however, at the widely criticized April 16 Democratic debate, leading Obama to rule out further debates with Clinton. The Obama campaign thought the pastor problem had been put to bed until Wright went on his little road tour.

Obama's danger is being perceived by white voters as representing a hostile, separate culture. My friend Armstrong Williams, the African American conservative, told me, "It is not unusual to hear in many black churches the same language that Reverend Wright is being criticized for." I raised this with NPR reporter and Fox commentator Juan Williams (no relation to Armstrong). "Not at all," replied Williams, who also is African American. "It's ridiculous. I never have heard that in church."

Wright's demagoguery is so unusual in Juan Williams's view that it was necessary for Obama to separate himself from it two months ago. Instead of orating about race in America, Williams says, Obama should have repented as a "sinner" partaking of lies from the pulpit. It was a post-partisan, post-racial opportunity lost by the candidate.

Although the Obama camp feared the worst when Wright went on the road last weekend, the preacher was restrained during his first two stops. Bill Moyers (an ordained Baptist minister) was polite on his PBS program, and Wright reciprocated. He raised his level addressing an NAACP fundraiser in Detroit, but that performance was sufficiently restrained to win commendations even from Clinton supporters. Not until the question-and-answer period at the National Press Club did Wright go wild, playing to a raucous black audience.

Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC immediately after the press club spectacle, was visibly unhappy as she disavowed any responsibility for Wright. Soon after, while campaigning in Wilmington, N.C., Obama hardly seemed exercised about Wright, saying merely, "He does not speak for me." Advisers then urged the candidate to react more firmly.

He did so the next day, in Winston-Salem, N.C., calling Wright's performance "divisive and destructive." But Wright's anti-American slanders at the press club were only a repetition of sermons that had not aroused such a disavowal. The difference was that with every word Monday heard over national cable television, Obama no longer could slough off the preacher's words as having been taken out of context.

Over the past two years, Obama on occasion has appeared with Wright and praised him as a valued counselor and dear friend of the family. The title of his best-selling book "The Audacity of Hope" is from a Wright sermon. But Obama on Tuesday summarily dismissed the man who used to be his spiritual mentor as a "pastor," just as Wright had dismissed him as a "politician."

Nobody knows whether Obama's performance has damaged his candidacy permanently, but his supporters hope the issue is out of the news. The difficulty is that Jeremiah Wright, thrown under the bus by his former parishioner, can reemerge any time he wishes and renew discussion of the Democratic presidential front-runner's real identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:29 PM

Washington Post:

A Pastor's Influence

By David S. Broder
Thursday, May 1, 2008; Page A19

In his achingly slow steps toward repudiating the repugnant words of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama has run the risk of serious political damage by leaving vague what it was that attracted him to this outspoken critic of American society.

In the rational part of Wright's appearance Monday at the National Press Club, before he got to the self-justification and the denunciations of our government and the nation's values, Wright offered clues to the answer to that question. They came in the form of his succinct interpretation of the historic goals of the black church.

These can be boiled down, he said, to three words: liberation, transformation and reconciliation.

To Wright, liberation means more than opposing oppression in all its forms. It also encompasses freeing oneself from any feelings of inferiority or superiority and recognizing that "being different does not mean one is deficient."

Transformation, in his terms, is all-encompassing: "Changed lives, changed minds, changed laws, changed social orders and changed hearts in a changed world."

Reconciliation, he concluded, "means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us."

Anyone who has heard Obama's speeches in this campaign will recognize these three concepts as the roots of the senator's thinking and the guiding principles of his life.

Liberation explains the young Obama's decision to take his first job as a community organizer, helping poverty-stricken people on the South Side of Chicago, and similar efforts that have marked his work in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate.

Transformation is a fancy way of describing the need for radical change, not just in policies but in the fundamental premises of politics, as Obama has been advocating since the start of his campaign. As he says, until Washington is thoroughly changed, the challenges of the economy, health care and even foreign policy will not be met.

And reconciliation, as translated by Obama, means not only an appeal to move beyond partisanship in policy debates but explains his friendships with people such as Tom Coburn, the staunchly conservative senator from Oklahoma who is passionately antiabortion and strongly supporting John McCain.

From their very different religious backgrounds, Hillary Clinton and McCain share some, but not all, of these philosophical perspectives. But neither, so far as we know, has had a pastor who is nearly as controversial as Wright.

Once the question-and-answer period began at the press club, it became clear that -- for all the academic tone of his formal speech -- Wright was seething with resentments that overwhelmed any possibility of reconciliation.

The first question asked what Wright meant when he said, in a post-Sept. 11 sermon, that "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"Have you heard the whole sermon?" Wright shot back. "Have you heard the whole sermon?"

The moderator said she heard most of it.

"No, no. The whole sermon. That's -- yes or no? No, you haven't heard the whole sermon? That nullifies that question." It went steadily downhill from there, with Wright repeating or embellishing a litany of his most offensive statements, while insisting that the counterattacks on him were not a repudiation of himself but an assault on the black church.

The resulting furor confronted Obama with an issue he badly wanted to avoid as he struggles to defeat Clinton in Tuesday's Indiana primary, the latest test of his ability to win working-class and white votes.

So he came forward in successive news conferences, each one more sharply condemning his former minister and repudiating his words. In the final attempt, he called them "divisive and destructive" and signaled a complete break with Wright.

But he insisted that the preacher most Americans met through TV clips this past month was not the same man who brought him into Christianity 20 years ago. Voters who do not find that persuasive are not likely to accept Obama's current words as anything more than political positioning.

We do not know how destructive this association will be to Obama's chances. But as much as Obama may have found inspiration for his political views in Wright's sermons, the damage from their friendship has now been far greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 03:48 PM

There's a lot of noise-to-signal stuff on the Wright business, and I see no need to post it by the yard.

Essentially, Wright's ultimate misconduct cost him his friendship with Obama, for good and sufficient reason, and Obama stood up tot he issue and showed his mettle in doing what had to be done.

He tried, honorably, to distance himself from Wright's views without discounting the man, who has his own virtues. But when Wright forced the issue, Barack stood up and pushed back with integrity.

So, as far as I am concerned, he has demonstrated he has the spine to deal with issues honorably and decisively.

End of story.

That won't satisfy the wind-machines, of course, but...well, why listen to the wind?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 04:00 PM

Amos,

I intend to give Obama the same level of fairness and evenhanded quotes as YOU have demonstrated to be acceptable by your own post on the Bush administration. Sorry if you find that to be annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:37 PM

Don't worry, Reverend Wright will find some way to get his face back in front of the television cameras. He'll say anything he has to; truth means nothing to him. He is, after all, a preacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 May 08 - 07:29 PM

Riginslinger-

Why not take this a little further and suggest that Rev. Wright be crucified or lynched?

Hell, why not ALL preachers?

Well, just in case you can't figure that out, because that would be wrong.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 08 - 07:41 PM

Karma being what it is, Riginslinger will probably be a preacher in his next lifetime, railing against the "godless" in society and calling down Divine wrath upon all atheists... ;-)

Boy, I can just hear it now. LOL! He will make Reverend Wright sound wimpy in comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:27 PM

Well, Bruce, I am sure you feel I deserve that.

So far, however, I think you will find that Obama does not merit the kind of bashing I gave bush. He has not engaged in massive public deception, nor promulgated violence, nor lied about inequitable policies, nor publicly mispronounced words. He has demonstrated a higher moral fiber than Bush has.

So wait until he actually DOES something before you start tarring him with my Bush brush, for goodness sake!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:31 PM

Bush does not merit the kind of bashing you gave bush.


But YOU have set the standard of proof- so be careful what you complain about when Obama is criticized...

He gets full responsibility for his worker's missteps, and his own moral choices. The articles I have posted are nowhere near as biased as the ones YOU put up against Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:37 PM

OK, Big Guy, go ahead and drool.

You know that it is my opinion Bush deserved every shelacking he got, should have been impeached, and was two-faced and underhanded in the extreme. Surely, knowing the kind-hearted soul I am, the overflowing vessel of bonhomie and human compassion, you do not think I would have gone to all that trouble if I didn't feel it was deserved!??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:15 PM

"the overflowing vessel of bonhomie and human compassion"--Amos, I stand in awe. That's just wonderful--and so much better than my "the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein". And mine's not even original.

And "bonhomie" is a word just not seen often enough.

My hat's off to you, friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:57 PM

I am glad to see that Bruce is not wasting his time deciding to vote on the merits and is going straight to revenge against Amos. His candor is quite refreshing.

I am not however, pleased to see the traitor, Novak, quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:53 PM

Jqack,

Again, YOU ATTACK the person instead of the message- the mark of a peron LOSING the arguement.

I observed that Amos has set the tone that is acceptable in "Popular View of..." threads, and has no right to complain when it is HIS ox being gored. He has taken exception to any critical remarks I have made about Obama, yet seemed perfectly happy to make ( IMO, far more unjust) claims about Bush based of just as partisen sources.

Amos seems to understand my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:13 PM

May I also compliment you on that phraseology, Amos...it was the damned funniest thing I have read here in quite some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:19 PM

I will admit it might be in the top 5 posts of all time...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:30 PM

I do understand your abstract point. But anyone can see, Bruce, that whilst YOUR ox was cross-eyed, sway-backed, bloodshot, ravenous, brutish, and hydrophobic, and ate chickens and babies, MY ox is obviously well formed, seven-gaited, glossy-coated, perfectly conformed, gracious of manner, speaks English and eats recycled dandelions while meditating.

I think these are important differences, surely you can see that!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:31 PM

Depends on whose ox you are!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:00 PM

I understand your point perfectly. It is that your problem is not with Obama but with what Amos has said about George W. Bush. If you take that as an attack that is your problem. But from my point of view it is not an argument, just a summation of your posts previous to my last one.

By the way, it is complete folly trying to paint Obama with the same brush as Bush and McCain. He has his problems but he is not at all similar to those two.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:15 PM

My PROBLEM is that I do not agree that it is ok to have different standards ( of proof, reporting, and judgement) based on whether one agrees with someone or hates them.

I do not claim to be perfect in this, but there seems to me to be a view that anything goes in criticising one's opponants, and NOTHING is permitted that might be critical of the ones that are supported.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 06:09 PM

Bruce,

If your arguments are like those presented in the last few posts then you are opening yourself up your positions to criticism. You don't like "McWar", fine you have said so. But countering with "O'bama" is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt. If you have a valid criticism of Obama, it is your right to bring it forward. But that criticism will most likely be answered. After all Amos did start this thread to praise Obama. Also countering a practice you claim to dislike with what you admit to be more of the same does not put you in the best light.

You might also keep in mind that you are one of the very few here that read the opinions of the traitor Novak. Those who choose not to read his opinions have their own good reasons to avoid reading his columns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:26 PM

". After all Amos did start this thread to praise Obama. "

And I started "BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan!" to point out that Obama and the Bush CIA were in agreement. so???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:46 PM

At first Bush called Obama Naive for even suggesting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:45 PM

"ll this actually tells us something about the Democratic candidates, which has nothing to do with fuel prices. Obama believes voters want a sensible, less-divisive political dialogue, that the whole process can become more honorable if the right candidate leads the way. Hillary really doesnÕt buy that. She has principles, but she doesnÕt believe in principled stands. She thinks that if she can get elected, she can do great things. And to get there, sheÕs prepared to do whatever. That certainly includes endorsing any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas. (See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.)

On Tuesday, root for the Democrat whose vision of the political process comes closest to matching your own. And I do not want you to be swayed by the fact that Hillary and Barack are finally having a policy debate, and itÕs about the dumbest idea in the campaign."

(NYT)

---

I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to hear others praise him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:47 PM

"...The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black DemocratsÕ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesnÕt necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways."

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:35 PM

>>I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to hear others praise him.<<

Shouldn't that be "I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to SHARE others praising him."

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:04 PM

The Empire Strikes Barack

Good for a grin.

Yes, Jack, I stand corrected.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:48 PM

Senator Barack Obama appeared to win the Democratic caucuses in Guam on Saturday, defeating Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by seven votes.

When hand-counting finished shortly before 9 a.m. Sunday, delegates pledged to Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had received 2,264 votes, compared with Mrs. ClintonÕs slate, which had received 2,257, according to The Associated Press.

Turnout at the caucuses was about three times greater than it had been in previous years

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:20 AM

So if Obama takes NC and Indiana the "3 Strikes" rule will cone into play and Hillary will have to quit and shut down the noise machine...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:41 AM

She's making noises about possibly not going all the way to the convention. But more to the point is that as long as he at comes close to breaking even in NC and does not lose in IN by a lot, the relentless math grinds on.

And there are signs the superdelegates do not want to lose the chance to harness the energy of the new voters, the independents and liberal Republicans, and a higher black turnout. Which they know they will not get with Hillary as the nominee. Whereas her strongest voters will come out for him, both because his campaign has been far more positive than hers, and especially to keep a Republican from naming any more Supreme Court justices.

Even if he winds up at the end of the primaries with just one more delegate than she has, he will be the nominee. The DNC knows the consequences if they do not do this.

And MI and FL will be exactly split--they will have a voice, but still be punished for disobeying the DNC--a gamble they knew they were taking at the time they did it.

If her campaign had not been so negative, his supporters might well have been willing to vote for her. But Team Clinton, as I've mentioned many times, has poisoned the well she intended to drink from in the fall. Now the only way for her to try to climb back to the former good reputation enjoyed by Bill and her is to campaign--hard--for Obama, once he is officially named as the nominee.   And she will.

But regardless of this, he will not pick her as VP--a position she wouldn't take anyway. He needs a person with strong military and foreign policy credentials, not somebody who would guarantee that no Republicans and few independents would vote for the Democratic ticket. Webb, in my opinion, is a great choice--and might even help bring VA along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:16 AM

Straw in the wind. In LA the Democrats have just won a seat where the Republican argument was that the agenda of Obama and Pelosi was too radical for LA.   Obama obviously did not hurt the ticket in LA--that is, in the Deep South---and may have helped.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:59 AM

Yes - Webb is the man to seal the deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Obama was on Meet the Press

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:33 AM

I like Webb, also...

He is a former Repub and was an up-'n-comer in the Reagan administration so he can jolly those moderal Republicans along...

Bill Richardson is my first choice, however because he has so much foriegn policy experience and there is a big difference between foriegn policy experience and military experience...

Obama needs to articulate those differences alot better to overcome McCain's strength, not that getting shot down and being a POW gives McCain this great military background... If I am not mistaken, I think he was a below average Midshipman and the Nvavl Academy so I'm not too sure what part of his militart experience qualifies him to be president???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Hillary now is emphasizing popular vote as the right metric to use in picking the nominee.

1) Yet another example of her changing the rules after the game is in full swing. It started out all about delegates--and that's the way it will, and should, end.

2) If popular vote was one of the main criteria, Obama's team would have spent more energy running up the popular vote in Chicago and other big cities.

3) It sure is a bit suspicious that in certain precincts in Harlem (NYC, of course), zero, that, is ZERO votes were cast for Obama. Somewhat unlikely, to say the least,--and Bloomberg was supposed to look into this. Never heard any results of this investigation--did anybody?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:23 AM

Washington Post...

Wright And Ridiculous

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, May 5, 2008; Page A17

Of all the strange features of this presidential race, the tarnishing of Barack Obama has got to be the most ridiculous. First Obama was accused of anti-religious elitism. Then he was accused of identifying with the underclass anger of his spiritual mentor. Excuse me, but which is it? Am I supposed to believe that Obama is a supercilious elitist or a menacing ghetto radical? Is he contemptuous of religion or too close to a religious leader? Obama's critics don't bother to say. Meanwhile, real character issues go relatively unheeded.

Start with Obama's turbulent preacher. Yes, Jeremiah Wright says some disgraceful things. But can anyone explain how that changes Obama's qualities as a candidate? Is anyone suggesting that an Obama administration would view AIDS as a government plot to kill African Americans? Or that it would govern from the perspective that the United States is a terrorist nation? Obviously an Obama administration would do no such thing. Which makes the storm over the preacher an absurd digression.

The Wright affair tells us that Obama bonded with someone whose political views are sometimes toxic. But as a young man trying to make sense of his mixed heritage, Obama looked to Wright for spiritual guidance, not political tutorials; as a community organizer, Obama focused on Wright's admirable social work, not his resentment of the white establishment. Indeed, Obama's own views on race and politics were diametrically opposed to those of his pastor. This is the candidate who campaigned for as long as possible as though race were irrelevant -- as though the tantalizing prospect that the United States might elect its first black president were merely incidental. A few months ago, there were those who suggested that Obama was not black enough. Now he is too black? This is preposterous.

If Obama clearly does not share Wright's views, of what precisely is he guilty? Of befriending someone with repugnant opinions? Anyone who condemns Obama on that basis should examine his own circumstances. Real human beings present one another with complex social choices: The dependable work buddy may be unfaithful to his wife; the salt-of-the-earth neighbor may despise Hispanic immigrants. How many Obama critics have themselves been friendly with someone with misguided views? What about Bill Clinton, who counted the one-time segregationist William Fulbright among his mentors?

George W. Bush has taught us that "you are with us or you are against us" is not a good basis for a foreign policy, and the same is true of much human endeavor. It would be impossible for people to join a political party if they had to agree with everything it stood for. It would be impossible for liberal Catholics to worship if they had to storm out of the church the moment they disagreed with something uttered from the pulpit. As a matter of political tactics, Obama should have avoided tying himself to Wright. But, rather refreshingly, Obama is not one of those politicians who obsessed about his presidential viability from the moment he entered college.

Which brings us to that other attack on Obama: that his comment about blue-collar voters "clinging" to guns and religion makes him an elitist. The remark may have been untactful, as Obama himself said. But what did it tell us about Obama's fitness to be president? Would he use his power to discriminate against churchgoers? His own churchgoing suggests not. Would he control guns? One hopes so. And is he really an elitist snob? After Harvard Law School, Obama could have pursued a career that involved contact only with hypereducated brainiacs like him. But by working as a community organizer and in state politics, he chose a life that put him among ordinary folk. The elitist label is ridiculous.

The real character issue, in this campaign as in others, comes down to one thing: Does a candidate have the guts to espouse positions that are not politically expedient? Here there are serious questions about Obama, who pledges to pull out of Iraq no matter what, and who promises both to increase spending and not to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year, ensuring the perpetuation of crippling federal deficits. For that matter, there are serious questions about Hillary Clinton, who proposes an irresponsible gas-tax holiday, and about John McCain, who couples gas pandering with a flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts, which he once (correctly) viewed as unaffordable. But these genuine character issues have been shunted aside by the spectacle of Obama's falling-out with his preacher.

The Obama-Wright "revelations" are really a revelation about our political culture: About its failure to distinguish the important from the trivial and about the inevitability that the race card will eventually be played against a black candidate. If the once formidable Obama campaign is knocked off course by these "revelations" in tomorrow's primaries, it will be a travesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:04 PM

Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright Story
By Glenn Beck
CNN


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it's just the timing of it that is so odd.

A New York Times editorial described the recent developments like this:

"In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he [Wright] embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

Shocking? Every one of these opinions of Wright has been part of the public record for months. It's no more shocking than Angelina Jolie coming out in favor of adoption.

Even in the schizophrenic world of politics, it's unclear how to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to make sense of all of this. The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

When the tapes surfaced Obama informed us that much of the controversy had been caused not by Wright's views, but by our lack of understanding about the differences in culture. "Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear."

It wasn't Wright's overbearing volume, hilarious comedy, hand movements, or dance quality that made me think he was a dangerous peddler of conspiracy theories. It was his words that did that. I don't want someone like him with access to the president for twenty minutes, let alone twenty years.

Those who were outraged by Wright's divisive and destructive comments that preyed on hate have been called racists by many. But, when Obama said he was "outraged" by the "divisive and destructive" comments that gave "comfort to those who prey on hate," he's called brave.

For anyone believing this is about race for Wright's critics, think of disgraced professor Ward Churchill. He was fired for research misconduct from University of Colorado at Boulder and made famous for saying many of the same things as Wright.

If any presidential candidate from either side -- white or black -- had been using Churchill as a "sounding board" for the last twenty years, we would rightly dismiss them.

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:39 PM

Public Policy Polling released its final poll today on the Democratic nomination race in North Carolina and it's got Barack Obama 10 points ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 53%-43%.

The firm has been reliable in some primary contests this year but blew Pennsylvania bigtime last month. It had Obama winning by 3 percentage points (he lost by 9).

PPP is based in Raleigh and polls on a number of races in North Carolina. Its press release and full questionnaire on the presidential primary are here. And here is a blogpost in which communications director Tom Jensen explains how the firm arrived at its turnout projections, in particular by black voters.

As Mark noted earlier, several polls today show a tighter race in North Carolina. And as we note several times everyday, polls are snapshots. They don't forecast what will happen when voters go to the polls.

Update at 1:20 p.m. ET. A new national number:

Gallup just reported on its latest national tracking poll, which now shows Obama leading Clinton 50%-45% among Democratic voters. Yesterday, Obama was ahead 49%-45%. Given the poll's 3-percentage-point margin of error, Gallup is noting that the two are basically tied -- and have been for 12 days in a row. (Reminder: They're essentially tied because the margin of error applies to both numbers. So, Obama's support could be as low as 47% and Clinton's could be as high as 48%.)

(USAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Bruce:

Obama has made several very clear and understandable statements about the difference between Wright's distorted soundbites as promulgated by Fox, and his performance at the Press Club where he "doubled down" on his worst assertions.

For somebody to intentionally refuse to appreciate the facts as they are told from the horse's mouth is evidence of disingenuous torquing of the truth.

Furthermore, to use so trivial an issue as an important campaign point is to intentionally and deliberately degrade the cognnitive quality of the electoral process and to substitute mudslinging histrionics for the democratic process. Why anyone would want to do so great a disservice to the American democracy escapes me, but it does not reflect well on their understanding of the Jeffersonian ideals of an informed electorate, nor, actually, of their patriotic intelligence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:51 PM

"Furthermore, to use so trivial an issue as an important campaign point is to intentionally and deliberately degrade the cognnitive quality of the electoral process and to substitute mudslinging histrionics for the democratic process. Why anyone would want to do so great a disservice to the American democracy escapes me, but it does not reflect well on their understanding of the Jeffersonian ideals of an informed electorate, nor, actually, of their patriotic intelligence.
"



Yes, I remember some of your comments at the last election, about Bush....

You know, if you establish that it is ok for ONE side to use such tactics, how can you complain when they are then used AGAINST that side?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:04 PM

Go shake your big finger somewhere else, Bruce. Every charge I levied against Bush was substantiated by his egregious record of incompetence and political philandry. If you cannot see the difference between these two things, then no amount of rationalization will help.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:08 PM

And every charge against Obama you have blown away without even looking at what the point is.

You have established that it does NOT take evidence, nor anything other than dislike in order to charge someone with crimes and treason.

So be it. Obama will have the same level of fairness that you chose to give the Bush administration.

I hope you enjoy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:42 PM

Bruce:

I am not aware of having blown off any substantive issues "against" Obama (although I don't like the zero-sum game of battle this phrase evokes). If I have ignored some points you thought were important, remind me what they were. The major issues raised against him have been spurious: Wright, lapen pins, madrassas, Muslimism, saying folks are bitter. Where is the beef I have overlooked? What is it about this man that you think makes him a lesser candidfate than John McCain, seriously?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 05 May 08 - 05:00 PM

There are policy issues and there are personal issues... Bush has had some very screwed up policies and for the most part that is what Amos, as well as myself and others, have pointed out...

But what we have gotten back is not defenses of these policies buit twisted personal attacks when we haven't bought into the latest spin to sanitize Bush's failures...

This is the crux of the problems we have here between individuals... We start out talkin' policy, llogical twisted spin is thrwon back at us. we don't buy it and then the Bush folks, rather than accept the possibility that perhaps Bush has made a mistake, make it personal with screamuing and accusations....

That's the way all these end up because the Bush folks are not anle to admit even one single mistake their fearless leader has made...

You can't argue with "true believers"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 07:52 PM

"For the last 2 weeks the Republican Party and a GOP front group, FreedomÕs Watch, has been pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into deceptive TV smears linking conservative Democrat Don Cazayoux to Rev. Wright via Obama. But last night Louisiana voters just scratched their heads and voted against the Bush Regime/McCain agenda. This is a district (LA-06)Ð centered on Baton RougeÐ that has a PVI of R +10 and gave Bush 59% of the vote in 2006. Cazayoux took 49,702 votes (49.20%) to extreme right-wing Republican Woody JenkinsÕ 46,741 votes (46.27%). This ups the Democratic margin in the House 235-198. You think the congressional Republicans are nervous? Keep this in mindÐ when Alf Landon only got 36.6% of the vote in 1936 so many Republican members of Congress were defeated that only 17 senators were left standing!"

From a blog

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 08 - 12:29 AM

A pointless but well put endorsement

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:55 PM

We are the Ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:57 AM

Is it over now?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:29 AM

"BARACK Obama has edged closer to history and is now the clear favourite to secure the Democratic Party's nod to contest the November election as the first African-American US presidential nominee.

Senator Obama yesterday strengthened his mathematical lock on his party's White House nomination, but Hillary Clinton made clear her intention to stay in the race.

Senator Obama scored a commanding victory in the North Carolina primary but split yesterday's electoral spoils with the former first lady after she won Indiana.

Senator Clinton held on for a dramatic razor-thin victory in the rust-belt state after the counting of votes was stalled in Lake County, which borders Senator Obama's home state of Illinois.

Speaking in Raleigh, North Carolina, Senator Obama rallied Democrats and vowed the party would not be divided at the November general election by their protracted and bruising nominating battle.

His campaign is now expected to urge uncommitted party leaders to back his candidacy. "

AUstralia's Herald Sun

'

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:05 PM

As a presidential candidate, Clinton wasn't always elegant, but she was often impressive. She cast an uncompromising spotlight on her rival's weaknesses. Time may very well show that she was right in many respects.

But the majority of Democratic voters didn't flock to her on Tuesday. Her combative nature impressed many, but it scared away at least as many others.

With her defeat in North Carolina and a narrow lead in Indiana, the race is over for Clinton. Barring a miracle, Barack Obama will become the Democratic Party's nominee. His lead may be narrow, but it's a gap that can no longer be closed.

Hillary Clinton II has come a long way. Now it's time for her to return to her old self.

(Der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:32 PM

Yes We Did

Dani in NC

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:34 PM

THANK YOU, NAWTH CAROLINA!!!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:25 PM

Veteran Democratic Party figure George McGovern dropped his support for Hillary Clinton on Wednesday and endorsed Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator seemed certain to win the party's nomination ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:04 PM

Now they are sayin' that in the bsckroom the Clinton and Obama folks will soon be talkin' about a gracefull exit for Hillary but what I don't like hearing is that part of the deal may have the the Obama camp havin' to take on Hillary's debt!?!?!?!??........

Like ain't the Clinton's worth $100M??? Let ''um pay their own friggin' debt, gol danged it... I mean, this is a slap in the face to millions of folks who chiped in $25 to find that their $25 went to pay off the PR folks that have trashed Obama relentlessl for the last several months...

I donno what the heck is going on where that would be part of some deal... Sounds stinky...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:21 PM

Bobert-

I'll donate a dollar.

Let the one without sin cast a stone instead!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:58 PM

I'd donate a dollar to get Hillary to quit now. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:25 PM

"Political pressure on Mrs. Clinton to withdraw is growing. A widely known supporter of Mrs. Clinton, former Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, the 1972 Democratic nominee, announced on Wednesday that he had switched his endorsement to Mr. Obama and believed that Mrs. Clinton should drop out because it was mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination.

The Obama campaign also announced four new superdelegate endorsements, those of Jerry Meek, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party; Jeanette Council, a member of the Democratic National Committee from North Carolina; Inola Henry, a member of the national committee from California; and Jennifer McClellan of the Virginia House of Delegates. Ms. McClellan also switched from Mrs. ClintonÕs camp."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:29 PM

Very early Wednesday morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton's continued viability as a presidential candidate.

The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: "We now know who the Democratic nominee's going to be, and no one's going to dispute it," he said on MSNBC. "Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they'll say: 'What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you're staying in the race?' And tonight, there's no good answer for that."

It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Russert's comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, "The Nominee." ...

International Herald Tribune

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:43 AM

May 08, 2008 6:45 AM

ABC News has learned that David Bonior, the campaign manager for the 2008 presidential race of Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today.

Bonior, a former Michigan congressman, was once the second highest ranking Democrat in the House, and is influential with labor unions.

Tuesday night's results were said to be key to Bonior's decision -- specifically the fact that Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, appears insurmountable.

Bonior is also said to like Obama's general positive tone, as well as Obama's message of change and stance against taking money from federal lobbyists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:45 PM

Tuesday night must have been almost as much fun for John McCain as for Obama. The Republican brand has been badly smudged by recent foreign and domestic policies, which are the only kinds there are, so McCain's hopes rest on the still-unattached cohort called "Reagan Democrats," who still seem somewhat resistant to Obama.

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 May 08 - 08:03 PM

I hate it when I agree with George Will.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 May 08 - 03:26 AM

I also agree with "The Economist".

IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton's campaign looks a bit like that this week.

full article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:19 AM

Washington Post:

Sticking Points for Obama
By Michael Gerson
Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A27

Barack Obama -- the charismatic, weakened, patronizing, soaring, prickly, historic, inevitable nominee of the Democratic Party -- is now left with two related problems.

First, Obama's own missteps, amplified by Hillary Clinton's negativity, have defined a narrative likely to follow him until Election Day.

In politics, a narrative -- the widely held, sometimes unfair shorthand that marks a candidate -- is difficult to shift. For Dan Quayle, it was fresh-faced intellectual vacuity. For John Kerry, it was a combination of hauteur and inconstancy.

The Obama narrative is intellectual and ideological (not social) elitism. Humble roots have never been a guarantee of intellectual humility, especially when a mind comes to flower at Columbia and Harvard. Obama's dismissal of small-town views and values as "bitterness," "fear" and "anger" -- his dismissal of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a relic of an angry generation -- comes across as, well, dismissive. His first instinct -- the academic instinct -- is to explain and analyze, which is impressive to political writers who share that particular vocation. But this approach always places the explainer in a position of superiority. The arrogance of the aristocrat is nothing compared to the arrogance of the academic.

The issue of the lapel flag pin is a good illustration. Obama's explanation for its absence -- that it had become a "substitute" for "true patriotism" in the aftermath of Sept. 11 -- is perfectly rational. For a professor at the University of Chicago. Members of the knowledge class generally find his stand against sartorial symbolism to be subtle, even courageous. Most Americans, I'm willing to bet, will find it incomprehensible after 20 additional explanations, which are bound to be required. A president is expected to be a patriotic symbol himself, not the arbiter of patriotic symbols. He is supposed to be the face-painted superfan at every home game; to wear red, white and blue boxers on special marital occasions; to get misty-eyed during the most obscure patriotic hymns.

The problem here is not that Obama is unpatriotic -- a foolish, unfair, destructive charge -- but that Obama has declared himself superior to an almost universal form of popular patriotism. And this sense of superiority, revealed in case after case, has political consequences, because the Obama narrative reinforces the Democratic narrative. It is now possible to imagine Obama at a cocktail party with Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, sharing a laugh about gun-toting, Bible-thumping, flag-pin-wearing, small-town Americans.

And this has led, in part, to a second problem -- Obama's disconnect with white religious voters (African American religious voters are overwhelmingly supportive). He lost the white Protestant vote by 26 points in the Indiana primary and by 37 points in North Carolina. He lost the white Catholic vote by 26 points in Indiana and 17 points in North Carolina. Among Catholics in particular, this represents an improvement over Obama's dismal results in Pennsylvania and Ohio. But this religion gap remains a general election challenge.

It is also a striking reversal of fortunes. Obama is easily the most religiously fluent and informed Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. But, over time, Obama has assumed a much more familiar Democratic electoral profile -- the candidate of the young, the educated and the secular (he has consistently won religiously nonaligned voters), who also gets nearly universal support from African Americans. He increasingly resembles Bill Bradley or Gary Hart -- a candidate of new liberalism -- with this additional element of black enthusiasm.

There are many possible reasons for the opening of a religion gap, in addition to Obama's off-putting aura of superiority. Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution suggests that Catholics may be more attracted to bread-and-butter issues than elevated calls for change; more likely to be political "regulars" instead of reformers; more apt to identify age with leadership. Both white Catholics and white Protestants seem to have been disturbed by the Rev. Wright's vigorous reassertion of black liberation theology -- not because it is black, but because it is radical. And at least some Americans are concerned by the unreconstructed liberalism -- on abortion and other issues -- beneath Obama's post-partisan approach.

Going forward, the main political question is this: Can John McCain turn this disaffection into Republican votes? Given his instinctual populism, policy moderation and moving life story, perhaps he is the only Republican who could. Given the distemper of the country, the public preference for Democrats on nearly every policy issue and the destruction of the Republican brand among the young, perhaps no Republican could.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:22 AM

Also from the Post ( excerpt from longer article)

"Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together.

Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.

The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that."

Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:25 AM

from another Post article...


"But going left proved disastrous for Clinton. It abolished all significant policy differences between her and Obama, the National Journal's 2007 most liberal senator. On health care, for example, her attempts to turn a minor difference in the definition of universality into a major assault on Obama fell flat. With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.

She tried everything. Her charges that he was a man of nothing but words came off as a petulant, envious attack on eloquence. The power to inspire may not be sufficient to qualify for the presidency, but it is hardly a liability.

She tried a silly plagiarism charge, then settled for the experience card. In a change election, this was not a brilliant strategy. It forced her to dwell on the 1990s, playing candidate of the past to Obama's candidate of the future. Her studied attempts to embellish her experience led her into a thicket of confabulated Bosnian sniper fire.

It wasn't until late in the fourth quarter that she found the seam in Obama's defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America and Obama's own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.

The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic left, he is so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist sentiments.

Clinton finally understood the way to run against Obama: back to the center -- not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun, off duck hunting with dad. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:16 AM

CNN

Obama: World wants to see U.S. lead

Highlights
Obama says he thinks U.S. influence has been diminishing

Candidate downplays notion that he is already the Democratic nominee

Obama says it's too early to discuss potential running mates

Clinton camp says she's "fighting hard" to be nominee, not running mate

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that the most important thing he could achieve as president would be to deal with Iraq and the threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan while improving "our influence around the world."


In his first interview since the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Obama said he thinks the United States' influence around the world has been diminishing.

"The world wants to see the United States lead. They've been disappointed and disillusioned over the last seven, eight years," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"I think there is still a sense everywhere I go that if the United States regains its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for a more peaceful and prosperous world."

Obama said he thinks the way the war in Iraq has been handled has kept the United States from focusing on key issues like energy policy, global warming and the economy.

Americans want to succeed, he said, "but we're going to have to make some investments and ensure that the dynamism and the innovation of the American people is released."

"It's very hard for us to do that when we're spending close to $200 billion a year in other countries, rebuilding those countries instead of focusing on making ourselves strong," he said.
Obama downplayed headlines and stories, such as the cover of Time magazine, that have declared him the Democratic presidential nominee.

"I don't want to be jinxed. We've still got some work to do," he said.

Obama predicted that he and Sen. Hillary Clinton would probably split the remaining contests and said Clinton would win the upcoming primary in West Virginia by a "big margin."

Obama won North Carolina by a 14-point margin Tuesday. Clinton squeaked out a win in Indiana by 2 points.

In the days after those contests, some top Democrats have called on Clinton to step aside.

Obama deflected a question about a potential joint ticket with the New York senator, saying it's too early to start thinking about running mates.

"Sen. Clinton has shown herself to be an extraordinary candidate. She's tireless, she's smart, she's capable, and so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," he said. "But it would be presumptuous of me at this point ... to somehow suggest that she should be my running mate." Watch viewer responses to question: Should Obama offer Clinton the No. 2 spot? »

Terry McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a co-chairman of Clinton's campaign, commented Thursday on the possibility of a joint ticket.

"I think what she's interested in being the nominee of the party. ... We're fighting hard for it. This woman has been working tirelessly through this campaign. ... Hillary has earned the right to do whatever she wants to do."

Obama said he's ready for what would be the next phase if he becomes the nominee: a matchup against Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP candidate.

Obama said he was offended when McCain said last month, "It's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president."

"I think it's disappointing because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,' and then to engage in that kind of smear I think is unfortunate, particularly since my policy on Hamas has been no different than his," Obama said.

"And so for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

When asked to respond to McCain supporters -- such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- who have said Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, the senator from Illinois said he thinks what people are looking for is "good judgment."

"I think I've consistently displayed the kind of judgment that the American people are looking for in the next president," he said. Watch Obama say why he's qualified to be president »

Romney responded later on "The Situation Room," saying "The truth of the matter is just as I said, that he doesn't have a record of accomplishments in the private sector or in the governmental sector ... hasn't pushed a major piece of legislation.

"He seems like a charming guy who's very well-spoken. But in terms of actually having led, actually having accomplished something, actually having a kind of leadership that America needs at a critical time with our economy ... he's untested. ... Frankly, Sen. McCain is someone who is tested and very proven," he added.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:26 AM

I think Hill has tested him. And Chicago has tested him.

McCain "proven"?

How?

Even W could fly a plane, he says.

McCain demonstrated character by surviving Vietnam. And he's done some good political acts.

Obama demonstrates character and has done some good political acts.

Maybe Mitt is talking through his butt?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:21 PM

Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has taken the superdelegate lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in their battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
(AP Photo)The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:10 PM

Where did you get that Amos? Most counts I see put Obama 3.5 or four behind still. Not that that is shabby.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:35 PM

Time's New Cover features Obama as "THe Winner".


A hopeful sign.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:38 PM

Jack:

From here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4818637&page=1

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:55 PM

Well, we live in interesting times, and this will be a Presidential Election to remember, and hopefully savour!

Hillary Clinton might settle for Secretary of Health and Welfare.

Bill Clinton, I'd recommend sending as Ambassador to Somalia.

Chelsea deserves a vacation.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 04:14 AM

LBANY, ORE -- Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton each insisted Friday that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination wasn't over, even as Obama racked up at least nine more superdelegate commitments -- including another Clinton defector.

While Clinton contrasted their healthcare policies and Obama took aim at presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, media and supporters pressed the Illinois senator on whether he would ask Clinton to join his ticket and help retire her campaign debts....

LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 10:55 AM

The trump card Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton held in her faltering bid for president Ñ her support among the superdelegates who can control the fate of the Democratic nomination Ñ began slipping from her grasp on Friday as Senator Barack Obama moved into the lead on this front, with uncommitted delegates declaring their allegiance to him as others deserted her.

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 12:58 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Barack Obama focused his campaign message against likely Republican nominee John McCain amid mounting signs that the historic monthslong battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination was coming to a close.
Obama has almost tied Clinton in the crucial superdelegate count that she once dominated, a sign that her financially strapped campaign with its dwindling support is nearly over.

Obama's quiet, and increasing, confidence that the nomination is his was evident in his campaigning Friday in Oregon, where he aimed his criticism at McCain and largely ignored his Democratic rival. He planned to continue campaigning in the state on Saturday.

"I'm gratified that we've got some superdelegates who are coming our way. And I think we've got a strong case to make that I will be a nominee that can pull the party together and take on John McCain," Obama told reporters in Woodburn, Oregon.

After a sometimes bitter and acrimonious campaign, the Democratic race entered its final weeks, with electoral math the deciding factor. Clinton, unlikely to be able to erase Obama's 1,859.5 to 1,698 lead in delegates, needs massive support from those superdelegates Ñ party leaders free to vote as they chose Ñ who have yet to declare their preference.

(USA Today)

At this point the consensus is that Obama is confronting John McCain, and the rest of the democratic process for nomination is almost just housekeeping. Let us hope that Hillary does not complicate it or become a distraction from this confrontation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 08 - 04:47 PM

Goodness sakes, no! That would spoil the big playoff game in November. You can't have a good playoff series if you can't narrow it down to the last 2 teams. The fans get confused if you give them more than 2 things to think about.

Some get confused even when it's down to only 2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 08 - 05:27 PM

"emocratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has overtaken his rival Hillary Clinton for the first time in endorsements from super-delegates.
Four super-delegates - party and elected officials - pledged to support Mr Obama, including two who previously supported Mrs Clinton.
Mr Obama also has a strong lead in delegates won in state primary and caucus votes.
The Democratic super-delegates look set to decide who wins the nomination.
Added to the nine who came out in support of Barack Obama on Friday, he now has a slim margin of super-delegates.
'Likely nominee'
Mr Obama won a convincing victory in Tuesday's North Carolina primary; while Mrs Clinton narrowly won in Indiana.
Six more states hold primaries before the Democratic Party officially declares at its nominating convention in August who will take on presumptive Republican candidate John McCain.
The nearly 800 super-delegates automatically attend the Denver convention and can vote for whomever they choose."...

..

---

Senator Obama needs slightly fewer than 200 delegates to pass the winning post and there are more than enough pledged delegates remaining to be elected, and super-delegates waiting to put him over the top.
What is important about Indiana and North Carolina is that Senator Clinton was not able to damage Mr Obama.
The Illinois senator showed himself to be resilient in the wake of three weeks or so of crisis and, much more importantly, he got back on the winning track. This is the evidence that some super-delegates have been waiting for.
Many of them - most of them - had clearly made up their minds that they would not support Mrs Clinton, and so this had become a case of whether or not Mr Obama could close the deal. That is what appears to have happened last night....

(BBC News, two stories)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 08 - 07:09 PM

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said it is likely Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will be his party's nominee, and he warned Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) against hurting the party's chances in the fall by staying in the race.

"I think it is likely, certainly, at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and two-time presidential candidate.

He added on CBS's "Face the Nation," "I think the one thing that [Clinton] has to be careful about ... is that, if she makes the case for herself, which she's completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall."

Edwards said Clinton has been making "a pretty compelling case for her candidacy," but "you can no longer make a compelling case for the math." Obama on Saturday took a lead among Democratic superdelegates, and he already led among pledged delegates.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 08 - 07:34 PM

From Real Clear Politics:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

A footnote: Support is growing in Democratic ranks for Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland as vice president. He would bring to the ticket maturity (66 years old), experience (six terms in Congress) and moderation (rated "A" by the National Rifle Association). He is very popular in Ohio, a state Republicans must carry to elect a president."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 08 - 11:19 PM

From Andy Borowitz. Please note this is a parody and not an actual report.

Bill Clinton Switches to Obama

Latest Superdelegate Defection for Hillary

In what some Democratic Party insiders are calling a particularly ominous sign for Hillary ClintonÕs presidential campaign, former president Bill Clinton today became the latest superdelegate to switch from Sen. Clinton to her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill).

Sources close to the former president said that Mr. Clinton had been mulling such a defection for weeks, as early as the night of the Iowa primary, but that he only decided to make his decision public today.

ÒThe American people want change,Ó Mr. Clinton said at a press conference in New York. ÒLord knows I do.Ó

The former president said that Òsometimes, at the end of a race, you have to put an old horse down,Ó adding, ÒIÕm not speaking metaphorically.Ó

Mr. Clinton fueled speculation that he was seeking a role in an Obama administration, saying, ÒI know my way around the Oval Office, and I know how the super-secret double-lock works.Ó

The former president said he would relish a return to the White House, calling his tenure there Ògood times.Ó

For her part, Sen. Clinton said that the defection of her husband would not deter her from staying in the race, adding, ÒTo my knowledge, heÕs the only white voter Sen. Obama has.Ó

The New York senator denied that she was playing the race card, arguing, ÒEvery other member of my family is supporting me, and by the way, theyÕre white.Ó

Elsewhere, a defiant John McCain said that his wife will not release her tax returns, Òand neither will my girlfriend.Ó

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 May 08 - 11:32 PM

Just classic, Amos. Borowitz has outdone himself again. I especially liked the part about Hillary stating, that Bill's defection provided Obama with the first white supporter he's had. And that the rest of her family support her--and are white. Since that seems to be rather important just now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:02 PM

Democratic Party Delegate Count

Candidate
Total
Delegates since May 6

Obama
1,863
118

Clinton
1,697
89

Edwards
18
0


Uncommitted
49
0



Needed to nominate    2,025
Total delegate votes    4,049
Chosen thus far          3,627
Yet to be chosen            422

---

If Hillary got 80% of the uncommitted delegates she'd barely have the nomination. (2034).

If Obama got 38% (160) of them, he would have the nomination.

Oh my, it is soooo close...which is likely?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 May 08 - 09:07 PM

Amos-

Geez, math was never my strong point, especially this kind of differential calculus.

Won't you at least PM me a few hints?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:24 PM

Garin's admonition did nothing to halt the steady drip-drip-drip of superdelegates to Obama, with four more announcing they were endorsing him yesterday. Clinton's once-commanding lead among supers has evaporated, with Obama now leading by 281 to 271.5, according to an Associated Press tally.

Obama, who is now about 150 overall delegates short of the 2,025 needed for the nomination under party rules, could hit that mark before the end of the primary season June 3 if the superdelegate trend continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 09:21 AM

Obama is clearly the Songwriter's Candidate:

Obama leads field in unsolicited campaign songs
By NEKESA MUMBI MOODY – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Barack Obama is closing in on the Democratic nomination for president, but he clinched the race for the best campaign soundtrack long ago — no superdelegates needed.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton also have plenty of musical support in the first presidential election of the YouTube era. But from will.i.am's star-studded viral hit "Yes We Can" to amateur odes folk to Spanish-language tunes and even a Jamaican reggae tribute, Obama is the leader in what observers are calling a new form of political campaigning.

"Songs about candidates have really taken off," says Steve Grove, head of YouTube.com's news and politics division. "They've found a new way to support their candidates. ... it stretches from regular average voters all the way up to somebody like will.i.am in terms of being kind of like a new, broader trend in political video."

Annie Palovcik is one of those regular people. She penned the prideful folk tune "Illinois Boy" for Obama when he first came to national prominence a few years back — then put it on the Web when Obama became a serious presidential contender this year.

"The concepts of his character and the place of Illinois filtered through my mind into this allegorical country song," said Palovcik, a songwriter and manager of two musicians.

"He is energizing those around him, daring them to look for a new way to dream," she says...."

AP

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:13 AM

Christian Science Monitor:

"Whatever happens in today's primary in West Virginia, Sen. Barack Obama looks to be headed for the top of the Democratic ticket in November. And when the book about Senator Obama's improbable drive to the presidential nomination is written, a chapter or two is likely to include his campaign's organizational skills.

While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came into the 2008 race with experience and the vestiges of her husband's campaign team from the 1990s, it is Obama who has repeatedly shown an organizational advantage in the primaries.

From his ability to win in caucus states, which generally require more advance work, to his grass-roots efforts in places such as Philadelphia and its suburbs (as Patchwork Nation has noted), he's shown a knack for well-laid plans that may extend back to his beginnings in politics as a community organizer.

Tomorrow the media and the candidates will shift their focus to the next stops on the Democratic primary circuit, Kentucky and Oregon. Both campaigns have been on the ground in those states for some time, but e-mail accounts we have set up for "pseudoresidents" in our Patchwork Nation locales show how the Obama campaign has done a better job of using the Web to establish its presence in primary battlegrounds than has Senator Clinton's campaign...".

Examples follow in the rest of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 08 - 11:16 AM

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running out of primaries, delegates and money in her last-ditch effort to overtake Sen. Barack Obama, who is tantalizingly close to clinching the Democratic nomination in June when party leaders say the marathon race will effectively end.



Having vowed repeatedly that she will stay in the race until the last primary ballot and available delegate has been counted, the New York senator will probably remain a candidate through the final five primaries — Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.



But then, if Mr. Obama's nearly 200-delegate lead holds, Mrs. Clinton must face the end of her campaign for the White House and concede the race to the freshman senator from Illinois, even if all of the delegates are still not apportioned, a top Democratic party strategist and Clinton supporter said yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:12 PM

It looks like Edwards just clinched it for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:44 PM

Most of you have probably seen this, but just in case, here's Monday's Non Sequitur

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 08 - 08:23 PM

Edwards has come out in support of Obama.

Your remark -- Rig -- is a sour, bitter thing to say at a moment of clear good fortune.

Ptui.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:04 PM

How you figure, Rigs???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 10:13 PM

I think if Edwards had have endorsed earlier on, it wouldn't be so slimy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 08 - 10:21 PM

Well, Rig, you're certainly an expert on slime. CEO of Smears R Us and all. But your merchandise is a bit threadbare.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 08 - 11:19 PM

You hav eno idea what cojnsiderations may have been involved in Edwards' mind when he decided to move now instead of earlier-- none at all. So your assertion of slime is purely a projection.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:36 AM

It will be interesting to see how universal that projection turns out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:20 AM

A few comments from various readers of the NY Times:

I've voted republican in every election I could in the past. No more, I'm voting Obama. He is more liberal than I like but we have to take back the country from these far-right nutjobs who don't flinch at holding American citizens without trial and think they can look at what I check out of the library without a warrant. America was once a beacon of freedom but now we're known for Gitmo and torture. Disgusting…

— Posted by Don
9.May 14th,
2008
5:22 pm Gosh, what are the Repubs gonna do if all their "fear and innuendo" TV ads dont work ?? If the good ol' buzzwords such as government waste, terrorists, and liberal dont……buzz.

I guess they could come clean and run ads explaining their positions. Facts. Oh wait, many of their policies only benefit the healthy & wealthy. And, gosh, a lot of voters …aren't.

— Posted by Nick
10.May 14th,
2008
5:24 pm The GOP is on the track following Bush not realizing that the bright light ahead is an oncoming train. McCain actually thinks he, as Bush III, is the GOP savior! If the Party wants to remain a force in American politics, they have to address these major issues with their base. All I see is them blindly pushing an agenda that is distasteful to most Americans and alienating more Republican voters than they can afford. Either they are incredibly stupid or they believe the American people are.

— Posted by E


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:23 AM

Washington Post:

For Obama, a Lost Moment

By David S. Broder
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15

Barack Obama really didn't need a victory in West Virginia. He was already well on his way to wrapping up the Democratic nomination, and the 28 delegates at stake were not going to change that picture, no matter how that primary came out.

But he should have competed there, if only to signal his awareness of its special place in Democratic history. Forty-eight years ago, it was West Virginia more than any other state that propelled John Kennedy into the White House. And it did so in a way that Obama should have wanted to emulate.

Admittedly, I have a bias. That 1960 primary race between Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey was my introduction to presidential politics. As a new reporter at the Washington Star, I did not get to Wisconsin for the first round of the Kennedy-Humphrey battle. But I didn't miss much. Kennedy won the Catholic areas of the state, including Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and the Fox River Valley. Humphrey dominated the Protestant farm counties from the middle of the state to the Minnesota border.

With Democratic leaders trying to gauge whether Kennedy would fall victim to the same prejudice that undercut Al Smith, the first Catholic nominee, in 1928, Wisconsin gave no clear answer.

So the two young senators packed their bags and headed for West Virginia.

That state seemed made-to-order for Humphrey. Chronically poor, its residents relied on New Deal programs to survive. A former Klan redoubt, many of its voters were suspicious of Catholics. The mineworkers and other unions were solidly in Humphrey's corner. The state's main power broker, Sen. Robert Byrd, was backing Humphrey in hopes of blocking Kennedy and opening the way for his friend Lyndon Johnson to jump into the race and capture the nomination at the Los Angeles convention.

Despite the odds, Kennedy did not hesitate. In reality, he had no choice but to tackle Humphrey in West Virginia; only by winning there could he persuade the men who controlled state delegations from California to New York to give him a chance.

Kennedy had two resources he could deploy. He was rolling in money, thanks to his father's wealth, and money talked in West Virginia. The custom was that whoever was most generous would find himself "slated" by the local Democratic organizations. When I got to Beckley, the coal-mining city where the Star sent me to examine the battle on the ground, I found that the Raleigh County sheriff, nominally supporting Humphrey, had decided -- for unexplained reasons -- that it was not in his interest to turn out a big vote against Kennedy.

And Kennedy had lots and lots of volunteers. In Beckley, his kid brother Ted and Ben Smith, the family friend who would later serve as interim senator between John and Ted Kennedy, were manning a headquarters overflowing with young people recruited from the local parish.

All of the energy was on the underdog Kennedy's side -- and that is what the voters responded to. As I interviewed on downtown sidewalks and country lanes, it became clear that Kennedy could pull off an upset -- and he did.

I would have liked to have seen Obama attempt a similar feat. It would have been difficult, but he might have pulled it off. Hillary Clinton, like Humphrey, was about out of money, while Obama, like Kennedy, had plenty of cash. And Obama, like Kennedy, had more available young volunteers than he could possibly deploy.

But because he did not have to win this test, while Kennedy did, Obama played it safe and made only a token effort in West Virginia.

That was a rational, prudent decision. He has other and better opportunities to write a finish to this campaign. Next week, Kentucky may be difficult for Obama, but Oregon -- a classic yuppie state with a fondness for smart, low-key politicians -- should be easy pickings. The delegates he will win there could virtually clinch the nomination.

But, like Kennedy, Obama has questions he needs to answer.

He has seen doubts grow about his ability to win working-class white votes. West Virginia could have helped put those doubts to rest. Now they will remain until the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:07 AM

I think John Edwards' support, which your article seems to overlook completely, will do a lot to offset that alleged vulnerabililty.

I say alleged, because I am not convinced that what drove the West Virginia numbers was actually the categorical imperatives of being "
white and working class".

I am not convinced that these demographical bloc analyses have all that much merit, as the individual voters have other reasons as well as their personal pigeonholes on which they may be basing their decisions at the booth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:40 PM

WASHINGTON: The United Steelworkers union endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Thursday, giving the Illinois senator a powerful advocate in attracting blue-collar voters.

The endorsement comes one day after former presidential candidate and Steelworker ally John Edwards endorsed Obama, a key component in the union's decision to go with the Democratic front-runner. The union had earlier endorsed Edwards, who threw his support to Obama Wednesday night.

"We find ourselves once again in agreement with Senator Edwards, this time with his decision last evening to endorse Senator Barack Obama," the union said in a statement. "And thus today, the United Steelworkers enthusiastically endorses Senator Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States."

The Steelworkers are the second union that endorsed Edwards to now go with Obama. The 200,000-member Transport Workers Union earlier switched and endorsed Obama.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the United Mine Workers union — who also endorsed Edwards — have not made new endorsements in the race.

Today in Americas
Bush issues veiled attack on ObamaJohn Edwards endorses ObamaChicago repeals ban on sales of foie grasObama and his presidential rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been courting the 600,000 member Steelworkers union since Edwards dropped out of the race. The union's executive board, however, was unanimous in picking Obama for its endorsement.

"All of us, including we hope Senator Clinton for whom we have the utmost respect, must now do everything we can to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States," the union said. "Now is the time for contention and division to cease, and for us to unite behind the changes for which Senator Obama and our members are calling."

(Int Herald Trib)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:39 PM

Yesterday a top official from Swift Boat Veterans For TruthÑyes, those Swift BoatsÑvowed to use the same tactics to take down Obama, saying, "We will attack Obama viciously."1

This race is going to get very ugly.

The only way to counter these kinds of nasty attacks is to make sure voters are armed with the facts. That's where we come inÑour plan is to target 1.6 million voters in swing states and talk to them to make sure they know the truth about the candidates and the issues. That kind of personal contact will beat the negative ads every time.

But it's going to take a lot of workÑand moneyÑto build that organization. We've been in meetings all week crunching numbers to figure out how many states we can afford to work in this fall, and we need to make a decision soon. MoveOn doesn't have billionaire donorsÑit's just all of us, chipping in together. Can you chip in $25 to help make sure we have the resources necessary to get the truth out?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/victoryin2008sb.html?id=12662-7901518-lx4DNh&t=3

We've already seen underhanded online campaigns making false and ugly claims about race, gender, religion and patriotism. But it could get even worseÑthere's literally nothing that's off-limits for these people.

Our best weapon is the truth. If this election is about things that really matter to peopleÑ-bringing our troops home from Iraq, getting out of this economic mess and getting health care to millions of folks who desperately need itÑMcCain and the Republicans don't stand a chance.

And that's precisely what we're going to do this year. We're going to talk to voters in neighborhoods across this country about the things that matter to them mostÑand we're going to make sure they vote for progressives. We'll ensure folks in those key states have the facts in their hands so they can separate the lies from the truth.

Our election plan is one of the biggest, most effective efforts that progressives have ever put together.

It builds on our best practices from the pastÑintegrating our neighbor-to-neighbor door-knocking program from 2004 with our "Call for Change" phone program that helped pave the way for big Democratic wins in 2006. And we've been working hard on it to make it even more effective this year.

The moment there's a Democratic nominee we have to be ready to start defending them against Swift Boat-style attacks. If each of us chips in a little, we can make sure they won't get away with lies and deception. Please chip in $25 today.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/victoryin2008sb.html?id=12662-7901518-lx4DNh&t=4

Groups like the Swift Boat Veterans will tap billionaire donors to fund their politics of fear and destruction, but our movement is much strongerÑit relies on millions of folks like us working for hope and change. If we all work together we can trump their divisive attacks and build a more progressive future.

Thanks for all you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:13 PM

"Illinois Senator Barack Obama's delegate lead over rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination keeps growing.

Obama yesterday picked up seven of former Democratic candidate John Edwards' convention delegates, plus four more superdelegates.

According to the Associated Press, Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 200 delegates. It takes 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination.

Obama is in South Dakota today for a town hall meeting on rural issues.

His campaign yesterday accused President George W. Bush of a "false political attack" for comments the president made in Israel warning leaders against trying to appease terrorists. Obama has said he would talk to U.S. adversaries, including Iran and Syria. The White House has denied targeting Obama.

Meanwhile, John Edwards was in the city yesterday, one day after officially endorsing Obama. Accepting an award from a public policy group, Edwards wouldn't say when he'll start campaigning.

"That's really sort of dependent on whether we can work the schedules out. I told Senator Obama when we were together yesterday I want to do everything I can to help," said Edwards, "I really think he should be the next president of the United States." "...


NY1 News

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:42 PM

Part of what Obama said in response to the shrub's idiotic crap about him being an "appeaser" ala those who tried to appease Hitler:

"I was offended by what is a continuation of a strategy from this White House, now mimicked by Senator McCain, that replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering," the Illinois senator said.

Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli parliament, he said, wasn't about policy.

"It was about politics, about trying to scare the American people," Obama said. "And that's what will not work in this election because the American people can look back at the track record of George Bush, supported by John McCain," and conclude that the nation was misled about the Iraq war's justification, cost, length and benefit to America.

The man can turn a phrase and think on his feet. What a contrast!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:27 PM

You're right, Kat. And I think that's what first drew a lot of us to him--just check what we were saying back about a year ago, at the start of this thread.

And to have somebody who on top of the skills you've noted, also takes a both post-racial and post-partisan approach, and takes the high road whenever possible, while being willing to fight when necessary----it's truly amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:25 PM

It's what so many of us have been longing for, I think, Ron. Thanks for your comments. I remember hearing him a few years ago and telling someone i thought he was one to watch...that I hoped he'd run for pres. some day!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: balladeer
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:22 PM

Memo to Bearded Bruce re "For Obama, a Lost Moment By David S. Broder". I believe Barack was quite happy to see Hillary win in W Va. As you say, it cost him practically nothing and could be seen as an act of chivalry. It would be in keeping with his character to support her in her moment of glory, thus allowing her to exit the national stage with dignity. This is the same courtesy John Edwards extended the New York senator when he praised her highly even as he was joining the Obama campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: balladeer
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:43 PM

What a terrific thread! I've come into it very late, and I'm very glad I did. Time to expand beyond reading just the music threads. I could write a book about the junior senator from Illinois and all that his campaign represents in post-slavery, post-reconstruction, post-segregation, (soon to be post KKK?) America, and maybe I will one day, but for now I content myself with writing songs about the importance of voting. (See the What Else Can I Do? thread.) As a Canadian who is not allowed to put money directly into the Obama campaign coffers, may I contribute financially to Amos's efforts?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 04:55 PM

LOL!

It costs me nothing to post snippets on this thread, good sir; any financial contribution you make to my efforts here will simply free up some dough I can then send to Barack's campaign or to the Mudcat maintenance fund.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:01 PM

I am 1 Republican who will be voting for Mr. Obama but I will not contribute 1 red cent to Mr. Amos nor Mr. Andy...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:05 PM

Goo'ness gracious, Mistah Cruisah!! Ah am mighty glad yo' all decide tuh vote fo' sech a nahce manz...

but I wasn't asking for any money, thanks. So I don't much care if you send any or not.
'


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: balladeer
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:27 PM

Amos: I read this post from you (quoted below) and assumed MoveOn.org has a fund-raising drive happening to support door knocking, and that you are stumping for them here.

Am I wrong?

Anyway, slightly irritating jibes notwithstanding, if you do speak for MoveOn, and if you accept donations from Canada, I am willing to contribute.
***********

The only way to counter these kinds of nasty attacks is to make sure voters are armed with the facts. That's where we come inÑour plan is to target 1.6 million voters in swing states and talk to them to make sure they know the truth about the candidates and the issues. That kind of personal contact will beat the negative ads every time.

But it's going to take a lot of workÑand moneyÑto build that organization. We've been in meetings all week crunching numbers to figure out how many states we can afford to work in this fall, and we need to make a decision soon. MoveOn doesn't have billionaire donorsÑit's just all of us, chipping in together. Can you chip in $25 to help make sure we have the resources necessary to get the truth out?

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/victoryin2008sb.html?id=12662-7901518-lx4DNh&t=3

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:07 PM

Ah--I see.

I was not particularly stumping, but I did include that part of the Move On information letter in the course of posting the thing.

If you cannot contribute to Move On directly, I will be glad to forward anything you like to them. PM me for addy. I have learned that Western union works well.


Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:24 PM

HE battle for the Democratic presidential nomination could be won outright by Barack Obama this week, a senior adviser to the Illinois senator said this weekend.

As support for Hillary Clinton evaporates, former senator Tom Daschle told The Sunday Times: ÒHeÕs going to get closer and closer and he could cross the magic threshold as early as [this] week.Ó

Daschle, known as the Wizard of Oz for his influential, behind-the-curtain role in ObamaÕs campaign, was speaking in his home state of South Dakota, which will hold the last primary contest with Montana on June 3. He said he expected Clinton to continue in the race until the last votes were counted, even if Obama already had enough delegates to win the nomination by then.

If so, Daschle will have played a huge role in ObamaÕs victory over the New York senator, who was once considered a shoo-in for the nomination.(London Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:26 PM

Hillary Clinton stepped her efforts to heal the rift in the Democratic Party last night with a warning to her supporters that it would be a "grave error" if they chose to vote for Republican John McCain over her rival Barack Obama come November. In a tacit acknowledgement of her rapidly dwindling presidential hopes and the divisive nature of what has been one of the dirtiest Democratic primary fights in recent years, Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that she would lend her full weight to Obama's likely presidential campaign. Clinton made her remarks after being asked by a viewer why she thought so many of her supporters say they would vote for McCain if Obama was the Democratic nominee. It would be a "terrible mistake," she warned, if they decided to do so.

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," she said.

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator Obama." (Ibid)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 07:44 PM

Senator Barack Obama has chosen to spend Tuesday night not in Kentucky or Oregon, the two states that will be holding their primaries that day, or even at his home in Chicago. Instead, Mr. ObamaÕs staff announced on Saturday, he will be returning to Iowa, where he won the Democratic caucuses way back in January and has at least two good reasons to revisit now.

Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Election Guide
More Politics News
Much more than nostalgia seems to have motivated that decision. If things continue to go as well for Mr. Obama this week as they have so far this month, with a romp in North Carolina, a strong showing in Indiana and daily growth in his support among party superdelegates, he could actually end up with enough pledged delegates to proclaim, without fear of contradiction, that he is now the Democratic nominee for president.

Mr. ObamaÕs ability to declare victory for the nomination will depend in large part on his performance in the Kentucky and Oregon votes. He has all but conceded Kentucky to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the clear favorite when the race started last year, spending little time there, but is favored in Oregon, where he is making a strong effort.

On Saturday, for example, Mr. Obama appeared at a town-hall-style meeting in the southwestern Oregon town of Roseburg, talking about health care and foreign policy and then taking questions about subjects that included OregonÕs assisted suicide law and domestic partnerships. Implicitly acknowledging what could be at stake in Oregon, he also urged supporters who have voted for him in advance, a common practice there, to make sure that they got their ballots in to tallying centers early enough to be sure they would be counted.

There would be a certain symmetry if Oregon proved to be the state to put Mr. Obama over the top and he can indeed celebrate that victory in Iowa.

It was his triumph in the caucuses in Iowa, of course, a state whose population is virtually all white, that first established him as a viable contender for the nomination. Oregon is another state whose population is also overwhelmingly white; Portland, the stateÕs biggest urban area, is a place where he is expected to do very well, though it is sometimes called, even by its residents, Òthe whitest major city in the United States.Ó

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has argued recently that one of the reasons she, rather than Mr. Obama, should be the Democratic nominee, despite his lead in delegates and the popular vote, is that she has more appeal to and will perform better among white voters who will be crucial to Democratic hopes in November. For Mr. Obama to be in Iowa to celebrate a victory in Oregon would allow him, without having to say a single word, to undermine, if not refute, that argument.

Mr. ObamaÕs traveling press secretary, Jen Psaki, suggested Saturday that his campaign was also in a moment of transition.

ÒWe have our eye on upcoming primary competitions,Ó Ms. Psaki said after the meeting in Roseburg, mentioning not only Oregon but also Montana and South Dakota, which vote on June 3, concluding the primary season....

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:27 PM

"BALTIMORE (AP) -- Big Brown charged to the lead turning for home and then cruised down the stretch to win the Preakness on Saturday, still perfect and squarely pointed toward thoroughbred racing's first Triple Crown in 30 years.

"We should have enough horse to get the job done," said trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who had predicted his bay colt would win the first two legs.

Just as he did two weeks ago in a Kentucky Derby marred by the breakdown of Eight Belles, the colt named for UPS delivered another stunning win, this time by 5 1/4 lengths. Macho Again was second and Icabad Crane was third.

The Belmont Stakes will be run June 7. It's been three decades since Affirmed swept that race along with the Derby and Preakness to give racing its 11th Triple Crown winner."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:50 PM

The language of the internal party memo was stark and brutally honest. Sent out by Republican congressman Tom Davis last week after a stunning congressional by-election loss in the Deep South, it warned colleagues of a potential disaster ahead.

The result, in which the Democratic party won a Mississippi House of Representatives seat that had voted 62 per cent for President Bush in 2004, was a sign of a 'toxic' political environment for Republicans, Davis wrote. He went on to point out the loss was the Republicans' third defeat in a row in special elections - the equivalent of a by-election in Britain - this year alone. Davis's memo dubbed the defeats 'canaries in the coalmine' for the survival of the Republican party.

A Democratic win in such a solidly conservative district capped a week in which Senator Barack Obama finally turned his eyes to the coming November election and his opponent, John McCain. Now many Democrats believe the signs are good that the tide of American public opinion is firmly swinging their way and will deliver them the White House. Certainly, many of the key indicators are giving them strong grounds for optimism.

A recent Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey showed that a staggering 82 per cent of Americans are unhappy with the direction that the country is heading. At the same time the faltering economy, and especially high petrol prices, are a major concern. 'Overwhelmingly, voters think the economy is in bad shape,' said Maurice Carroll, Quinnipiac's polling director. Obama is now leading McCain in recent national polls by an average of four points.

The results in Mississippi showed Republican voters were willing to vote for a Democratic candidate in areas where the party would normally assume it had no chance. The fight was especially significant as the Republican candidate, Greg Davis, ran a campaign aggressively linking his opponent, Travis Childers, to Obama and the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright. If Obama was looking for reassurance that Wright's outspoken and radical views had not damaged his chances, then Childers's victory provided it.

It also raised the prospect that Obama - buoyed by a massive turnout among black voters - might prove competitive in the South against McCain. Some Democrat insiders think Obama might even win states such as Virginia and North Carolina.

UK Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:08 AM

It looks like we're headed for an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and a McCain presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 08 - 05:34 AM

Which may well be the best thing. We have seen what a president with party control of both House and Senate can do ( both now and back under Democrats) and it might be far better to have the power split and BOTH sides forced to work together.



just my opinion...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:54 AM

OK--still waiting for any rebuttal for this, by anybody who badmouths Obama's chances. To pick a purely theoretical example--Rig. Based on logic and facts, please, as opposed to wishful thinking.

McCain has at least 3 serious problems, any of which is likely to cost him the presidency:

1) US is in a very sour mood. "Throw the bums out" always starts with the president's party. If you don't think so, why have the Republicans just lost 3 special elections--in Republican districts?

2) McCain is tied to Bush.    It starts with the Iraq war, but covers a lot more. The 2013 date is meaningless, since McCain assumes by this that there will be a US "victory" in Iraq. Pipe dream--and the US public knows it.

"McCain is Bush's 3rd term" :This will be Obama's theme in the fall--and it's a winning theme. There is widespread loathing of Bush--and by independents and some Republicans, as well as the overwhelming majority of Democrats.

3) McCain must reach beyond his base in order to win. But whenever he tries to do so, his base threatens to desert.

a) illegal immigration--he needs Hispanic votes, but if he pushes for a path to citizenship for illegals, he loses the Tancredo true believers. There is absolutely no support for the absurd allegation that Hispanics themselves are willing to wait til the border is "secured"--which will never happen. Look at the disastrous showing of the Republicans in the 2006 elections--and the plunge in their support among Hispanics, thanks to Tancredo and other stellar thinkers.

b) global warning--the WSJ has come out against his cap-and-trade idea

c) in order to address the health-care crisis, drastic action is needed. But McCain is restricted by his base from anything beyond "market-based solutions"--a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. And again, the US public knows it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:36 PM

Don't mind Rig. He has a knack for saying things that are egregiously unrelaistc in the nicest way, so you kinda want to believe he is being rational, even when he is not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:44 PM

Amos - When have I ever not been rational?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:11 PM

Rig:

Let me count the ways!! Although, usually, it turns out you were just being funny in your own special way.

I don't think there is any strong evidence for projecting McCain has a reasonable chance this year, for example. But you assert he looks like a winner. But you don't state this as a subjective opinion.

Sorry if I sounded harsh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 06:32 PM

The new preacher at that wigged out church Obama has tied himself too is proving to be as bizarre as Wright.   He might get McCain elected all by himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 08 - 06:56 PM

It's a danged shame that a politician can't get elected in your country without publicly sucking up to some church to prove his piety, isn't it, Riginslinger?

I don't recall any Canadian politicians who have ever made a big point of talking about their churchgoing habits or their religious beliefs. Usually they don't even talk about it at all. People don't get elected (or not elected) on that basis in Canada. Nobody seems to care. You'd love it here. ;-)

We had a female Prime Minister here once too, but she wasn't actually elected. She took over the position from the previous prime minister who had retired from the leadership while their party was still in office. Her chances of being elected looked good, initially, but they rapidly went down the chute in the election which followed. That was Kim Campbell, a very smart and capable person.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:39 PM

Rig:

Do you have any concrete data you would like to share? Or are you just in the mood for broadcasting uncharitable opinions at others?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:55 PM

I do! Concrete is sticky stuff before it sets and you have to take care not to step in it, but after it sets it makes a fine walkway. Anything else you need to know?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:19 PM

The taller guy usually wins...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:44 PM

"It's a danged shame that a politician can't get elected in your country without publicly sucking up to some church to prove his piety, isn't it, Riginslinger?"


                      Yes, LH, it really is heartbreaking.




                      Amos - All I can say is, Sean Hannity has some kind of a spin-off show on Fox News now. I came in to eat lunch earlier, and he was on, and he had the new preacher on video doing some really strange things.
                      I will admit that Sean Hannity is somebody I don't very much like, but he can really stir up a lot of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:16 AM

Taking a slice from Sean Hannity's stuff and passing it on without attribution as a fact is pretty risky, IMHO, RIg. He is not only unlikeable in the extreme, he is also a rabid distortionist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 08 - 11:11 AM

Combine that with a vapid contortionist and you would really have a serious problem on your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 11:14 AM

So, Amos.

What bills has Obama worked on that were joint with Republicans?


My understanding is that Obama has the most liberal rating of any Senator: Has he worked WITH his opponents on anything? Serious question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 12:35 PM

I don't know, Bruce, which Republicans he has worked with or when.

HIs record of accomplishments, however, is impressive:

"Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills).

Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:


Two addressed foreign policy:
Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).

Three addressed public health:
Improve mine safety (2803)
Increased breast cancer funding (597)
Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).

Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)

Two addressed national security
Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
Amend the Patriot Act (2167)

One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces
Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).

Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:

25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
Alternative diesel standards (3554)
Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
Renewable diesel standards (1920)
Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
Climate change education (1389)
Low income energy assistance (2405)
Oil savings targets (339)
Fuel economy reform (3694)
Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
Nuclear release notice (2348)
Passenger rail investment (294)
Energy relief for low income families (2405)

21 addressed Health Care
Drug re-importation (334)
Health information technology (1262, 1418)
Discount drug prices (2347)
Health care associated infections (2278)
Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
Emergency medical care and response (1873)
Stem cell research (5)
Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
Health centers renewal (901, 3771)
Children's health insurance (401)
Home health care (2061)
Medicare independent living (2103)
Microbicides for HIV/AIDS (823)
Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)
Gynological cancers (1172)
Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)
Paralysis research and care (1183)

20 addressed Public Health:
Violence against women (1197)
Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)
Viral influenza control (969)
End homelessness (1518)
Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)
Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)
Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)
Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)
Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)
Healthy communities (1068)
Combat methamphetamines (2071)
Paid sick leave (910)
Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)
Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)
Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)

14 address Consumer Protection/Labor
Stop unfair labor practices (842)
Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)
Internet freedom (2917)
Credit card safety (2411)
Media ownership (2332)
Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)
Working family child assistance (218)
Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)
Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)
FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)
Working families flexibility (2419).

13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
Improve Benefits (117)
Suicide prevention (479)
Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
Homes for veterans (1084)
GI Bill enhancement (43)
Military job protection
Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
Military children in public schools (2151)
Military eye injury research and care (1999)
Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
Security of personal data of veterans (3592)

12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability
Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
Stop fraud (2280)
Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
Open government (2180, 2488)
Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal
contract (674)
Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts
(2147) Resctrictions awarding government contracts (2519)

10 addressed Foreign Policy:
Iraq war de-escalation (313)
US policy for Iraq (433),
Divestiture from Iran (1430)
Sudan divestment authorization (831)
Millennium Development Goals (2433)
Multilateral debt relief (1320)
Development bank reform (1129)
Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224).

9 address Voting/Elections
Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)
Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)
Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)
Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)
Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)
Election jamming prevention (4102)
Campaign disclosure parity (223)
Presidential funding (2412)
Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)

11 addressed Education
Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)
Establish teaching residency programs (1574)
Increase early intervention services (2111)
Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)
Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)
Summer learning programs (116)
TANF financial education promotion (924)
Higher education (1642)
Build capacity at community colleges (379)
Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)
Support for teachers (2060).

6 addressed Hurrican Katrina
Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)
Emergency relief (1637)
Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)
Working family tax relief (2257)
Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)
Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)

5 addressed the Environment
Drinking water security (218, 1426)
Water resources development (728)
Waste water treatment (1995)
Combat illegal logging (1930)
Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Acountability (1194)
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.726.IS ]

4 addressed Discrimination
Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)
Domestic partnership benefits (2521)
Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)
Equality or two parent families (2286)

4 addressed Homeland Security
Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)
National emergency family locator (1630)
Amend US Patriot Act (2167)
Chemical security and safety (2486)"

See also this analysis of Obama's actual productivity.

Quite the guy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 12:55 PM

Well, I read an interesting piece in the Washigton Post yesterday but can't lay my hands on it now but it was an op-ed... The crux of it was the possibly of Obama asking Chuck Yager to be his VP??? Hmmmmmm??? Apparently the two have developed a nice relationship...

He wouldn't be on my list but I don't think it would be a deal buster for me either...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:02 PM

So, he can only unite the people who agree with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:12 PM

Ferraro suggests she may not vote for Obama
Posted: 01:00 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Ferraro is a supporter of Clinton's presidential campaign.
(CNN) — Geraldine Ferraro, the outspoken former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's White House bid, told the New York Times she may not vote for Barack Obama should he be the party's nominee.

Ferraro, a former member of Clinton's finance committee who resigned that post earlier this year after making comments many viewed as racially offensive, also said she thinks the Illinois senator has been "terribly sexist" over the course of the presidential campaign.

The comments appear to underscore the potential difficulty Obama may have courting some women voters in the fall — many of whom have said they feel a solidarity with the New York senator over the barriers Clinton faces in her bid to become the first female president.

Ferraro has not shied away from discussing the impact of race and gender throughout the Democratic presidential campaign. In March, the former congresswoman told a California newspaper the chief reason Obama's candidacy was successful was because he was black.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she told The Daily Breeze. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Ferraro also said Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."

Obama later called those comments "ridiculous," and Clinton said she disagreed with them.

Ferraro maintained her comments were not racist, but ultimately resigned from the Clinton campaign after they caused an uproar.

"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen," she wrote in her resignation letter to Clinton, adding, "I am who I am and I will continue to speak up."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:49 PM

"Taking a slice from Sean Hannity's stuff and passing it on without attribution as a fact is pretty risky,"


             Well, it's a fact that the guy is there, and all Hannity has to do is to turn what he has into a YouTube tid-bit, and it'll be Reverend Wright all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:22 PM

Whatever Mr. Obama claims, Mrs. Clinton made it clear she is not buying it.
"I'm going to make my case and I'm going to make it until I'm the nominee and we're not going to have one today and we're not going to have one tomorrow and we're not going to have one the next day," she said. "And if Kentucky turns out tomorrow, I will be closer to that nomination."
She also dismissed Democratic nominating rules requiring proportional allocation of delegates from primaries and caucuses, rather than the winner-take-all system used by the Republicans.
"If we had same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now," she said.

---

Easily remedied. She should run for the Republican nomination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:30 PM

Correction: Chuck "Hagel"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:29 PM

As noteworthy as it is that super-delegate Larry Gates, who heads the Kansas Democratic Party, endorsed Barack Obama, another pledge today is much more significant.

   Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, the 90-year-old dean of the Senate, today backed Obama. After his rout last week at the hands of Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary, it could be just the tonic Obama needs in a crucial state if he, as appears likely, wins the nomination.

   For decades, the Mountain State was "almost heaven" for Democrats. Starting in 1928, it had an unbroken record of not voting for Republicans in open presidential contests - which 2008 is - until 2000, when George Bush defeated Al Gore.

   A lot of that had to do with the Clinton administration's opposition to mountaintop coal mining and fears over gun control. But President Bush won the state again four years later.

    Byrd has been in the Senate half a century. If anyone can help Obama persuade some wary West Virginia Democrats who sided with Clinton, it is very likely him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:41 PM

It's funny Byrd abandoning his constituency that way. I guess it's just another case of a guy being in Washington too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:43 PM

He may have had an epiphany of conscience, or an enlightening experience of some kind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:07 PM

Or gone color blind at 90!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:16 PM

I understand Obama has his friend Mr. Bush to thank for Byrd's support.   While speaking to the Knesset, Mr. Bush, with his characteristic finesse, accused Obama (without naming him) of appeasement for being willing to talk to Iran. Byrd has had enough of Bush's "foreign policy" disaster--and no doubt, enough of Democrats being accused of weakness on national defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:06 PM

Well, I have a lot of respect for Senator Byrd, but the Obama campaign has this to look forward to:


             http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:10 PM

I just had the soaring pleasure of hearing Michelle Obama speak to a gathering of us volunteers. What a powerful and articulate woman!! I was no more than three meters from her. Though she must be exhausted, I watched her reach down into her heart to find the energy and passion to forge a connection with us bricht chaulmers.

We won't be able to keep Kentucky close - but - tomorrow's the night Barack locks down the pledged majority on a nationwide basis.   We're nearly thru to the battle with that brood of blood-for-oil men...

Obama!!!   Obama!!!

(PS: Posted some pics on Myspace)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:34 PM

Sen. Barack Obama has won a majority of the pledged delegates in the Democratic race for president, according to CNN estimates.

May 20, 1834 PST

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:36 PM

Tonight the voters are showing Obama to his "Old Kentucky Home."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:39 PM

With the addition of two more delegates from Tuesday's Kentucky contest, CNN projects that Barack Obama now has 1,628 pledged delegates Ñ a majority of the pledged delegates available in this year's Democratic presidential nominating contests.

I think what they are showing Hillary is a dose of Southern manners on her way out. Oregon has not begun to report yet; there will be a considerable number of delegates standing up for Obama there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:42 PM

"New donors in April: 200,000
94% of contributions were under $200
93% of contributions were $100 or less
77% of contributions were $50 or less
52% of contributions were $25 or less

Number of donors to the Obama campaign overall at the end of April: 1.475 million
Number of contributions given: $2,929,000 million (sic)
Average donation: $91
Amount raised in April: $31.3 million (plus an additional $600,000 for the general election)
Cash on Hand: $37.3 million (plus an additional $9.2 million for the general election)

Clinton hasn't released her totals yet, but sent supporters this text message:


Tonight we won Kentucky and once again, we showed American what we're made of. Thank you so much. Keep the momentum going at www.hillaryclinton.com Ñ Hillary

She also told fans in Louisville last night: "Your help will keep us going" and directed them to her Web site.

UPDATE, 8:50 P.M.: Clinton's Howard Wolfson just said on CNN she raised $22 million in April."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:35 PM

Obama's Address in Iowa is well worth listening to. (This was a live-stream link, so it may not bring the video up. Look for it on You Tube).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 09:45 AM

Online version and transcript (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:03 PM

As Barack Obama closes in on the Democratic nomination, his prospects for November are looking up, a new poll indicates.

Obama, who was tied with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain last month in the same survey, now leads 48 percent to 40 percent, according to the Reuters/Zogby poll released today.

Obama builds his lead among independents -- 47 percent to 35 percent -- and also has an edge in who voters say would be better for the economy.

(Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:24 PM

In Montana yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was "adopted" by the Crow Nation in one of the more colorful events of the presidential campaign so far, USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten reports. She writes that:

The Illinois senator was given a Crow name, Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish, which means "one who helps people throughout the land." And, he was presented with several gifts -- including a bolo tie for him and intricately beaded buckskin baby-carrying pouches for his two daughters.

Obama, who was greeted by a large crowd -- many in traditional clothing -- pledged to deliver world-class health care and education to tribal nations and to "shake-up" the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans," he told the cheering crowd in Crow Agency, Mont.

Obama said that growing up as the biracial child of a single mother, "I know what it's like to be on the outside…I know what it's like to struggle." He promised to "never forget" his new Indian "family"

"You will be on my mind every day when I'm in the White House," he said. Montana's Democratic presidential primary is set for June 3.

At the end of his day, on the plane between Bozeman and Chicago, Obama talked with reporters about the beauty of the Montana landscape he had just left behind. He said that during the private ceremony where he was "adopted" by the tribe, he gained two "adoptive" parents, Crow elders Hartford and Mary Black Eagle, and donned a traditional vest.

He also said he was working on the pronunciation of his new Crow name, but also had gained another moniker by way of his new family: "Barack Black Eagle," he said smiling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:33 PM

The Wall Street Journal points out that despite Obama's huge loss in West Virginia last week, he has gained support from 22 more superdelegates since then, compared with four who went Clinton's way.

Hmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:38 AM

Yeah, it looks like the Dems are bound and determined to walk the plank with Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:28 AM

WHy do you characterize his popularity that way, Rig? Oure nastiness of spirit? Or do you have something concrete to offer?\


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:27 AM

I simply see his popularity as limited and short lived.
                I'm resigned to his becoming the Democratic candidate. If he's defeated in the general, I don't see it as a good thing for the country, if he wins, I don't see it as a good thing for the country. I don't know where you'd go with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:39 AM

Rig,   I hope we all take the time to heal and come out fighting together.   Rove and his ilk are counting on us to poison our own wells.

I have not been a frequent contributor on Mudcat, but I sincerely regret some negative posts that I made on March 21st about the Clintons.

I hope we can all just chill -- and then come out working together to end the imperialist wars and unify for our fight against the skilled fearmongers who have subverted the American democracy.

Peace,

Danny

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:41 AM

PS We need you, brother...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:02 PM

I'm all for that, Danny.

Rig, even if he does win the general he won't be perfect; but he has shown himself to be conscientious and hard-working, smart and a man who believes in principles. I think he will do just fone, as well as anyone will be able to given the dark hole in which the nation sits at present.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:43 PM

New Poll Finds Big Shift Toward Obama
Californians give Obama a significant edge over Clinton and McCain
By Justin Ewers
Posted May 22, 2008
US News and World Report

SAN FRANCISCO—A new poll released today in California finds political momentum shifting dramatically toward Barack Obama—and away from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain—in the nation's most populous state. According to a survey conducted over the past 10 days by the Public Policy Institute of California, 59 percent of likely voters here now have a "favorable" impression of Democrat Obama, while a majority view both of the other candidates unfavorably. In a state whose Democratic primary Clinton won in February, 51 percent of voters now say they have an unfavorable opinion of her; 53 percent of voters feel the same way about Republican McCain.

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be making strides across nearly every constituency. If the general election were held today, 54 percent of Californians say they would vote for him, compared with 37 percent for McCain. That gap has widened by 8 points since March. Obama enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of Democrats here, along with over half (55 percent) of independents. He leads McCain among men and women and is viewed favorably by nearly 70 percent of Latinos—a powerful political group, experts note, not just in California but in several other western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

While there has been an epidemic of hand-wringing among Democratic political analysts over Obama's inability to win over low-income white voters in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where Clinton has dominated recent primaries, California seems to be a different story. Obama leads McCain by a double-digit margin here among likely voters, no matter what their incomes. He enjoys a 55-to-35 percent lead among those who make less than $40,000 a year, including whites; a 55-to-36 percent lead among those who make between $40,000 and $80,000; and a 53-to-37 percent lead among those who make $80,000 or more.

"As the presidential campaign has moved further away from California, what's been taking place is solid support among Democrats and increasing support among independent voters," says Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, the nonpartisan group that released the poll, which surveyed more than 2,000 voters. "John McCain is certainly going to have his work cut out for him here."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:00 PM

Likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama has begun a top-secret search for a running mate, fresh signs that the general election campaign is well under way and the primary race against Hillary Rodham Clinton is basically over.
Obama has asked former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to begin vetting potential vice presidential picks, Democratic officials said Thursday. Johnson did the same job for Democratic nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.
Obama refused to acknowledge Johnson's role when The Associated Press asked the Illinois senator about it in the Capitol Thursday.

"I haven't hired him. He's not on retainer. I'm not paying him any money. He is a friend of mine. I know him," Obama said. "I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination."

The Democratic officials spoke on a condition of anonymity about a process that the campaign wants to keep quiet.

Vice presidential searches are usually closely held secrets, but Obama campaign officials say the effort is being handled by a particularly tight circle of advisers.
The campaign did not want to discuss the effort because they are still engaged in a fading primary campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton, with three primaries left in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana. The voting ends June 3. Obama has repeatedly declined to discuss possible running mates while the primary is ongoing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:25 PM

...he won't be perfect

Precisely. And that's no reason not to hope he makes it.

It's been a bit disturbing seeing the game of adulation versus demonisation of candidates in this selection process. More so the adulation - it must get difficult not to start believing in it when you are stuck in the middle of something like that being hailed as a kind of Messiah. The Roman's used to have someone stand next to their generals when they were having a Triumph, with the job of tapping them on the shoulder from time to time and reminding them they were just mortals.

I hope Obama's got someone like that. Maybe Michelle takes care of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:21 PM

I am sure she does.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:41 PM

Smoky figures out human politics. LOL!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:04 PM

Amos-

Very interesting link!

I'm certainly not expecting perfection from Obama but I've been very impressed with how well he's communicated with potential voters in this hard fought campaign. And I certainly was aware (back in January) that Rev. Wright as an "issue" would likely be activated.

We live in interesting times. Hopefully we will survive them.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:09 PM

"Or gone color blind at 90!" Rig

Rig, was that meant to be funny or is it the definitive comment from you regarding Obama? You know, there aren't too many Americans nowadays who would admit to being racist. Most who are put it in different words, like: I am leery of what he says. Or, I don't think he has substance in him, only style. Or, he has people mesmerized.

And a dozenteen others.

Not many people admit to being racist. Would you?

Oddly enough, I like you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:41 PM

"Rig, was that meant to be funny or is it the definitive comment from you regarding Obama?"

                   Ebbie - What I was getting at was, and I think it's pretty well documented, at one time, in his twenties, Senator Byrd was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. That would have been 65 to 70 years ago--in early 1940's maybe--so I'll admit, it's a cheap shot, and I kind of regreted it after I hit the "submit" button.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:34 AM

Text size – + Obama widens superdelegate lead
Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor May 23, 2008 10:37 AM
Barack Obama has added four more superdelegates today, wresting one from Hillary Clinton and inheriting two from John Edwards, who endorsed him last week.

Obama now has 310.5 superdelegates, according to his campaign's count, and is within 59 delegates of clinching the nomination (barring the magic number changing if the Democratic National Committee adds disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan). Clinton almost certainly needs to get the vast majority of undeclared superdelegates, and the Florida and Michigan delegates, to pull out the nomination.

The new superdelegates for Obama cited his inevitability as the nominee as much as praising his qualities.

Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California, who had supported Clinton, who won his state's primary, said in a statement, "While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party's nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need."

Obama's campaign also announced support from another California congressman, Jim Costa.

State Senator Peter Burling of Cornish and Deborah Nelson of Hanover, two former Edwards superdelegates from New Hampshire, plan to announce their switch at a news conference this morning, the Associated Press reported.

Burling told The Associated Press that he and Nelson believe either Obama or Clinton would make a superb president, but it came down to "who can win and who could make a better president" -- and that Obama is about to clinch the nomination.

"If it were Senator Clinton who in my mind had the edge at this moment, she would be getting exactly this kind of endorsement," Burling said.

Nelson told the AP she made up her mind as she watched the news coverage of Senator Edward M. Kennedy's diagnosis with brain cancer this week. "I thought, here's someone who represents everything that matters to me, and he supports Obama, so what am I waiting for?" she said in a separate phone interview.

Boston.com

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:02 PM

Well, who is Pete Stark supporting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 02:55 PM

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Barack Obama inched closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination on Friday, picking up four delegates, including a California congressman who switched his allegiance from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama "has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, who became the 14th superdelegate to switch from Clinton to Obama.

Two of John Edwards' New Hampshire delegates, State Sen. Peter Burling and high school teacher Deborah Nelson, held a news conference to announce they were backing Obama.

In a phone interview, Burling told The Associated Press that he and Nelson believe either Obama or Clinton would make a superb president, but it came down to "who can win and who could make a better president."

Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., also announced his support for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:06 PM

This week's screamer. When Hillary shot herself int he foot by raising the ghost of assassinations past in discussing RFK's summer campaign, she copped heat from all qurters, except Barack and RFK Jr. Barack said, hey, I understand how it is. You get tired, and you mis-speak. RFK said he understood and it was no big deal.

Now, lo and behold, the outrage of others -- notably, for example, Keith Olbermann, who practically tore Hillary a new one-- has been identified (according to Terry McAuliffe of Hillary's campaign crew) as being actually Barack's fault, hallelujah.

From the Houston Chronicle:

"Delusion reigns supreme in the Clinton camp these days. Just when I thought it couldnÕt get any stranger, Terry McAuliffe appeared today on Fox News Sunday and blamed the Obama campaign for HillaryÕs remarks about Bobby Kennedy. Yes, you read that right, itÕs ObamaÕs fault.

Here it is from the Washington Post:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency

The Obama campaign tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."

Ah yes, the dreaded out of context. The last refuge of someone trying to defend an indefensible statement. Tell me Terry, exactly what would be the proper context in referring to the assassination of a presidential candidate? Just curious."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:29 PM

Yes sir, it looks like we're inching closer and closer to a John McCain presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:36 PM

As has been obvious for awhile, the main question will be if the Hillary supporters will be sensible enough to vote for Obama in preference to McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Only if racism and dumpkoffery is allowed to sweep away reason, Rig. Do what you can to fight that, won't you?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:40 AM

I'm on my way out the door with my shotgun as we speak, Amos, to fight the every growing heartbreak of dumpkoffery.


             I just hope Obama isn't elected as a result of reverse discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:50 AM

The fear that he will not be, as a result of latent discrimination, is much more likely. There are still people, in significant numbers, who "would never vote for a colored". This election is an opportunity to take a third major step against that kind of racism, as important as emancipation and civil rights.

Vote for him because he is intelligent, competent, compassionate and worth following. But you can also be glad you did, as a secondary factor, because he is black.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:57 AM

It's absurd to even raise the idea that Obama would be elected on the basis of "reverse discrimination". He has a huge list of qualities which would recommend him regardless of whether he were black, white, yellow, brown, purple, orange or any other color.

These qualities include, but are not limited to:

power to inspire,

good grasp of financial management (see the campaign's financial success),

ability to maintain coolness under huge pressure,

quick wit,

maturity beyond his years (e.g. strong resistance to engage in negative campaigning though the main opponent was wallowing in it),

ability to plan for many contingencies ( in contrast to his main opponent),

ability to attract similarly talented individuals,

ability and willingness to compromise when necessary

ability to recognize opportunity when it arises.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:16 PM

All of which are good reasons to put the man in office and let him get on with doing what he can do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:36 PM

THE ROAD TO VICTORY FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL Hillary Clinton is straight out of a nightmare: It keeps getting steeper and steeper the closer she gets to the end. By late next week, it may become obvious even to her that she'd have a better chance at Power Ball than pulling out a backroom victory against Barack Obama.

A highly placed Democratic Party source we've dealt with for many years tells us that Obama over the next several weeks will announce support from as many as 17 superdelegates, bringing his total delegate count from the current 1,965 to 1,982.


(Barron's)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:41 PM

You can't cite Barrons on Mudcat. It's owned by Dow Jones, therefore determined by certain prolific posters to be hopelessly biased, as a capitalist tool--and thus incapable of providing any information.

Or so I've heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Oh. Sorry. I guess I am now an official capitalist tool.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 02:31 PM

Though it is admittedly interesting that those who criticize Dow Jones have been for some reason unable to come up with even one source they feel is more reliable.

Tis a puzzlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:25 PM

Here's a source - Barack Obama: Announced during the discussion with Hillary Clinton on Superstition and Ethics.

                "If elected, I intend to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open."


                  A good reason to vote for anybody else for people who are free thinkers and don't want another 4 years of George W. Bush.

                  And after that, Reverend Wright appeared, and you just knew where the money would be going. Then Wright's understudy showed up, and there was never a better reason not to vote for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:58 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, Rig.

First of all, what would it mean to "leave it open", and what has it been doing?

Second of all, on what terms and under what guidance would it be left open?

Third of all, is there any comparable proposition from any other candidate? Or are they just ducking the issue?

While I fully appreciate and sympathize with your skeptical view toward what most people call faith, the actual issues in this department my be a little more specific.

Here's a report from the OFBCI on work so far.

It doesn't look as evil as you would like it to, I am afraid.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 04:27 PM

As I've said earlier, if somebody wants to find an excuse to vote against a candidate, he can always do it--regardless of the real reason.

And some people just have to have simple villains. Ascribing all their problems to religion, or immigrants, or whatever the chosen target is, makes life so much simpler. Just don't ask them to back up their prejudices with actual facts and evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:17 PM

You, Ron, are the one who is refusing to bring evidence. The evidence in this case came right out of Obama's mouth.


                      "It doesn't look as evil as you would like it to, I am afraid."


                            The Office of Faith Based Initiatives looks plenty evil to me. We have people of the public payroll who shouldn't be, we have money going to people who shouldn't have it. We had public programs set up to do these jobs, and that's who should be doing them. If they can't because their funding has been cut off, it's a pretty simple solution to cut off these faith-based jerks and give it back to the people who know what to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:28 PM

I am inclined to agree with your general attitude. But if you look at the policy statements, they say explicitly "people of any faith, or none". So I suspect that calling it faith-based was just a stupid, transparent sop to the right-wing Christian "base", and the actual operation is just an interface between any charitable group, and federal money.

I could be wrong, though, and I would really like to see the money tree showing what groups it went to and where it went from there since the office was opened.

Rig, you say this office has money going to people who should not have it. Which people, and how much? Or are you just saying that from a general impression?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:32 PM

By the way, Rig, the bald statement that he wanted to keep the OFBC open is not the whole truth.

What he said was:

""I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear," Obama said in response to a question about his commitment to reduce poverty in America. "It's not to simply build a particular faith community. The faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up."

He added that government should partner with religious organizations to provide social services as long as it is done within the requirements of the Constitution.

"We make sure that it's open to everybody," he said. "It's not simply the federal government funding certain groups to be able to evangelize."

Obama's comments came during a televised 45-minute question-and-answer session at Messiah College, a small private Christian College in Pennsylvania, a state that will hold election primaries April 22. The forum was sponsored by Faith in Public Life, a group of self-described progressive religious leaders who have said they want to "reclaim" the religious dialogue in politics from conservative Christians, who have championed high-profile electoral topics in past elections. The forum underscored how pervasive religion has become in the 2008 election as a focus of both the candidates' personalities and their positions on various public policy topics."

Aside from your general rancor about faith in any form, what is your opinion of that position?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:39 PM

"if somebody wants to find an excuse to vote against a candidate, he can always do it--regardless of the real reason."

Dead right, Ron! And that is what renders almost all the political discussions here about the American election into little more than an empty echo chamber of endless repetition of various people's established prejudices for or against whoever....

Bla. Bla. Bla. Rank prejudice all the livelong day.

Rig, I think your worry about the Faith-Based Init. Hooha is unfounded. Obama is simply doing the politically smart thing to do...he's ensuring that he won't lose a sizeable chunk of votes, which he would if he threatened to close the aforementioned Hooha.

He's acting like any American politician would who had serious intentions of being elected, because there are a few things you must NOT do:

show any disrespect to the great American Idol - the military
show any softness toward punishing crime severely
show lack of any patriotic enthusiasm in any way whatsoever
show any lack of interest in the flag or the national anthem
show any lack of support for religion, motherhood, the family, and God.
show any tendency to question the effects capitalism or tolerate the idea of socialism!

You have to bullshit constantly to win an American election, Rig, and you have to do it within certain very predictable guidelines...

God, the flag, country, the military, the police, families, just plain folks, working mothers, heterosexual marriage...focus on those kind of things and you're safe. Make bloody well sure they don't think you're too high class or too intellectual! That last part is tricky for Obama, because he's clearly a very smart man. He talks like a very smart man. I bet that worries the hell out of a lot of just plain folks who won't vote for him. They'll feel much safer with McCain, a man who reminds them of the rough-hewn, tough-talkin' heroes they saw in all those Hollywood movies all those years ago.

Americans like electing people who build log cabins and ride horses all day and git all dusty while they're doin' it. People like Reagan. It's frontier mythology. They are still ridin' off into the sunset after havin' gunned down a few more redskins and hard cases on behalf of God and country.

McCain is perfect for that dumbass mentality. Obama? He's from another world to those folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:02 PM

When this whole thing started out, the candidates I thought would be best for the country were forced out. We ended up with Hillary and Obama. I thought Hillary would be much better than Obama, but I've stated a few times that if Hillary didn't get the nomination, I'd vote for Obama.

                  This faith based thing is something I cannot stand to see go forward. To me, it's at the core of the Bush presidency. It was the wigged out religious idiots that put him in office.
                  Then, after Obama said he wanted to continue down that path, we were introduced to Reverend Wright.

                  It was god who told Bush to invade Iraq. What is god going to tell Obama to do.

                  I just think we need a rational individual in the office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:26 PM

Neither Hillary nor Obama strike me as the type who would claim that God told them what to do. Nor does McCain, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:51 AM

"...and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]" Liz Trotta in an interview on FOX

What is WRONG with These People

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Frank-Walter Steinmeier had hoped to meet personally, but Barack Obama has a lot on his plate at the moment and Germany's foreign minister had to make do with a telephone conversation with the presidential candidate during his recent visit to Washington. Still, that's all it took to stir Steinmeier's enthusiasm for the candidate.

The American may be deep in the midst of a campaign, but members of Steinmeier's entourage told SPIEGEL that Obama's foreign policy questions were very engaged, and he peppered his conversation with questions about the German foreign minister's views on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.

The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and was very focused. Obama's rhetorical "cruising altitude," was apparently quite high, an advisor to Steinmeier said. At the end of the conversation, the Democratic presidential candidate promised to come to Germany as soon as possible.

The few minutes spent on the telephone gave Steinmeier the impression that Obama is prepared to fundamentally reconsider the course of US foreign policy. Steinmeier was impressed, and only a day later he publicly outed himself as the senator's latest fan. "Yes we can," the minister, not known for his emotional outbursts, chanted, evoking Obama's campaign slogan during a speech at Harvard University. Steinmeier used the term to express his desire for a renewal of trans-Atlantic relations.

'Germany Is Obamaland'

But the foreign minister hasn't been alone in his admiration for the candidate -- Berlin has been teeming with Obamamania for weeks now. Even conservatives are taken by the Democrat. After the Bush era, Chancellor Angela Merkel of the conservative Christian Democrats can easily imagine working together with a liberal Democrat in the White House. And Norbert Röttgen, chief whip for the Christian Democrats in parliament, sees Obama as the messenger of a new wave of politics that could also provide a model for Germany.

"Germany is Obamaland," says Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator for trans-Atlantic relations. He says Germans see the African-American senator as a kind of "mixture of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr."
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:18 PM

Those people (on Fox) are disseminating propaganda, Ebbie...very deliberately calculated propaganda that is intended to influence their viewers to think in certain patterns. They are doing what Goebbels did in Germany, and they are pandering in a very blatant way to certain viewpoints that are out there. They want their viewers to think "Obama...Osama", "Obama...Muslim", "Hillary...assassin", etc...

And most of their daily viewers just lap it up.

Those people would make the most enthusiastic crowds at some new Nuremberg rallies, I'm sure. The outer format would be a bit different, but the inner spirit would be almost indistinguishable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:54 PM

Washington Post:
Obama's Patriotic Call

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; Page A13

If the 2008 election is to be a debate about the true meaning of patriotism, then bring it on.

Ever since Barack Obama took off his flag pin, Democrats and liberals have had a queasy feeling that talk of patriotism would be a covert way to raise the matter of Obama's race; to cast him as some sort of alien figure ("You know what his middle name is?"); and to paint him as an effete intellectual out of touch with true American values.

I have no doubt that these things will happen. Moreover, John McCain's sacrifice for his country will be a central theme of the Republican campaign. And why not? Yes, many Republicans refused to honor John Kerry's service during the campaign four years ago, but McCain wasn't part of that, and his service deserves the praise it gets.

Yet Obama cannot simply cede the terrain of patriotism to McCain, and progressives should not assume that patriotism is somehow a bad thing, akin to jingoism or nationalism.

The reaction of too many progressives to patriotism is "automatic, allergic recoil," say two young Seattle writers, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, in their important book "The True Patriot."

Instead of recoil, they offer rigorous standards for what patriotism should be. "True patriots," they write, "believe that freedom from responsibility is selfishness; freedom from sacrifice is cowardice; freedom from tolerance is prejudice; freedom from stewardship is exploitation; and freedom from compassion is cruelty."

Their new progressive patriotism bears some resemblance to the old progressive patriotism of Theodore Roosevelt. "We cannot meet the future," Roosevelt said in a 1916 Memorial Day speech, "either by mere gross materialism or by mere silly sentimentalism; above all, we cannot meet it if we attempt to balance gross materialism in action by silly sentimentalism in words."

For good measure, the trust-buster also declared that "the big business man" must "recognize the fact that his business activities, while beneficial to himself and his associates, must also justify themselves by being beneficial to the men who work for him and to the public which he serves."

As Liu and Hanauer and and Roosevelt suggest, anyone who enters into a serious discussion of patriotism is required to offer more than bromides about love of flag and of country. Patriotism has to involve definitions, commitments and actions.

Obama already has the template for moving the debate in this direction. In December, he gave one of his best, and least noticed, speeches: a call to national service. The policies he proposed include a doubling of the Peace Corps and an expansion of the AmeriCorps program from 75,000 to 250,000 slots. (President Bush, by the way, deserves credit for saving AmeriCorps from the hostility of some in his own party.) Obama would link his $4,000 tuition tax credit to a service requirement.

He also suggests ideas that conservatives should embrace, including a Social Investment Fund Network and a Social Entrepreneur Agency that would encourage the innovations of the private, not-for-profit sector.

But Obama's speech was about more than programs. It was suffused with the rhetoric of a reformer's patriotism. "I have no doubt that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it," he said. "Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July; loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it."

Obama's is just one approach to patriotism and service. Sen. Jim Webb's new GI Bill of Rights is an essential step toward honoring those who have sacrificed in Iraq, and Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed important interim steps toward expanding AmeriCorps by bringing its rewards to those who perform service more closely in line with current college costs.

Dodd says he always explains his decision to join President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps by saying, "The president asked me." He wins nods from youthful audiences when he says, "Let me tell you what it was like to be young, to be an American and to be asked."

Dodd was campaigning for Obama in South Dakota last Friday when he spoke with me, and he seems to have gotten this message to his candidate. Pinch-hitting for Ted Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Wesleyan University on Sunday, Obama revisited the themes of his December speech and explicitly renewed JFK's call, promising that "service to a greater good" would be "a cause of my presidency."

A competition between Obama and McCain over who can issue the most compelling summons to service would serve the country far better than an empty rhetorical skirmish over which of these candidates is the true patriot. And, yes, it's a good thing that Obama has been seen wearing the flag pin again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:57 PM

another from the Washington Post...

Worldviews in Need of Merger

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; Page A13

Chris Matthews, in a look of revelation not seen since the late DeMille did biblical epics, said the other day that he is beginning to think a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket makes sense. Maybe so. But I have an even better ticket in mind: Obama-McCain. That way we might get a sensible foreign policy.

As it is now, the two probable presidential nominees have outlined a foreign policy that sort of goes like this: Obama will talk to anyone while John McCain will talk to no one. I would guess that both would love to amend their positions but are mortally afraid of appearing reasonable. Obama represents a constituency that holds that much of the world's troubles are caused by the United States and can be rectified by a president who is alert to cultural nuance and can be a keen listener. This is the world according to Oprah Winfrey.

McCain, on the other hand, is seeking the support of a constituency that thinks the United States is always the innocent party and would show weakness by even acknowledging the existence of, not to mention the occasional justifiable grievance of, certain entities -- particularly Hamas, Hezbollah and the entire country of Iran. This is the world according to an ostrich.

I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.

McCain, though, knows exactly what he himself is saying -- and how wrong he is -- because he once said pretty close to the opposite. In 2006, McCain was interviewed by James P. Rubin, a former Clinton administration official then slumming as a journalist. Rubin asked McCain whether American diplomats should continue to work with the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip if -- as had just become the case -- "Hamas is now in charge." McCain essentially said yes.

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," he told Rubin. "It's a new reality in the Middle East." I have truncated McCain's quote, but it is -- I avow and attest -- an accurate reflection of what he said.

After Rubin's recent recounting of his McCain interview in a Post op-ed, the McCain camp went berserk. It called Rubin a liar and said he had taken the quote out of context. In one sense, he had: In 2006, McCain was not an official presidential candidate. Now he is.

McCain's campaign then supplied a piece of the interview that Rubin had left out. Here it is: "I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts." Well, duh. Not only is that obvious, it materially changes nothing. What's missing is a McCain oath to never, ever talk to Hamas until it is, in essence, no longer Hamas. It's clear that McCain was once guilty of sensible flexibility. Until he secures his GOP base, this could be dangerous. Someone could mistake him for a moderate.

As for Obama, he's coming off as McCain's mirror opposite -- just dying to talk to anyone McCain won't. This, too, is a mistake, because when a president sits down with an antagonistic foreign leader, doing so can only be to settle what has already been settled. Negotiations can be a dangerous business, especially when one negotiator has a free and rambunctious press to goad him into compromises while the other is covered by suitably intimidated sycophants.

Campaigns tend to make idiots out of really smart people. Already, Hillary Clinton has been soiled by her fantasy bravery in Bosnia, Obama stood by for too long while his minister made a fool of him, and McCain, who wakes up every morning being as decent a person as there is, calls someone a liar because he has been embarrassed by his own words. No one's looking good here.

But while Americans take campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt, foreign audiences -- including leaders -- tend to believe what they hear. They are now sizing up McCain and Obama on the basis of what they are saying. One sounds like an inflexible hard-liner and the other like a naif. What America really needs is to combine the two -- some moderation on McCain's part, some realpolitik on Obama's. Either man could fill that role by himself. All it takes is a decent regard for when history says not to talk -- and when it says to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:57 PM

He is th e most rational individual available, Rig. And your gut instinct of revulsion about the Faith-Based Etcetera is, I think, misplaced. Look into it a bit more closely. The existing organization is very careful (at least in words) to make their support available to "people of any faith, or none" who are doing social good works of some kind. Obama has made it clear that if he keeps the office, it would have to be carefullly vetted not to be biased toward any single patho r group.

If it were called "the Office of Charitable NGO Liaison" would you have a problem with it? In other words, is your reaction against the substance or the label?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:14 PM

I would happily support someone who wanted to do away with this program. We had public organizations in place to do the things that the Faith-Based groups are supposed to be doing. After Reagan--Bush and Bush, much of the funding for these agencies was cut.
                     Now, somebody has realized why they were in place in the first place, and they come up with the Faith-Based buffoons.
                     A Democrat, you would think, would want to go back to public administration and get away from the ass-kissing process that certainly must be found in what is going on now. A Democrat who would not shut these scams down, is just another scammer, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:42 PM

"Faith-based" does not necessarily mean "bad", Rig. Faith-based organizations have been engaging in useful charity and public service ever since human societies have existed.

Indian medicine people did that for thousands of years in their societies. They were the healers and teachers and they were also the religious leaders of those people. What are you gonna do about that? ;-)

Your reaction to "faith" is as blind as a neocon's reaction to "socialism". It has become an unthinking reflex on your part, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:44 PM

Well, you haven't quite answered my question -- do you have some evidence of "these scams", or are you extrapolating that just from the label?

What would you think of the program if everything else were the same byt the name changed as I described upthread?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 08 - 05:48 PM

"...Even conservatives are taken by the Democrat..." (From a quote in that post by Amos 27 May 08 - 11:28 AM)

Not too surprising. The thing is, the Democratic party, in European teerms is a conservative party, well to the right of centre. (And that "centre" is currently pretty well to the right to start with, in historical terms.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 05:54 PM

Little Hawk - Whatever faith based organizations do to add to their numbers is their business, as sad as it is for me to see that happen. But I think I have a right to be upset when I pay taxes and they're doing it with public money.

                   Amos - The nature of the "scam" is in the way these things are organized in the first place. Again, I think the most unfortunate part of the whole thing is the fact that it's done with tax payer money. Has anyone looked to see if they dole out funds to Wiccans, Pegans, and Pantheists? If they haven't given those folks a piece of the pie, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:08 PM

I believe, Rig, from your remarks, that you have not looked into what organization "X" really does do, and have concluded things about its nature that are generalized and in accurate because of the very offputting use of the word Faith and Bush's neurotic dependency on his imaginary playmate to keep him sober.

All well and good. But administratively, if they say "any faith, or none" it is polite to tentatively accept that assertion while looking for more facts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:10 PM

Charity and good works are things that many religious people do for their own sake, Rig, simply because it is the right thing to do...and not to "add to their numbers". You seem incapable of even imagining any religious person who acts out of an inner social ideal rather than to enlarge or aggrandize an outer religious power structure.

That's sad. Most of the kindest and most intelligent and finest people of character I've ever known have been members of some religion (a great variety of different ones) or of some spiritual discipline. And a few others have not.

It shows that you do not even begin to comprehend what religion means to any sincere person who happens to be, to use your term, "religious".

Your terms of reference are way out of context and they are based on some kind of emotional grudge you are carrying.

******

As for the Faith-Based Initiatives thing, I don't know enough about that to comment much on it. It's not an issue in Canada, only in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:35 PM

It would probably never be an issue in Canada, you'd have to elect an idiot like George W. Bush before it would be allowed to surface.

                         Your experience with Bible Thumpers must be a lot different than mine, but I'll take your word for the ones you know.

                         In the long run, however, people who think like I do would constitute such a tiny little minority, it wouldn't be worth a political candidates time to worry about us.

                         Getting back to Amos' point, though. Even if these "faith based" people were all honest and upright, we had civil programs in place to cover these kinds of problems, and Reagan and Bush, Bush gutted them, and Clinton did little to help restore them. Maybe that's what bothers me the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:41 PM

Yes, I fully understand your concern about those programs being gutted. That has happened in Canada too, to a pretty bad extent, ever since the 1980s, due to the neoconservative movement having had its effect on Canadian politics too ever since the beginning of the Reagan era.

However, I doubt that we will ever elect an idiot comparable to George W. Bush! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:22 PM

I certainly hope not!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:39 PM

The red righter are all over Obama because he stated that his greatuncle had been part of the frces that liberated Auschwitz; in fact it was not Auschwitz, which was liberated by the Red Army, but Buchenwald, and Obama quickly acknowledged his mistatement and corrected it.

I want to see how Hillary responds to this news -- "An easily understandable mistake"? Or, "a shameful distortion, self-serving lying!"

I am betting she will be smart enough to go with the former.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:32 PM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) Ñ The Democratic Party says the results from Oregon's presidential primary election give Barack Obama 31 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 21.

Obama thumped Clinton, wining 58 percent of the vote, which was counted a week ago.

But the precise allocation of delegates, announced Tuesday, awaited final results and calculations down to the district level.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Obama is not as patriotic as John McCain, in fact Barak Hussein is profoundly UNpatriotic.*


McCain talking point #1.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:05 PM

Oh, hell, Sergeant Fury and his Howling Commandos aren't as patriotic as John McCain! Everybody knows that. John McCain chews up iron nails, kills Commies with a mere glance, and eats terrorists for breakfast. He laughs in the face of death. ;-D

The usual election-time bloody nonsense, in other words...

I do not consider being a war hero as being any kind of recommendation for holding office. Never did. I want a war hero if I'm going to conduct a military assault, and I'll put him in the front ranks with the newbies who haven't been under fire before. Let him do what he's good at...fighting and killing people. Let someone who's good at governing run the government. I see no connection whatsoever between those 2 roles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:07 PM

This is all very confusing to someone who "Likes Ike."

Whatever happened to Huey, Dewey and Louie?

I've been away from political campaigns for a while...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:46 PM

Well Charlie, have you heard David Brooks' contribution to the Veepstakes?

Obama needs an old white general to balance the ticket, so Brooks suggested Ike.

McCain needs somebody younger than he is, so Brooks suggested Ike for him too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 10:30 PM

(Heh!)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:15 AM

An elegant excerpt from Obama's graduation address at Wesleyan :

"We will face our share of cynics and doubters. But we always have. I can still remember a conversation I had with an older man all those years ago just before I left for Chicago. He said, ÒBarack, IÕll give you a bit of advice. Forget this community organizing business and do something thatÕs gonna make you some money. You canÕt change the world, and people wonÕt appreciate you trying. But youÕve got a nice voice, so you should think about going into television broadcasting. IÕm telling you, youÕve got a future.Ó



Now, he may have been right about the TV thing, but he was wrong about everything else. For that old man has not seen what I have seen. He has not seen the faces of ordinary people the first time they clear a vacant lot or build a new playground or force an unresponsive leader to provide services to their community. He has not seen the face of a child brighten because of an inspiring teacher or mentor. He has not seen scores of young people educate their parents on issues like Darfur, or mobilize the conscience of a nation around the challenge of climate change. He has not seen lines of men and women that wrap around schools and churches, that stretch block after block just so they could make their voices heard, many for the very first time. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 08 - 05:53 PM

Something wrong with that link there, Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:14 PM

Today, in Denver, Obama announced that he wanted to pass federal legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to qualify for "in-state" tuition at colleges and universities. That means if you're a US citizen, and you live in Idaho, but you want to go to school in Oregon, you have to pay "out-of-state" tuition rates. But if you're illegally in the country, you get a discount.

                      McCain is looking better and better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:01 AM

Sorry--the correct link for Obama's address at Wesleyan is:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBPzl.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:59 AM

Have any of you googled 'obama homosexual' and read about the Sinclair/Young stuff? A crack-smoking homosexual headed for the white house. man o man. On the other hand there's a guy who was in the hands of the soviet psychologists for 7 years. 7 years of no telling what being done to him.

But if McCain gets the nomination, Obama will win. Obama's never faced competition in an election, because of scandals. His state-level election, the opponent was scandalized and lost. His primary in the US senate race, the opponent was scandalized and lost. His opponent in the general election, scandalized and lost. Obama's got where he is with the help of the FBI's mud mining. And you don't think 7 years of soviet brain manipulation of McCain will result in a little mud? Obama is the handpicked candidate of the intelligence community, and you know those are the Bushmen. CIA/Skull and Bones and all that stuff. Obama will continue the Skull and Bones economics and in a year people will be morphing his big-eared assface into GWBush's with photoshop. No difference between the two politically and not much in looks.

Obama was selected for fast-tracking 25 years ago by the Brezinski. Obama is backed by Rockefeller money. Obama/Gore want a 10 million person 'green army' to push you around. Obama is bought and paid for by the same special interests that control the Bushes and the Clintons.

So, a drooling soviet mind slave, or a racist crack-smoking homosexual? The lesser of two weevils.

http://mail.moment.net/~michael/Terrorism101.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:58 AM

I can see why you don't use your real name, dude. You probably don't even remember it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:36 AM

Yes sir, that's pretty wild all right!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:13 AM

THe Larry Sinclair shtick is off the table, probably unfounded, and of no interest, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:42 AM

The only way to find out for sure is if he gets elected...then watch what he does in the next 4 years.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Same goes for McCain or whoever else might get elected.

If Obama is NOT a chosen tool of the controlling oligarchy that runs America...I fear for his life, frankly. Those guys are not going to yield their controlling hand to any independent-minded upstart in the Oval Office. Absolutely no way possible that that will happen...short of another American revolution...and I see no way of that happening either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:37 AM

controlling oligarchy that runs America...I fear for his life, frankly. Those guys are ...

LH:

Who ARE "these guys"???? (Start Butch Cassidy theme music here).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:51 AM

could we have the 12:59 post flushed away, and lots of lysol used in the toiletbowl, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:00 PM

Well, it doesn't hurt to have a variety of ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:11 PM

Rig:

I think that's where you and I differ--you think of those (the 12:59 post) as ideas....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:15 PM

I'm for the full flush!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:16 PM

Yes, I suppose, but it might prove important to keep a eye on what other folks are thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:56 PM

Hillary thinks Obama could be another RFK who may be shot soon.

but that is not all

HILLARY HAS GONE way TOO FAR T O D A Y


..now
She is calling for protesters to descend on the Democratic National meeting next week to demonstrate against (Obama) virtually any decision regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The visuals that will be created will have a life of their own and further divide the party and this nation.
All the Republicans need to do is send a few goons to start a riot.


She was always a weasel but now her tactics are like the Bush tactics during the denied recount of Florid's 2000 votes.


Hillary said that the potential for a RFK disruption of the candidate race could change everything so why should she quit now.

She should quit and realize how ashamed she has made us.
If she has a conscience to be ashamed for her own behavior she should in fact apologize and then quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:59 PM

Why should she feel ashamed?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:40 PM

For being a Rove of the Democratic Party

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:11 PM

The Rove method has been proven to be a winning proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:32 PM

So was the Genghis Khan method! ;-) Al Capone was a winner too. Also Boss Tweed and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Don'tcha just love a winner?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:03 PM

Did Genghis Khan feel ashamed, Al Capone, Boss Tweed, etc., etc.? I doubt it. Remember the words of Vince Lombardi--"Just Win Baby!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:09 PM

Shame never crossed their tiny minds, Rig... ;-)

The biggest jerks I ever knew in school were all people who thought of themselves as "winners" too. It seems to go with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:10 PM

Rig:

There are small definitions of "win", and larger ones.

Some businessmen for example believe that any ruthless action in the interest of profit, no matter what its impact on the company's long-term survival, is "a win" and therefore justifiable if it raises the immediate profits of the current quarter.

Rove managed to "win" his little negotiating moments and his pea-brained campaiugns to start wars and steal elections. The long term consequences of his actions were not a win for him (as he is now looked on as a right wing fanatic) nor for the country (as the economy is in ruins and we have lost our international repute because of his actions, not to mention the minds of thousands of good men). Some "win", huh?

Thinking in black and white and in a narrow field of view is a good road to ultimate failure even though you seem to be winning every step of the way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:18 PM

2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Break out the Banana Dacquiris, Chongo!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:33 PM

Well, I guess I can't argue with any of that. Especially the dacquiris.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:46 PM

But now we see that Obama has still another preacher problem. I think it would be totally fitting if the insanity of religion sunk the Obama campaign all together.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:04 PM

Rig, I can't (as a Canadian) imagine what in the world someone's preacher or minister has to do with whether or not they should be elected. Guilt by association???? Don't you elect people on the basis of their own ideas, their own policies, their own presentation, abilities, intelligence, and character?

That's what we do in Canada. I've never even heard who the preacher or pastor of any Canadian politician is, and I doubt that anyone here would ever even ask. Nobody cares!

You know what? I think your political system and your mass media and your society have gone mad, Riginslinger, and you can't blame that all on religion. No, it's a larger picture. Religion is just one little aspect of the incredible mess you're in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:06 PM

"....preacher problem".

Still trying desperately to find some excuse not to support Obama, eh?

We know if you can't find one, you'll make one up. We already know you have a lively imagination.

But if you think that either Hillary or McCain will be any more likely than Obama to support your rabid anti-religion attitude, you're sadly deluded (unsurprisingly).

Especially with McCain, you will find that the church/state separation crumbles even more. If that's fine with you--after all your ranting against religion-- that tells us all we need to know.

And since Obama will be the Democratic nominee--anything else is your pipe-dream---if you don't support him, you are helping religion to further encroach on public life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:20 PM

Religion, as far as I am concerned, is only a problem...or a benefit...to the people who practice it. (this is in North America, I mean...) If you practice a religion, then it can affect you either well or badly...depending on how you practice it and how you interpret it.

I don't practice any specific religion. Therefore religion doesn't affect me. Period. In NO way does religion affect me on any day of my life. Not last year, not this year, not next year.

So why should I worry about it? And why should I obsess about other people's choices of religion? That's their business, and it doesn't hurt me...just the same as what I choose to do or believe doesn't hurt them either.

Are you listening, Riginslinger? No one is forcing you to be religious! Why don't you shut up about other people's freely made choices in life and stop judging them?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:21 PM

If you mean F. Pfleger's apology for his remarks about Clinton, I'd like to know in what possible way this is a problem for Barack Obama?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 08:33 AM

"Are you listening, Riginslinger? No one is forcing you to be religious!"


                  But they're forcing me to pay taxes that go to support the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. I though a Democratic president would shut it down, but Obama has indicated that he will not.

                  Of course, I don't think you can have wars without religion either, but we don't have time to go into that.

                  To me it seems like America started into a sharp decline with the election of Ronald Reagan. All of that relates to the fact that Reagan brought superstition into government, which promoted the tendancy to generate irratioinal decisions. That's been accelerated under Bush II. And just at the point in time where a Democratice president can get elected to try to put things straight, Obama jumps in with the same brand of buffoonery.


                   There ain't no justice!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:37 AM

"Are you paying attention to this moment in time? Are you reading bits and hints about the transformation, the shift, the unusual and slightly surreal energy coursing through the nation? Are you younger than 50? Then there's been nothing else like this in your lifetime. And there probably never will be again.

Because it wasn't that long ago, not even a year, that Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination was pretty much a given. Indeed, going into this race, Clinton was perfect, strong and smart as hell, and even I was relatively thrilled for her candidacy, especially given how she was so ahead in the polls, fundraising and public opinion that her imminent nomination felt much like a foregone conclusion.

Just a bit beyond incredible, then, what has happened since, in one of the more fascinating turning points in American history. "

Mark Morford's column is a fascinating read into how and why. Recommended.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:17 AM

In my opinion, there is really one reason Hillary was not able to compete with Obama, and that one reason is Money.

               The Move-on.org crowd opted for Obama--it's still not clear yet why--and that gave him access to all the money generated in small quantities at all the college campuses across the nation, along with other Democratic elites.

                This was never more clear than in Wisconsin where Obama would normally have had a hard time, but he was able to outspend her 5 to 1. To me, that was the real turning point in the campaign.

                I will admit that Hillary made a lot of mistakes, and that gives me pause as to her abilities as well. I can't for the life of me understand, after the Howard Dean run in 2004, how she could have ignored the internet as a source for money. On the other hand, maybe she didn't--maybe she thought Move-on was going to work with her, and they came around to stab her in the back at the last minute the way John Edwards did.

                  Of course, it's not known and probably will never be.

                  The thing that I spend a lot of my time wondering about now is: what does Move-on, the Dail Kos, and all of those folks expect to get from Obama if he wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:26 AM

AUSTIN, Texas—Barack Obama picked up two Texas superdelegates, bringing him within 42 delegates of locking up the Democratic presidential nomination.

more stories like thisTexas Democratic Party chairman Boyd Richie and his wife, Democratic National Committee member Betty Richie, endorsed Barack Obama for president late Thursday.

Texas has 32 superdelegates and the Richies were among a handful of those remaining who had not committed to either Obama or rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I believe Senator Obama is the candidate who can best provide the leadership and change Texans desire," Richie said in a statement issued by the party. "Senator Obama has the skill and ability to unite Americans from all walks of life and put our country back on the right track."

Clinton narrowly won the state's primary March 4, but Obama has prevailed in two rounds of caucuses that also determine pledged delegates from Texas. The final division of those caucus delegates comes next week at the state convention in Austin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:33 AM

Fact is, Rig, that groups like that are often founded purely out of altruism and the desire to make things better, not the desire to make a buck any way they can. What they hope to get is movement toward an ideal. Possibly a bit of influence. But its not the dough.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:27 AM

Well, in any event, I hope that's the case!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:58 PM

"Hillary Clinton might have won California's Democratic primary in February, but the state's Democrats now prefer rival Barack Obama by a huge margin. And both Obama and Clinton would crush Republican John McCain if the November election were held today.

Those are the results of a Field Poll released today that boosts the hopes of Democratic operatives who want to avoid spending tens of millions of dollars to make sure the Golden State's 55 electoral votes end up in the Democratic column in November.

According to the new poll, both Clinton and Obama beat McCain in 17-point landslides - seemingly jettisoning the notion from the McCain campaign that California is "in play."

"The poll is really good news for the Democratic Party," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University-Sacramento.

Though Clinton beat Obama by 8 percentage points in February, the most recent poll has a majority of California Democrats preferring her rival - 51 percent to 38 percent.

The poll indicated the rivalry between the Obama and Clinton camps is still intense. Twenty-two percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama - compared with 17 percent of Obama voters who said they wouldn't vote for Clinton."

Mercury News

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:52 PM

The endorsement of Obama by a bipartisan group of Joe Kennedy's successors - Arthur Levitt, David Ruder and William Donaldson - may help him as much in a general election campaign as the one from Edwards. In their statement, the SEC chiefs praised Obama for his support of "balanced regulatory reform."
"We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future," the three men said in their statement, which for good measure was also signed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who endorsed Obama in January and has been an adviser since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:03 PM

Isn't that the same Paul Volcker who destroyed the economy in the 1980's, drove Jimmy Carter out of office, and helped Reagan set up the economic system that's tearing the country apart now?

                   If I was running for office, I wouldn't want him advising me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:27 PM

I don't know the details of Volker's record, Rig, but I kind of doubt he could have single handedly accomplished all that ruin.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:48 PM

Rig, you say that "I don't think you can have wars without religion either"...

Wrong! Well, wrong, that is, if you think religion is the root cause of most wars. The root cause of most wars is ruthless economic and military competition for resources, valuable land, and control of commerce and trading markets and industry. Religion almost always plays a part in those wars....but that is because it is used by cynical and opportunistic governments as a wonderfully effective motivator to get people all worked up to support the home cause and oppose the foreign one. It's just a trumped-up emotionally-laden excuse that proves handy to get a lot of people up in arms and onside for a war, that's all. This is particularly so in the Islamic world and in the USA at the moment.   The wars are fought over material motives and control of material resources and cash, not over religion.

Do you think the neocons are fighting their wars over religion? Ha!!!!!! They don't believe in anything etherial like that. They are fighting over control of oil, water, trade, military supremacy, commerce, politics, media, and profit.

They could not care less about any God or religion. Maybe Reagan cared personally about God, maybe even Bush cares personally about God...but Reagan and Bush were just false "faces"...figureheads placed for public consumption. The people who put them in office don't care a hoot about God...but they DO care that they can control and divide and manipulate and confuse the American public by pandering to religious values and playing on people's fears. YES! That is what they care about. They're just cynically using religion as a way of moving the great, confused public willy-nilly in the direction they desire.

Also, if you can keep the religious people and the non-religious people in a society at each other's throats over various utterly trivial issues...WHILE accomplishing the much more vital financial, strategic, and economic goals of domination that are on your real agenda....so much the better.

That's what is happening. Religion is not the cause of any of these wars, it's the very visible red herring that gets trotted out to motivate the fighters on both sides, feed the fires of conflict, baffle brains, and keep the pot boiling.

And you've been caught by that red herring. You're a bloodhound sniffing down a false trail that has been laid by people with great material gains in mind.

In the end they will betray both you AND the religious people, because they don't give a hoot about the lives of either one of you. They do find your mutual distrust and hatred, though, greatly to their benefit. It keeps you distracted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:48 PM

Yeah, you ought to see him. I think he did it with his nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:55 PM

"Wrong! Well, wrong, that is, if you think religion is the root cause of most wars..."


                Well, let's see! Things in Northern Ireland seem to have calmed down a bit between the Catholics and the Protestants, but the Hindus and the Moslems still go at it from time to time on the subcontinent. And the Jews and the Arabs are never ending in their conflict for blood. And even with the Moslems, you have the Shiite and the Sunnis going at it in Iraq.

                And even Hitler had to resurrect Norse Mythology to prod his people into conflict, when the rift between Catholics and Jews didn't prove strong enough.

                I think it would be hard to convince ordinary people that it's a good idea to be running around shooting at each other if you couldn't call on a little religion form time to time. Look how George W. Bush does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 07:37 PM

Yes, but you are simply confirming what I said as to how politicians use religion as a motivator for their wars. The real fight is over jurisdictional power and control over a geographical area and all the valuable material stuff that's in that area. Religion, like patriotism, like cultural identity, and like skin color, is used as an emotional motivator to get people to enlist and blow the hell out of other people whom they think are "different" in some way from themselves.

Religion is just one among many excuses for going to war. The Israelis and the Arabs are not really fighting over their religious differences...although many of the soldiers may imagine that they are. Jews and Arabs got along quite well there together in the same communities during many periods prior to the creation of Israel. They are fighting now over who gets to politically, militarily, and commercially control that area of land and all the benefits that accrue from that area of land...who gets to issue the orders...who gets to call the shots...who gets to run the government and armed forces. It has, ultimately, nothing to do with their religious beliefs, it has to do with which political group gets to have control of all the material STUFF in that area.

The religious fanatics who line up and enlist to kill and die are just individual people who've been duped by the big red herring I alluded to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:00 PM

Okay, Little Hawk, I will accept your observation as reasonable. But in 2001-2002, when George W. Bush said god told him to invade Iraq, a lot of people when along with it, and now I'm paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas, and the American economy will probably never recover.

                      That doesn't seem like a good deal for me or anybody I know, and religion certainly played a part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:04 PM

Religion, as it always has been in politics, was a cheap excuse for (a)greed (b)envy or (c) deep stupidity.

In BUsh's case I would say (a) and (c).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 01:00 AM

Anybody who wants religion out of public life should look carefully at what McCain's views are on church/state relations and the sort of justices, Supreme Court and other, McCain has promised the Religious Right he will appoint. Then compare them to Obama's views.

It's pretty clear who will act on his belief that the US was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. And it ain't Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 May 08 - 09:05 AM

Yes, it's hard to figure where Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright fit in the scheme of Judeo-Chrisitan buffoonery, but where ever it is, Obama seems to be walking lock-step with it.

               As far a Supreme Court Justices, they don't always end up where the person who appoints them thinks they will. I think this has a lot to do with, once they're on the court, the smart ones look around and, maybe for the first time, realize how incredibly important their decisions are.

             It's beginning to look like John Roberts could end up becoming another David Souter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:03 AM

"Sooner or later it all comes down to money." (Bruce Spingstein from "Big Muddy")

Yup, the neocons thought that if only they could get control of Iraq then they would be able to call the shots on the price of oil... They never ***thought*** (???) that getting control of Iraq would be difficult???

Silly colonialists...

...and now Rigs and everyone else is paying $4 a gallon for gas???

Millions of people saw thru the flaws in the neocons plans yet they were ***blinded*** to reality... Scott McClennen has purdy mauch said that same thing in the ineterviews I have heard this week...

Now we have yet another neocon plan in the oven: the bombing of Iran???

Like I said, "silly colonialists"...

When will they ever learn...

When will they ever learn???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:15 AM

So it appears our number one Obama opponent has still have not even tried to research the difference between McCain and Obama on separation of church and state.

No surprise there.

It's much more fun for him to continue his rants--or predict that McCain's choices for the Supreme Court will do nothing to further erode the church-state division.

He likes running off at the mouth about the danger of religion to US secular society. Just don't ask him to actually do anything about it, even finding out which candidate will heighten said "danger".

Just like he claims to be against the Iraq war--but is unwilling to support the candidate who also is against it.

Well, that tells us all we need to know about him.

As they say in Texas--all hat and no cattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 11:54 AM

Rig:

Regarding your lockstep remark, this is beneath you. It is directly contrary to all the evidence and all the man's own statements, yet you have no compunction about putting such snide witticisms intot he world, to use untruths to detract from another human. Isn't that unconscionable?

Lockstep, my royal Irish arse.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 08 - 07:22 PM

John Roberts is lokking more like Clarence Thomas from here...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 08:33 PM

Obama has resigned from the Chicago Church which keeps tanglefooting him with their over-zealous mellerdrammer.

Probably a wise thing. At least he gae them a second chance before cutting the cord; sign of statesmanship.

I am sure the reds will have a party thinking what to make of it.

But screw 'em.

The Magic Bus is on the march.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 08:35 PM

Democratic Panel Approves Half Votes for Florida and Michigan Delegates

A Democratic Party committee voted to seat delegates from
Florida and Michigan at the party's convention but give each
one only half a vote.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

-----

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 08:41 PM

This resolution brings a very tiresome squabble to a close. However, Hillary reserves her right to take the battle on up to the Dem Credentials Committee. Her fans are insisting they go all the way to Denver with it.

A fighter never quits, or some other mantra, must be running through her mind.

She was given half of MI where she ran illegally, and half of Florida where Obama did not campaign.

She should be thankful for her fortune.

Be that as it may...it appears ineluctable at this point.

Barack Obama, more power to your shields and warp speed ahead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 08 - 09:27 PM

Don't be like that, Amos...

The folks at his ol' church ain't the enemy... Rev. Wright ain't the enemy...

They are just regular folks who just happen to be older and black and ain't ready for all this...

I understand that... I been playin' music off and on for years with an ol' black man, N. J. Warren, and he gets fired up... That's the nature of the older beast...

It's okay... No reason why white America should expect Obama to totaly reject his black-ness and his church...

Very sad day for tolerance and understanding of what black folk have been thru...

Just MO, of course...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 09:43 PM

Here's the thing, Bobz...the folks in the church could have had him in their fold forever if they had respected what he was and what he was trying for. But both of those pastors decided this was a great piece of limelight, and they should prance around in it, and in doing so, demonstrated they they did not share his sense of respect for things, courtesy for people, and such. And he was therefore right to step back and say, "No, this is not me." If he'd been running for town treasurer, and they had tried to make mileage off him that way, he'd have been right to do the same thing; his integrity to himself is all he's got, in the final exam.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:51 PM

Barack bama, from a speech in 2002:

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

---

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 07:12 AM

For an 'Obamacon,' Communion Denied

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008; Page A15

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied Communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, but it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?

A version of this argument roiled the 2004 campaign when some, though not most, Catholic bishops suggested that John Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic politicians should be denied Communion because of their views on abortion.

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.


Kmiec, who was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the late 1980s, is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.

Kmiec has drawn attention because he is one of the nation's leading "Obamacons," conservatives who find Obama's call for a new approach to politics appealing. Kmiec started life as a Democrat. His father was a soldier in the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago political machine, and Kmiec's earliest political energies were devoted to Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 campaign.

But like many Catholic Democrats, Kmiec was profoundly attracted to Ronald Reagan. For him, five words in Reagan's 1980 acceptance speech summarized the essence of a Catholic view of politics: "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."

In an interview over the weekend, Kmiec argued that 35 years after Roe, opponents of abortion need to contemplate whether "a legal prohibition" of abortion "is the only way to promote a culture of life."

"To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith," he said. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed "the broad social teaching of the church," including its views on war.

Kmiec shared with me the name of the priest who denied him Communion and a letter of apology from the organizers of the event, but he requested that I not name the priest to protect the cleric from public attack.

The priest's actions are almost certainly out of line with the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In their statement"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," issued last November, the bishops said: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

The "if" phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion.

Already, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City has played an indirect role in the 2008 campaign by calling on Kathleen Sebelius, the popular Democratic governor of Kansas who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, to stop taking Communion because of her "actions in support of legalized abortion."

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 07:14 AM

Reagan's Choice
From 1976, a Question for Obama and Clinton
By Lou Cannon
Tuesday, June 3, 2008; Page A15

Gerald Ford went to his grave believing that Ronald Reagan's challenge for the Republican presidential nomination cost him the White House in 1976. In truth, Reagan sharpened Ford as a candidate, much as Hillary Clinton's campaign has sharpened Barack Obama in 2008. What damaged Ford in his effort to overtake Democrat Jimmy Carter was not what Reagan did to him in the spring of 1976 but what he failed to do in the fall. Similarly, the question now is what role Clinton will play after Obama has formally secured the nomination.

The roller-coaster nature of this year's marathon contest for the Democratic nomination has many echoes of the GOP race of 1976. While Ford had the advantage of incumbency, he was to the GOP's conservative wing an accidental president who held the office only because Richard Nixon had been forced to resign. These conservatives favored Reagan, who was expected to win the first primary, in New Hampshire. But Ford upset Reagan, as Obama upset Clinton in this year's Iowa caucuses, and he parlayed his victory into a string of primary wins. Ford's nomination seemed assured until Reagan climbed off the mat and won the North Carolina primary. That began a protracted struggle, as Clinton's comeback win in New Hampshire did in this year's Democratic race. Reagan won a slew of primaries in important states, as Clinton has, without ever quite catching Ford, who was nominated at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City by little more than a hundred votes.

By the time he became the nominee, Ford was a better candidate than he would have been without the Reagan challenge, much as Obama has benefited from Clinton's challenge. In 1976, Ford had never run for office beyond his Grand Rapids congressional district; while an estimable human being and an underrated president, he was a plodding campaigner and often a dreadful public speaker. His speechwriters once tried to improve his delivery by writing the words "WITH EMPHASIS" in the margin of his text. Ford, denouncing something or other as "nonsense," incorporated the notes into his speech and told a startled audience: "I say to you this is nonsense with emphasis!"


More significantly, Reagan's challenge forced Ford to dismiss an inept campaign manager and bring in such able political operatives as Stuart K. Spencer, the foremost Republican strategist, and James A. Baker, later a major player in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. They teamed with pollster Robert Teeter and Ford's chief of staff, Dick Cheney, to organize an effective campaign. Ford, his stump skills honed by Reagan, bested Carter in their first debate on domestic issues. In the second debate, Ford made a celebrated gaffe, claiming that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union, which broke his momentum. Even so, Ford rallied from a 19-point deficit at convention time to lose to Carter by less than 2 percentage points.

Afterward, Ford complained, correctly, that Reagan did not help him sufficiently in the fall. Reagan had endorsed the ticket, but only grudgingly. Ford, in his memoirs, described Reagan's performance in their only joint appearance as "lukewarm"; in fact, having attended this event in Beverly Hills, I think this overstated the temperature. During the general election battle, Ford asked Reagan to campaign for him in four Southern states; Reagan pleaded prior commitments. In one of those states, Mississippi, Carter won by fewer than 15,000 votes. It's possible that Reagan, who was popular there, might have made the difference. More involvement by Reagan would at a minimum have freed Ford from spending as much time as he did in Carter's home region and allowed him to campaign more in Ohio, which he lost by a little more than 11,000 votes. If Ford had carried Ohio and Mississippi, he would have been elected.

While many in Ford's inner circle remained bitter about the role Reagan played, Ford, with a characteristic generosity of spirit, forgave Reagan and worked tirelessly for his election in 1980. When I asked why he was doing so much, Ford said simply that Reagan would be a better president than Carter. He never deviated from this view, even though he and Carter subsequently became close friends.

Barack Obama will soon become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and there is little doubt that Hillary Clinton will endorse him. The big question is whether she will campaign hard for Obama among constituencies where she can help him. Put another way: Will she choose to be Ronald Reagan in 1976 or Gerald Ford in 1980?

The outcome of the election could depend on the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:03 PM

The Associated Press says Obama has cpatured the Democratic nomination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:34 PM

Just as I opened this thread, my doorbell rang, and it was the fourth Obama canvasser to be at my door this campaign. I'm in Montana. I voted absentee a few weeks ago.
The person at my door was a lady from San Francisco, here to canvass Montana, along with people from New York and all over the country, she said.
This campaign reminded my of back when I was involved with leading a Howard Dean Meetup during his primary campaign. All the people who were behind Dean, raising money and meeting up on the internet, kept forging ahead since that campaign, and I think built the momentum for this Democratic primary. Both Obama and Clinton have had very dedicated grassroots supporters, but I saw more Obama people and heard from more than Clinton's during this campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:36 PM

CNN' headline online right now is
Breaking News

Hillary Clinton tells New York lawmakers she is open to being Barack Obama's running mate, The Associated Press reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:57 PM

Oh no. What a disaster. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

LADY MACBETH: Out, damned spot! out, I say!–One: two: why, then, 'tis time to do't.–Hell is murky!–Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?–Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.
Doctor: Do you mark that?
LADY MACBETH: The thane of Fife had a wife: where is she now?– What, will these hands ne'er be clean?–No more o' that, my lord, no more o' that: you mar all with this starting.
Doctor: Go to, go to; you have known what you should not. Gentlewoman She has spoke what she should not, I am sure of that: heaven knows what she has known.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

Well, I hate to get on the soapbox here but lotta folks on both sides od the political divide ain't been in no black churches, especially in the South or been 'round old timey civil rights folks who ain't like Obama...

But there are millions of these folks and they still find nothing wrong with the "God Damned America" sermon... Nor do I...

I understand that in order for Obama to be elected he has ***had*** to do what he has done... That isn't Rev, Wright's fault... Thay is white Americ's fault...

I will give Bill clinton credit for trying to get "The Discussion" going but until that discussion has occured and white Americans fully understand not only the role that black Americans have played in our history but also just why black Americans are angry... Yes until that discussion has occured, no black man will ever be elected while tied to a Rev. Wright...

And I don't think Rev. Wright intended to show Obama up... I think he was trying to defend his own self against McMedia and I don't blame him for trying but McMedia owned the microphone and the TV cameras and McMedia, in essence, held all the cards... Rev. Wright didn't stand a chance of coming off any different than how McMedia choose to frame him... And frame him, they did...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:10 PM

It's just too bad that Reverend Wright didn't surface in January.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:17 PM

Obama clinches; no Clinton concession

Barack Obama has secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, according to CNN estimates. The senator makes history as the first African-American to lead a U.S. major-party ticket. But Hillary Clinton said she would make no decision on her campaign's future tonight. developing story


CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

Bobert;

I have been there. I still go there. I know what you are saying, even if most don't (or don't want to). You're spot-on my friend. For Wright, it wasn't about just Obama. It was bigger. And, I actually respect him for that. Take any church goin American, and sift through their pastor's sermons, and you will find embarrasing shit. All a you out there - does your minister/rabbi/priest speak for you 24/7? Are you bulletproof from a Fox News investigation of the tapes? Hell no. It doesn't reflect shit on Obama. It's bigger than that. If Obama can bring one iota of understanding about this to the gummint, we'll all win in the long run.

TIA (whose skin color, genetics, religion and kin are durn confused)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:35 PM

OBAMA CLAIMS NOMINATION
First Black to Lead a Major Party Ticket

Marks End of Epic Primary Battle Against Clinton

By JEFF ZELENY 5 minutes ago
Senator Barack Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday evening after a primary campaign that inspired millions of voters. (NYT)

Listen to his reception in Saint Paul and see why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:20 PM

"OBAMA CLAIMS NOMINATION
First Black to Lead a Major Party Ticket..."


                     So that's what it was all about, Alfie?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM

History in the making was how many international newspapers viewed Barack Obama's emergence as Democratic presidential candidate, with the focus on his status as the first ever African-American to win the ticket.

Newspapers described Obama as a "political giant slayer."

Even before Hillary Clinton admitted defeat in the hard-fought contest, some publications were already dissecting her failed campaign, analyzing where it went wrong and what the future has in store for her political dynasty.

Tuesday's win "confirms Obama's reputation as a political giant-slayer, who after less than four years in the U.S. Senate brought down the couple credited with creating the Democrats' most powerful political machine," the Guardian newspaper wrote.

The Chinese Xinhua news agency marveled at how "one year ago, it was very hard to imagine that Obama, a young politician without a strong political base and little known to the public can defeat Hillary Clinton, the heir-apparent of the Democratic Party."

The Times of London saw Obama's victory as evidence that "the United States remains a land of opportunity."

"This moment's significance is its resounding proof of the truism about America as a land of opportunity: Mr Obama's opportunity to graduate from Harvard and take Washington by storm," it wrote.

It said his victory also demonstrates "the opportunity that the world's most responsive democratic system gives its voters to be inspired by an unknown; the opportunity that outsiders now have to reassess the superpower that too many of them love to hate.

"Win or lose in November, he will have gone farther than anyone in history to bury the toxic enmity that fueled America's civil war and has haunted it ever since."

The Financial Times opened a post-mortem on Clinton's campaign, indicating that her defeat was not about her shortcomings but about Obama's political potency.

"Analysts will spend years poring over the reasons for Mrs Clinton's failed bid and probably never reach consensus," it wrote.

"But almost everyone, including some members of her own staff, would agree that the former first lady's campaign looked old-fashioned next to that of Barack Obama."...(CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

The only thing Obama did was happen to be in the right place at the right time. The MoveOn people endorsed him, just like they endorsed Ned Lamont, so he won among elite Democrats who mostly have never done much of anything, so they don't know much of anything.
                He had the added benefit of being black, so that won him all the deep south states in the Democratic Party. He will probably lose those states in the general election, and he will probably lose the general election, just like Ned Lamont did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 01:57 PM

Rig,

I swear to God, man, I am losing patience with your obstreperous dunceoid osturing, your broad condescending inaccurate generalities and your racist slants.

Let me correct your previous post.

1. Obama has been nominated because he ran a much smarter campaign, and because he won public approval through the exhibition of understanding and competence and a powerful ability toc ommunicate.

2. The elite Democrats you refer to are mostly people who are in the upper half of the national income scale because they earn their money doing things that require specialized knowledge or advanced brains.

3. Ned Lamont was a cipher in the national eye compared to the accomplishment of Obama in coming back from minus thirty points to win the nomination.

There is a very strong possibility that his skill and talent, which ran circles around Hillary, will manage to do the same around John MCCain. Icertainly hope so.

WHy can't yuou knock off these bizarre sweeping negative false assertions? You being paid for htis shit? Or are you wearing a lead plate in your head or sompn?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:02 PM

Well, he comes off as an arrogant twerp to me, but we'll see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:06 PM

Well, Rig, sometimes you do also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 08:06 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ While much of the political world waits for Hillary Rodham Clinton to concede defeat, most superdelegates are done waiting.
The avalanche of endorsements, expected so many times throughout the campaign, has finally materialized.
Barack Obama added 51 superdelegates Tuesday, the final day of a marathon battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. He picked up 21 more Wednesday, including numerous members of Congress who said it was time to unite the party for the general election.
Clinton had a net loss of nine superdelegates over the two days.
Obama has 2,175 delegates Ñ 57 more than needed to win the nomination at the party's national convention this summer. Clinton has 1,923.5, according to The Associated Press count.
"The most important thing our party could get out of this primary was an open and transparent process that reflected the will of the Democratic voters," Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania said in a statement. "I think the Democratic Party has accomplished this, and it's clear to me that Barack Obama has won this nomination fair and square."
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin said the party was "fortunate to have two exceptional candidates who were willing to put themselves forward and work tirelessly these many months, and for that they have our gratitude."
But, he added, "Now that Senator Obama has won the nomination, we can unite behind his historic candidacy."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 09:06 PM

All the United States was his stage yesterday as Barack Obama re-scripted 200 years of history by adopting the mantle of the first African American to win the presidential nomination of a major political party, an achievement that elicited wonder and admiration from cafes in Texas to the White House in Washington.

Even as Mr Obama turned his attention to healing deep rifts in his party, President George Bush Ð through a spokesperson, rather than a telephone call Ð congratulated the 46-year-old Illinois senator, saying he had come "a long way in becoming his party's nominee. And his historic achievement reflects the fact that our country has come a long way, too."

There were even warmer sentiments from Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. "The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the people' is beginning to mean all of us," she said....WaPo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:14 AM

It should be painfully obvious to any thinking person what McCain's stances are on the Iraq war, on the Supreme Court, and on the separation of church and state.

Anybody who wants to bring the combat troops home from Iraq, who wants to protect Roe v Wade, or is interested in trying to stop the erosion of church/state relations needs to start supporting Obama.

Anybody who doesn't and believes in any of the above causes can be perfectly described as at best willfully ignorant, and at worst possibly racist and/or a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:22 AM

"...he comes off as an arrogant twerp to me"

Uppity, you might say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

You might!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 10:19 AM

Wall Street puts its money behind Obama
Thu Jun 5, 2008 10:50am BST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president, despite worries that his administration would raise taxes and take a tougher line on trade and regulation.

The signs Wall Street reads point to Democrats prevailing in the November presidential and general election as voters punish the incumbent Republican Party for a flagging economy and lengthy Iraq war.

And the fact that Obama began raking in a bigger share of the cash as his campaign picked up steam suggests that investors simply want to back the eventual winner.

Illinois Sen. Obama, who captured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday after a lengthy primary battle against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, has received $7.9 million (4.1 million pounds) n contributions from the securities and investment industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

His opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, banked a little under $4.2 million, putting him behind fellow Republicans Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have long since dropped out of the race.

Overall, Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from the securities and investment industry. If that trend continued through November, it would mark the first time since 1994 that they have drawn more Wall Street cash than Republicans in a presidential election year, according to the data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 10:41 AM

Yes, it's a real problem for McCain. He could probably raise that much money and more from the right-wing-religious-wakkos, but he'd have to stoop to their level to do it.

                     While Obama has already stooped to the level of the Democratic Elites, so he can take advantage of that revenue source.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:16 AM

Rig:

What do you mean by "democrat elites"? Obviously something other than the words imply.

I would think being a Democrat Elite would be a pretty good category of existence, if I were looking for one to slip into.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:12 PM

You're right, Amos, I'm going to have to find a more descriptive term. Blind-Babbling-Buffoons, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:17 PM

It's not too late to switch your vote to the American Primate Party, Riginslinger. "Put a REAL chimp in the White House this time!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:47 PM

STep carefully, lest you step in the very cowshit you are trying to throw with your heated generalizations of badness unhampered by any specifics at all.

Very poor form, Rig.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

Maybe, but these people are hard to define. They think they are helping, but they're actually making things worse, and they get mad if one tries to point that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

Which people, in particular, are you thinking about here, Rig? And what actions which have done as you describe? Who and what?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:05 PM

I guess it would be those self appointed "intelectuals" in the Deomocratic Party. Not the teamsters, long shoremen, waitresses, or steel workers. But the people who hear Obama and think they are hearing great speechifying, where the rest of us only hear self rightous pontificating.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:53 PM

If it's someone you already like and trust, it sounds great. If it's someone you already are opposed to and distrust, it sounds like "self righteous pontificating".

The ear hears what the mind and heart have already decided to hear, and that is true of virtually all people. They are not nearly as impartial and objective as they imagine themselves to be.

For instance, my Mother (who is absolutely obsessed with politics and follows it daily on TV like Sherlock Holmes cracking a case) HATES Hillary Clinton with a vitriolic hatred. I'm sure she would be delighted to see her dead. Accordingly, EVERYTHING Hillary says sounds very bad to my Mother, but she LOVES everything Obama says. If fate (which works in mysterious ways) had arranged to have her loving Hillary and hating Obama instead, I can assure you she'd be interpreting their respective speeches in the diametrically opposite fashion...and Obama would be able to do or say nothing that she approved of.

I like Obama way better than Hillary. However...I thought Hillary gave a superb speech on Tuesday night and I remarked on that to my Mother. She had nothing but scorn for Hillary's speech. I reminded her that I too, much prefer Obama to Hillary, but that I simply thought that Hillary had given an unusually good speech on Tuesday night (despite conceding nothing). She finally, grudgingly admitted that Hillary's speech had been, for a political speech, a pretty good one.

You see, her utter loathing of Hillary Clinton simply does not allow her mind to hear anything good coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. It would get in the way of her enjoyment of her loathing for Hillary Clinton.

That's what the more rabit political people on this forum are like. They don't want anything to interfere with their emotional biases.

I think you have a problem like that where Obama is concerned, Rig, although I'm not suggesting you loathe him. I'm just suggesting that you're already against him as the Democratic candidate, therefore your mind can't help but make everything he says sound bad in some way...like "self righteous pontificating"...whereas if Hillary had said it instead, and in just the same way, you would put a much more positive interpretation on it.

That's how people's minds tend to work. The emotional underlay of their likes and dislikes shapes their interpretation of what they hear, and in a profound way.

But they do not question their reactions in that sense. To them it is reality, and they don't question it.

Someone who becomes aware of this dynamic working in himself is well on the way to taking note of that great saying, "the unexamined life is not worth living", and acting upon it and questioning his own biases now and then...engaging in self-examination. And there, I submit, lies one possible path to wisdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 10:02 PM

Well, LH, I don't find anything you say in your post above to disagree with. When this whole thing started out, I wasn't nearly at opposed to Obama as I find myself now.
                      There were some things that happened. I think it started with Wisconsin, where Obama outspent Hillary 5:1. A few days later we discovered that Hillary's campaign was broke and she had to loan money to keep the candidacy alive.
                      I think that's when it became more apparent to me how important the MoveOn.org people were. They were simply herding the American people towards the person that they picked out to serve as president for the American public.
                      The other thing were the caucuses. When I looked into how they worked, I could see that there were a whole lot of people who were excluded. They weren't overtly excluded; they were excluded because they didn't have the disposable time to participate. Of course, if it was a life and death thing for them, they could have probably worked something out, but most people don't feel that way about voting.
                        Then too, I don't know how many times I heard gaggles of pundits making the announcement, "Obama got more delegates out of Idaho than Hillary got out of Texas and Ohio." I would submit, there is something patently wrong with that.
                        The thing about the caucuses in places like Idaho and Wyoming is, there are hardly any Democrats there. The ones who are there are probably people like school teachers, librarians, postal workers, and etc. I'm sure you'll agree, there aren't a lot of long shoremen in Wyoming.
                      By the time things got to West Virginia and Kentucky, the working class folks had figured out that they'd really been had. I think that's why those folks voted the way they did, and racism had very little to do with it. An old retired coal miner suffering from "black lung" can certainly see multitudes of problems related to a bunch of school teachers in Idaho delivering more delegates to a candidate then the combined states of Ohio and Texas.
                      And then, backtracking a little bit, in the deep south states, the black vote went to Obama by more than 90% in some cases. That, to me, is the most stark example of racism I've ever seen in my life--though I suppose you could call it sexism.
                      At the end of the day, I don't see myself really disliking Obama, I just don't think he should be in the postition in which he finds himself. I don't think he's qualified to serve in the office of president, and I'll be damned if I'll support him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 10:32 PM

Hmmm. Interesting viewpoint, Riginslinger. I understand what you're getting at. Now, I'm a person who is naturally attracted to the intellectual types like Obama, and I am not so much in a natural sympathy with working class psychology in America, because it's too conservative for my taste. I'm in tune with the kind of people you describe as most probably forming the caucuses in Idaho. ;-)   However, I realize that any candidate needs to court the American working class successfully in order to win an election!

Your point about the Black population voting so solidly for Obama is definitely a cogent one...because it's a way out-of-balance situation which is the end result of a long historical process where Blacks have been enslaved, marginalized, felt discriminated against and disadvantaged...so they vote for Obama because he's Black (not only because of that, but it is a huge factor). That's simply not a sensible reason (in itself) to vote for someone.

If 90% of all the women in the USA voted for Hillary because she's a female...that would be a comparable situation gone way out of balance. It would not make any sense.

You said, "the black vote went to Obama by more than 90% in some cases. That, to me, is the most stark example of racism I've ever seen in my life"

Well, yeah! But you can't call it that in the media, because Blacks are seen as the injured party in American history. So it's not considered politically correct at this time to say that gross ethnocentric race-based prejudice is "racism" when Blacks do it. Or when Native Americans do it. Or when Jews do it. Why? Because they are all seen as historical victims.

That's an unfair situation to all the other people, such as the White majority in North America. The moral deck has been stacked so that they must carry a measure of implied guilt which certain other groups (the "victims") are spared. It's a guilt trip. So if it makes working class Whites nervous when Black Americans vote so obviously as a bloc on the basis of race...and there is then a backlash against it on the part of the working classs Whites, I can understand why.

But I don't think that's Obama's fault. I think it's a fatal and terrible flaw in the thinking of an entire society, and Obama just happens to be struggling in the grip of it like a man wading through chest-deep mud. He didn't ask for that, but it was inevitable that he would get it.

It must be quite discouraging for him, I would think. I would certainly be discouraged if I had to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:15 AM

People will vote for the candidate in whom they seem themselves best reflected.

The question is not why a large per centage of black voters did so, but why the vast majority of educated white ones did.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:26 AM

I think a large number of a certain type of white voters cast their lot with Obama because they either wanted to prove to themselves and to others that they were not racist. There were still others that didn't want to be percieved as racist, and some because they really felt like they were racist and found themselves seeking some kind of therapy to get over it.

                   And then, of course, there were certainly a substantial number who were never racist, didn't consider it an issue at all, and simply thought Obama was the best candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:31 AM

Then too, Little Hawk is probably right, Obama himself is more of a victim in all of this than an instigator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 10:20 AM

A good point, RIg.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

And from the Westest of West Coast columnists, this gem from Mark Morford of SFGate.com. I hope Mister Morford doesn't get shot by the reactionary Lizard Corps International for writign this kind of thought. It's pretty dangerous stuff...

Is Obama an enlightened being?

Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain't no ordinary politician. You buying it?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, June 6, 2008



"I find I'm having this discussion, this weird little debate, more and more, with colleagues, with readers, with liberals and moderates and miserable, deeply depressed Republicans and spiritually amped persons of all shapes and stripes and I'm having it in particular with those who seem confused, angry, unsure, thoroughly nonplussed, as they all ask me the same thing: What the hell's the big deal about Obama?


I, of course, have an answer. Sort of.


Warning: If you are a rigid pragmatist/literalist, itchingly evangelical, a scowler, a doubter, a burned-out former '60s radical with no hope left, or are otherwise unable or unwilling to parse alternative New Age speak, click away right now, because you ain't gonna like this one little bit.


Ready? It goes likes this:


Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.


This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don't understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama's aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.


To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?


No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.


Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.


Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.


The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.


Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me. But you gotta wonder, why has, say, the JFK legacy lasted so long, is so vital to our national identity? Yes, the assassination canonized his legend. The Kennedy family is our version of royalty. But there's something more. Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.


Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.


Let me be completely clear: I'm not arguing some sort of utopian revolution, a big global group hug with Obama as some sort of happy hippie camp counselor. I'm not saying the man's going to swoop in like a superhero messiah and stop all wars and make the flowers grow and birds sing and solve world hunger and bring puppies to schoolchildren.


Please. I'm also certainly not saying he's perfect, that his presidency will be free of compromise, or slimy insiders, or great heaps of politics-as-usual. While Obama's certainly an entire universe away from George W. Bush in terms of quality, integrity, intelligence and overall inspirational energy, well, so is your dog. Hell, it isn't hard to stand far above and beyond the worst president in American history.


But there simply is no denying that extra kick. As one reader put it to me, in a way, it's not even about Obama, per se. There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about that's been held back by the armies of BushCo darkness, and this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod, is now effortlessly self-organizing around Obama's candidacy. People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically draw to him. It's exactly like how Bush was a magnet for the low vibrational energies of fear and war and oppression and aggression, but, you know, completely reversed. And different. And far, far better.


Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bulls-- and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself.


Not this time. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:55 PM

Yeah, that's exactly what I think about it...that Obama has become the victim of a general social dysfunction.

Obama grew up in a bi-racial family. That gives him a totally different slant on it than most people have. He does not cleave to either one side or the other of the great mental divide. He finds it natural to walk both sides simultaneously.

I know a family like that. They are a White couple from Montreal who had no children, and they adopted two Black children (at a very young age) and have brought them up without raising any issues about "race". Those two are in their teens now. Being around them I noticed the ease with which they relate to being who they are....not Black, not White, but just people among other people. What a gift! Now, this is what will happen eventually in a society where intermarriage between races eliminates the feeling of "us and them" that presently exists and divides people.

When you have "us and them", you have fear.

Obama grew up without feeling that he was one or the other. He was both.

But when he tries to bring that unified consciousness to a society where most people still think in terms of Black/White division...he runs right into a brick wall...and the media exacerbates the problem! You had the ludicrous situation where some Blacks didn't think he was "Black enough" (He doesn't talk in exaggerated ghetto patois!)...while all the Whites referred to him simply as "a Black man", although he is half White!!!!!

How stupid can it get? He is neither a Black man nor a White man, he's a man. Period. A man.

Get flippin' OVER the race thing, America!!!! Grow up.

If Obama gets elected, he will not be the first Black man to get elected president. He will be the first man elected president who was mature enough to realize that it doesn't matter what racial heritage a man came from who gets elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 10:32 PM

Amos 1:40- interesting take on it. I just wish the world weren't so dangerous for 'Lightworkers'.


Here are disjointed snippets from the Muckety.com site that Stilly River Sage linked to. Not totally admiring, it nevertheless reveals a man, a mensch.

   "By then, Obama had mastered the skill of mixing an idealist's message with a politician's tactical approach to alliances.

" There are some people who say he's not strong enough on this or that, that he's wishy-washy, that he's trying to have it both ways," Mikva, a former state legislator, congressman, judge and counsel to President Bill Clinton, told the New York Times. "But he's not looking for how to exclude the people who don't agree with him. He's looking for ways to make the tent as large as possible."

"After his stint as a community organizer, followed by law school, Obama returned to Chicago in 1992. It is testament to his idealism that he delayed going to work for a law firm to direct a voter registration campaign targeting low-income blacks. Illinois Project Vote, as it was called, registered more than 100,000 new voters for the 1992 presidential election, boosting both Bill Clinton's tallies in Illinois, as well as Moseley Braun's campaign to become the first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate.

"Some of those he enlisted in the vote effort would become long-term allies, among them John R. Schmidt, a former chief of staff to Daley and associate attorney general, and John W. Rogers Jr., a young black money manager and college friend of his brother-in-law's.
"He really did it, and he let other people take all the credit," Schmidt told the Washington Post. "The people standing up at the press conferences were Jesse Jackson and Bobby Rush and I don't know who else. Barack was off to the side, and only the people who were close to it knew he had done all the work."

   "For six of the seven years Obama spent in Springfield, the Republicans controlled the General Assembly, and like other Democrats, Obama had only limited success in passing legislation, among other items, a rare ethics law in a state known for government corruption.

"But when the Democrats achieved a sweep in 2002, and (Emil) Jones became majority leader, he anointed Obama as the go-to guy on virtually every high-profile piece of legislation – a record that set him up for his run for U.S Senate.

   "In October, 2002, Saltzman was organizing an antiwar rally and asked Obama if he would speak. About to announce his bid for the U.S Senate, Obama did not say yes right away. Ultimately, he appeared, giving what was arguably the most important speech of his political career up until that time.

   "Saying he was not opposed to all wars, only "dumb wars," Obama warned that a U.S. occupation of Iraq would be of "undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." (Emphasis mine. Eb)

   "The speech, which would prove prescient, would help define him not just for the U.S. Senate race, but later in the crowded field of contenders for the Democratic nomination for president."

Good Reading (Thanks, Stilly)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 10:43 PM

So, the CEO of Smears R US says "I'll be damned if I'll support him"

Fine.

Then let's not hear anything more from him about how important it is to stop the encroachment of religion on public life. If anybody thinks McCain will be more effective in fighting the erosion of the church/state division, I have several bridges to sell.

And let's not hear anything more about how said CEO is against the war in Iraq. No question who thinks "victory" is just about within our grasp--by 2013--unless of course it's not. It's not Obama who has said this.

And who has said he will start bringing combat troops home--and dedicating our energies to the real fight in Afghanistan. That's not McCain.

Any more moaning from said CEO about how terrible it is that religion is threatening the US secular state, or allegation that he is against the war in Iraq will be filed under Hypocrisy, Blatant.

Since there's only one way to keep McCain from taking over--and, amazingly enough, it's not quite enough to bellyache about the above issues on Mudcat--without supporting Obama. He's the only game in town.   Hillary is not an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 09:10 AM

Ron, the following is a "smear," do what you can with it:


             John McCain is an Episcopalian, he offers a much better chance of offering continued separation of church and state than somebody who has engaged in a VooDoo-quasi-Christain type of "mind control" for the the last 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:22 AM

Rig, read up. McCain is an Episcopalian who attends a Baptist church. You think Baptists are for the separation of church and state?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:27 AM

My uncle Elmer was a flippin' Epistopedalian Seventh Day Adventurist or some flippin' thing like that, but he could not flippin' even control his OWN mind, never mind them other minds of people around him!

He useta quote the Bible a lot, eh? One time he qwoted to me from it after I had got in trouble with the police and he said, "The only road for a sinner is the road that leads straight to the fiery lake of eternal torment!" and he shook his flippin' finger in my face.

I know he was lyin' becoz I have been down every flippin' road around here in Don's pickup and there ain't no such lake to be found, eh? If it was there I woulda found it by now.

I figger such a lake could be handy becoz, like, if you went fishin' there you cuold pull out a fish and it would already be cooked!

That would be pretty cool, eh? I would buy up such a lake and charge people to fish there and get flippin' RICH!

But there ain't no such lake coz my uncle was nuts.

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:43 AM

I don't care what McCain calls himself. Anybody who complains about 20 years of mind control-- or whatever the absurd formulation was-- should take a bit of time to actually read what McCain himself has said as to the importance of religion in public life. And how McCain and Obama have voted on issues bearing on this topic. And the views of their respective supporters on the topic.

Not that smear artists are expected to actually do any research--or any thinking. Smears R Us would have to shut down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:34 PM

"But there ain't no such lake coz my uncle was nuts."


                        Frankly, I think everybody who goes to church is nuts, but Obama is just a little more nuts than most.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:42 AM

Short CBC Obama Bio.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

Rig:

I challenge you to offer anything -- anything at all-- to substantiate the slur you last posted. I seriously want to know what--if anything--lies behind our careless defamation of character.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 12:01 PM

The French love the guy for a number of reasons.

An interesting essay on international dynamics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 12:38 PM

Barack Obama appears to be a pragmatic idealist. As opposed to George W. Bush who is neither a pragmatist nor an idealist, an opinion I came to in watching Dubya flail about, spasmodically and almost at random.

An idealist who studies how to make things work- what a concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:58 PM

"I challenge you to offer anything -- anything at all-- to substantiate the slur you last posted."


                        I was trying to get a substantial reaction out of Ron Davies, but it doesn't seem to have worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:03 PM

He's gone to a bluegrass festival or something like that, Rig. You'll have to wait until he returns, sunburned and tired but nonetheless exhilarated, and ready to engage in further verbal jousting here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM

Rig:

You haven't answered the question. Did you notice that? You twisted out of it, instead.

Deflection is not necessary; have the courage of your viewpoint and answer up fairly as it actually seems to you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:05 AM

I thought I explained what I was trying to do, or are we talking about something farther up in the thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 12:42 PM

Grumbling Clinton supporters make Democrats nervous

Story Highlights
Sen. John McCain's campaign reaches out to Sen. Hillary Clinton's supporters

Some Clinton voters say they'll pick McCain over Sen. Barack Obama

Clinton backers express support for McCain on her Web site

Obama advisers say they think Democrats will unite around senator from Illinois

By Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While Sen. Hillary Clinton was endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, some of those weighing in on her campaign Web site were less willing to concede.

As Clinton wrapped up her remarks Saturday in Washington with a plea for supporters to work "as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," many were posting messages saying they would never vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee. A few even called on her backers to visit Sen. John McCain's campaign Web site.

"I love her and will vote for her in 2012, but it's McCain all the way now," wrote one within moments of the former first lady's address.

Whether that sort of statement signals a defection to the presumptive Republican nominee, a voter less likely to make it to the polls on Election Day or just a bit of low-grade, post-primary grumbling -- it's the sort of sentiment that makes for a nagging, low-grade anxiety among nervous Democrats and brings a gleam to the eye of McCain.

As Democratic leaders met last month and decided to seat Florida and Michigan at half strength at the convention, angry Clinton supporters who had backed her plea for the seating of full delegations from both states began to chant, "Let's go, McCain!"

And as Clinton's presidential bid wound down, some of her loudest supporters began insisting they would consider voting for McCain if she were not the Democratic nominee. Watch Clinton call on voters to support Obama »

A newly released CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that if Obama does not select Clinton as his running mate, 22 percent of her supporters would stay home this fall -- and another 17 percent would vote for McCain.

"That's just one estimate of the 'Clinton factor,' and it may not be an accurate predictor since it piles several hypotheticals on top of each other and asks people to guess their state of mind five months from now," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

"Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain."

The numbers haven't gone unnoticed at McCain campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. In the days since Obama effectively claimed the Democratic nomination, the senator from Arizona's campaign has aggressively reached out to Clinton supporters -- women and blue-collar voters who were the strongest supporters of her presidential bid.

A few hours after her speech -- which was free of attacks on Obama's fall opponent -- McCain aide Michael Goldfarb wrote on the campaign's official blog that "there is a genuine affection for her here at McCain HQ. During her speech there was no small amount of pleading with the TV: 'Don't do it, you can still win!' "

"Sen. Clinton has really grown on us over here in Crystal City over the past few months," wrote Goldfarb, calling her an "impressive candidate" who "inspired a generation of women" but "fell victim to a vast left-wing conspiracy that resented her generally centrist foreign policy views."

And one of the first posts on the newly launched blog was a video of Abba's "Take a Chance on Me" under the headline, "Take a Chance on McCain." Wrote Goldfarb: "Attention disaffected Hillary supporters, John McCain is a huge Abba fan. Seriously.''

McCain's maverick reputation has always translated into significant support from independent voters, but the diminished appeal of the GOP brand this year may translate into a weaker showing. Despite emotions still raw from the bruising Democratic primary, an appeal to Clinton voters could be a tough sell for the Republican.

But McCain and his campaign have made bold moves in recent weeks to distance the senator from President Bush and the Republican Party, and redirect the focus to his independent image -- essential in his effort to reach disaffected Clinton voters.

McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin blasted the president's handling of the economy, and campaign manager Rick Davis said the battered image of the national Republican Party made for an uphill climb for its presidential nominee.

McCain aides see an opportunity in Obama's struggle to connect with white working-class voters.

The campaign has assembled focus groups in Democratic areas where Obama struggled this spring to gauge McCain's potential appeal among, and best approach to, this demographic -- particularly those most angered by Clinton's loss. A campaign tour directed at these voters also is being planned.

The day after Obama claimed the nomination, McCain said, "There's a lot of Sen. Clinton supporters who would support me because of their belief that Sen. Obama does not have the experience or the knowledge or the judgment to address this nation's national security challenges."

McCain was more effusive in his praise of Clinton at a Louisiana campaign event Wednesday as her campaign revealed she would be ending her run in a matter of days. "As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend," he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- who has taken on increasingly high profile campaign roles on McCain's behalf -- announced Thursday that he was heading a new grass-roots organization, Citizens for McCain, with a direct appeal to Clinton's disappointed supporters.

In a message sent to the Arizonan's supporters after news broke that Clinton was suspending her run, the Democrat-turned-independent highlighted McCain's "very good working relationship with Sen. Clinton."

"The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Sen. McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times," Lieberman wrote. "Many of these supporters are former supporters of Sen. Clinton."

He called on supporters to "reach out to Americans who are not currently involved in the campaign. Will you help us by recruiting your friends, family, and co-workers who may not consider themselves members of the Republican Party and ask them to join the Citizens for McCain organization?"

But can McCain really win over these loyal Democrats? History isn't on his side.

In the modern era, the pledge of mass defections by disappointed primary voters isn't rare -- but it rarely has a major influence on election results. The number of voters who identify with a given party may shift dramatically over time -- but among that self-selected group, loyalty tends to be remarkably high, with greater than nine in 10 usually supporting their party's presidential nominee, according to exit polling over the past few presidential cycles.

In 2004, despite similar anger from supporters of unsuccessful presidential candidate Howard Dean, 8 percent of Democrats supported Bush over Sen. John Kerry.

And on most major issues, McCain's positions are completely at odds with those of the Democratic working class and women voters he's hoping to reach: in favor of the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, against abortion rights and health care policies favored by many Democrats.

Obama advisers say they think the passion of the primary season will soon fade, and the party will unite around the senator from Illinois. But they've moved quickly to cement party unity: Last week, a thank you message -- and a plea for visitors to "show your support" for Clinton -- appeared on Obama's Web site.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

So? Doesn't that sort of thing always happen in a race where various contenders for one party's ticket are forced to quit? Some of their supporters have got so emotionally involved and hostile over the issue that they will vote for the other party just to get even or because they've built up such a head of steam over how much they hate the guy who knocked off their favorite candidate, etc.

The same thing would happen if Hillary had won and Obama had lost. Some of Obama's people would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than vote for Hillary. Hell, the same thing happens in Canada with our parties too.

So what??? That's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM

Or to put it another way...that is not news. ;-) It's just some writer called Rebecca Sinderbrand trying to generate more useless election controversy in the media. Then too...maybe some of the Republican Party strategists slipped her some money to write that article for them. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:48 PM

Or maybe the Democrats slipped here the money, to try to get those voters back...


Just trying to provide a "popular view" here...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Anything's possible... ;-) (specially when it comes to those two corrupt parties and their backers)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:29 PM

THis is the kind of divisive press-coverage that, at best, acts to assert a prophecy that becomes self-fulfilling.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

Sort of like the NYT anti-Bush articles.... that ignored any positive acts by the Bush administrations since they did not fit the image the NYT (and Amos) wanted to present...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:37 PM

I don't think that is quite fair, Bruce. SOmewhere int he Popular Views thread I actually posted one or two articles that praised Bush for things he was right about. But I think you will agree that the impact of his overall Administration -- Wolfowitz, Rove, CHeney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and the rest -- has been highly divisive in its own right. It was not necessary to create controversies out of thin air.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:44 PM

There's been much written and You-Tubed about supporters of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton who are having trouble making the switch to presumptive nominee Barack Obama -- and say they may never. Or may never unless he puts Clinton on the ticket with him as vice president.

Are women a big problem for Obama? Maybe not. At least one poll shows rapid recent movement to Obama overall among Democrats, including women.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen says that as of today, based on 3,000 automated telephone surveys over the past three nights, Obama gets support from 52% of the women in his national tracking poll compared with 40% for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. He says that's better than Democrat John Kerry did with women against President Bush in 2004.

Scott attributes Obama's performance to unification within the Democratic Party over the past few days. "Before last Tuesday, Obama routinely earned around 70% of vote from Democrats," he tells us in an e-mail. "He's up to 81% today. Clearly the party has been coming together."...

USAT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:47 PM

I just read something comparing him to a lightworker..also to Pope John II and Princess Diana...I can see it more than the MLK/JFK analogies...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 04:43 PM

mg-

"lightworker"?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:35 PM

A lightworker, Charlie, is someone who does profoundly positive work in society, work which improves people's lives in some way.

Consider it this way. You can shed light on a situation or you can shed darkness on it. Someone who does the former is a lightworker.

This is quite different from a "light worker", which means someone who doesn't work very hard. Like my dog. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:24 AM

"I am an American who is a graduate student in the UK, and I have been congratulated by people from around the world over the past couple of days for the Obama nomination. Strangers hear my accent, and want to talk about Obama. One British person said, "America didn't become the nation it did with guns and tanks; it became the nation it did with ideas. An Obama presidency represents everything that America has told the world about itself in the past century--and what the rest of the world wanted to expect out of America. The idea that you talk before acting, the idea that you make friends, not enemies, and the idea that anything is possible."
...
Another Italian told me, "Obama will cause my country to fall in love with America again."

Soft power?

Most Americans have not quite absorbed the enormous blow to America's image abroad delivered by the Bush administration. Obama has helped erase it already."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/email-from-abro.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:59 AM

I think he meant, 'lightweight'

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:14 AM

"There is no doubt about it. The legacy George W. Bush will leave behind is devastating. The United States, the greatest superpower of all time, has lost influence and authority on every continent, even on its own. It's a reality the next president will have to live with, and it will be his job to regain political and moral authority. Number 44 will have to pay off debt, create a social safety net and then stabilize it. The new president will have to bring home the troops and yet continue to protect the country, acknowledge climate change and yet secure the country's energy supply, strengthen friendships and, most of all, reinvigorate America's confidence in its ability to solve its own problems. He will have to restore Americans' faith in their country as a special place.

This is the standard by which Number 44 will be measured -- and voted into the White House. And now, on this Tuesday in St. Paul, it is Barack Obama, the winner of the Democratic semifinal, who suddenly seems infinitely greater than his opponent of the recent past. At this moment, his moment, he also seems greater than his opponent of the near future.

There are several reasons to explain Obama's victory, as well as a number of truths behind Clinton's defeat. Never before has America experienced a grassroots campaign quite like Obama's. Every e-mail address was stored, not a single call was lost and at Obama headquarters in Chicago, people -- not machines -- paid attention to the cares and concerns of citizens. Even at 3 a.m. Instead of depending on major donors, Obama pinned his hopes on the millions of his often-young supporters, who would donate $25 today -- online -- and perhaps another $30 eight weeks later. "This is your campaign," he kept repeating, and the fact that he managed to turn it into a movement is mostly his own achievement.

An Honest and Sincere Candidate

It didn't hurt that Obama came across as honest and sincere. He was upfront with voters when he explained his misgivings about the radical pastor of his church, Jeremiah Wright. At the same time, he told them why he found it so difficult to drop a friend after so many years. The country could have called Obama weak, but instead it believed him.

Another plus for Obama was that no one was as savvy about US election laws as his campaign manager, David Axelrod. In Iowa, Axelrod already knew how many delegates were to be had in which district by the time Hillary's troops had showed up to rent office space.

Finally, Team Obama stuck together. There were no firings, no indiscretions, and not even his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In," had to be fine-tuned. It was the perfect campaign.

The reason it was so perfect was that Obama refused to abandon his conviction that he is precisely what America needs: a fresh face that promises change, absolution for the sins and recovery from the consequences of the Bush era. Obama talked a lot in those 15 months, and yet there were only two words he truly needed to win: "hope" and "change."

..." (Spiegel On-Line International (Germany))

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

Bruce, it would be interesting if you listed what you consider Bush's achievements in these 8 years. Let's see if we can agree on at least a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 12:03 PM

Amos, you are beginning to sound like a professional American speechwriter in the employ of one of the Democratic party. I have added comments in brackets.

"The new president will have to bring home the troops"

(You wish! I'll believe that when I see it.)

"and yet continue to protect the country"

(Say WHAT????? The only people in the world that the frikkin' USA really needs protection from is its own criminal leadership!),

"acknowledge climate change"

(In what way? I propose that the climate changes you see happening are being caused almost entirely by cyclical changes in the energy output of the sun, not by our industrial civilization.)

"and yet secure the country's energy supply"

(Mmm-hmmm. That would be a good idea.),

"strengthen friendships"

(Easy. Stop invading other countries. Only Israel and the UK will be offended by that.)

"and, most of all, reinvigorate America's confidence in its ability to solve its own problems."

(Well, I think that would best be done by electing Chongo. He is a problem solver.)

"He will have to restore Americans' faith in their country as a special place."

(C'mon! Americans are obsessed with the notion that their country is a special place. Everyone in every country naturally thinks that his country is a special place, but that concept has gotten out of hand in the USA. What is needed now in the USA is some measure of humility, not more hubris.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

LH:

I am but a vessel for perfection. Your editorial remarks should be addressed to der SPiegel.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Capt. E
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:56 PM

I volunteered for the Obama Campaign and was a Precinct Captain and delegate to the County Convention for the Obama campaign here in Austin Texas. It has been 30+ years since I have been so proud: representing that incredible man through calling voters and casting my vote for him. The crazy thing is I believe Obama will win Texas in the general election. That is an incredible thought after seeing close-up how G. W. Bush operated for 6 years as governor, destroying the State Budget surplus, then getting elected President and proceeding to do the same Nationally in record time while feeding his ego and lining the pockets of all his friends...to have new hope in the future given us by Obama is almost beyond dreaming.   The world was changed and pushed off course by the assassination of Bobby Kenedy, giving us Richard Nixon in his place. Let's put it back on course and all work to elect Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:58 PM

I'm relieved to hear that, Amos. I was being to get a little worried. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:39 PM

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi criticizes Barack Obama

9 minutes ago



TRIPOLI, Libya - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is criticizing Barack Obama for the candidate's recent comments about Israel.

Gadhafi says the Democratic senator's remarks show that he "has not fulfilled anything from his slogan: 'Change.'"

In his address Wednesday, Gadhafi called Obama "our brother, the Kenyan with American nationality."

During a speech this month to pro-Israel activists in Washington, Obama said Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, a remark that touched off heavy criticism among Palestinians.

Obama also said there was no greater threat to Israel than Iran.

Gadhafi spoke during a ceremony celebrating the 38th anniversary of foreign troops leaving Libya after he came to power in 1969.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

What's Next?   Organize!!!

This has been a 50-state campaign from the very beginning. A year ago this week, our grassroots supporters organized a nationwide canvass in more than 1,000 cities to introduce people to Barack Obama.

Since then, we've had an unprecedented primary season that built a grassroots infrastructure in all 50 states -- not just for Barack, but for all of the Democratic candidates.

Now it's time to bring all of that energy together for our common cause of change.

All across the country, Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans are tired of the politics of the past and are looking for new solutions to the challenges we're facing.

That's why we're launching a nationwide day of action on Saturday, June 28th called "Unite for Change" -- and asking you to host a Unite for Change meeting in your neighborhood.

In all 50 states, supporters like you -- seasoned veterans and first-time volunteers alike -- will host house meetings to reach out and bring together folks who supported all of the Democratic candidates (and those who are just tuning into the process now).

The goal is to come together and use the common values we share to build a united volunteer organization in your neighborhood that will register new voters and build support locally.

It's going to be an amazing time, and hosting your own event is easy. We'll provide all the tools and resources you'll need. Here are the details:


Unite for Change Meetings
Saturday, June 28th
Host one in your community

Learn more and sign up to host a Unite for Change meeting:

http://my.barackobama.com/unite
http://my.barackobama.com/unite

We're heading into a battle against John McCain, and the stakes are higher than ever before.

But the path to victory is as simple as talking to your friends and neighbors.

From the beginning, this campaign has been about ordinary people reaching out and building the bonds of community -- empowering one another by coming together to make change.

With the general election approaching, it's more important than ever to keep this momentum going. And there's no better way to make this happen in your community than hosting a Unite for Change event.

You'll gather -- not just with Obama supporters, but with anyone who's tired of the politics of the past and ready for something new -- to share your stories and lay the plans for how to build this movement locally in the weeks and months ahead.

It requires some responsibility, but don't worry -- our team will be here with all the support and resources you need to make your Unite for Change event a big success.

Learn more and sign up to host a meeting in your community:

http://my.barackobama.com/unite

Yesterday, our deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, announced that this will be the first campaign in a generation to put staff in all 50 states.

It says a lot about our movement -- and about the enthusiasm and resources people like you have supplied -- that this is possible.

But being in every state will not be enough.

In order to succeed in every community in America, it's going to be up to you to take the lead. Everyone who hopes for real change after November is counting on you.

Thank you,

Jon

Jon Carson
National Voter Contact Director
Obama for America

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:08 PM

It might be a good idea, instead of just running about screaming, "Change, change change," for Obama to finally get around to telling the voters what kind of change he has in mind. Other wise, people are going to become even more suspicious than they already are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:55 PM

Riginslinger:

He has spoken in specifics in a hundred places, with particular porposals and platforms. Why do you insist on pretending he has not, instead of going tot he trouble of learning what he has said and is saying? If you are too lazy to do so, how can you justify making such uncharitable assumptions about him? Why not find out what the real story is first?




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:01 PM

It must just be when I'm watching him that he fails to say anything specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:08 AM

Washington Post

Obama's Economic Challenge

By David Ignatius
Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A23

It was a telling sign that one of the first things Barack Obama did after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination was to hire a new economic policy director, someone who can help him move from the anti-NAFTA left of the party toward the pro-market center that traces its lineage to Clinton administration Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.

The new economic adviser is Jason Furman, who has been director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, a Rubin-sponsored effort to grapple with the country's long-term fiscal problems. Furman says Obama told him he wanted an "honest broker" who could encourage a broad debate about economic policy. "He told me he wants to be eclectic in terms of who he hears from as he makes up his mind about economic issues," Furman told me Monday, after his first day traveling with the presumptive nominee.

The Furman appointment is a classic Obama move. It sends a signal that his economic policies will be consensual, mainstream, bridge-building -- all the qualities appropriate for a president who wants to break down partisan divisions. It's a sign that Obama's policies will involve "Facing the Music," as Furman titled a recent Brookings paper he co-wrote about repairing the fiscal damage of the Bush years.


But will Obama's domestic economic agenda also be exciting and visionary? Will it connect with the country's yearning for fundamental change? That's a much harder question, and it goes to one of the trickiest problems for Obama: Can a candidate who has gathered such a broad tent of supporters also find the intellectual spark that could make him a transformational president? What will he stand for, other than the generic idea of change? What's the cutting edge here?

The Reagan presidency was potent because it was powered by new ideas; the same could be said of the Clinton presidency. But if there is to be an Obama revolution, what will be its transforming economic vision? A program that is centered on "fixing the Bush mess" may be necessary, but it won't energize the country.

Obama's opportunity is unusual, and not simply because he will be the first African American major-party nominee. If he wins in November, he is likely to come to office with sizable working majorities in the House and Senate. That would give him an opportunity to govern that has been rare, arguably not seen since Lyndon Johnson's landslide in 1964.

When you ask senior members of Obama's team how they would use this opportunity to reshape domestic policy, you get the same well-considered answers. They will focus on health care, energy policy and tax reform. Perhaps because those phrases have been repeated in so many Democratic debates during the long primary season, they may have lost some of their galvanizing impact. The trick for Obama will be to make this agenda sound like creating something new and inspiring, rather than just fixing what's broken.

Furman argues the case for remedial change well in his Brookings papers. A July 2007 paper he co-wrote with Rubin makes a powerful economic case for universal health care. The current system, he argued, is putting a strain on businesses, wages and jobs; it is adding to America's fiscal problems and reducing its competitiveness in global markets. An October 2007 online piece argued for cutting corporate tax rates while at the same time repealing the alternative minimum tax to help middle-class taxpayers. An April 2008 column in Slate offered a sensible road map for fixing what Furman calculated was the $4 trillion impact of Bush's tax and spending policies. He stressed honest budgeting, bipartisan efforts to cut the deficit and a presidential willingness to veto budget-busting proposals. Sensible stuff, but not exciting.

To make the repair job sound visionary, Obama may turn to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the best idea-packager the Democrats have. As a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Emanuel has been walking a tightrope for months, trying to keep faith with Hillary even as he recognized that Obama was an especially charismatic leader. Now he's able to be all Obama, all the time. Emanuel has argued that the Democrats need "A New Deal for the New Economy," as he titled a March op-ed piece.

Emanuel takes the basic agenda -- health care, energy policy and tax reform -- and dresses it up into a new social contract for the age of globalization. That's the Democrats' challenge now. They have the candidate, but do they have the ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:11 AM

Washington Post

The Unvetted Vetter
By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A23

Say this for Sen. Barack Obama: He is a lot quicker in these post-Jeremiah Wright days to walk away from controversy caused him by others. By the time he finished distancing himself from Jim Johnson, his former vice presidential vetter, Johnson must have felt like he was on Mars.

After Johnson was portrayed in the Wall Street Journal as having received favorable treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp., a mortgage company Obama has frequently attacked, the Democratic presidential candidate immediately labeled Johnson as being only "tangentially related to our campaign."

Shifting into overdrive, Obama added that "these aren't folks who are working for me," referring to Johnson and his two associates on the vice presidential vetting team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder.

It was enough to make you wonder if the three had somehow broken into Obama's office, stolen his letterhead stationery and appointed themselves to interview the capital's good and great about who should join Obama on the Democratic ticket.

But that was not all. "First of all, I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages. . . . I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters." He was equally dismissive of questions about Holder's role in Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich.


Johnson got the message and yesterday announced his resignation from what I guess had become his non-job.

None of this had anything to do with Obama himself, the candidate argued forcefully. And at one level, he is absolutely right. This so far is only a media scandal, not a matter of law-breaking or obvious moral depravity.

Political capitals have distinctive flavors of media scandal. London periodically seizes on the drama of the seemingly happily married Cabinet secretary who is abruptly outed in the press by a hooker or a gay lover for profit or spite. Paris savors secret bank accounts in Luxembourg or Tokyo that somehow bring politicians and intelligence services together.

The current Washington media scandal usually involves an unseemly event or difficult-to-explain situation that lands its perpetrator in bubbling hot water for a while but is never clearly resolved. Scandal in Washington is something that allows us to talk about others maliciously while maintaining a clear conscience.

Or -- if the subject is Bush & Co. -- a sense of refreshed scandal allows us to state with new vigor the moral superiority and disdain we already feel and have stated over and over. That was the case with Johnson's immediate predecessor in the hot media bubble bath, Scott McClellan, the bumbling ex-press secretary for the Bush White House. McClellan's wide-eyed discovery via a best-selling memoir that he had been used for propaganda purposes by his bosses unleashed the armies of rehash and retribution.

Even if you like and admire the subject -- as many in Washington do with Johnson -- a certain schadenfreude settles over the policy community when the headlines singe but do not destroy a career.

The flap over Johnson's mortgages immediately revived investigative reporters' interest in his having served "on the board of five companies that granted lavish pay packages to their executives -- and often playing a key role in approving them," as the New York Times delicately put it in what appeared to be a warm-up pitch for additional digging.


It also brought new scrutiny to the curious decision by Obama to name Johnson to the job in the first place, given the candidate's fierce vows to transform Washington's insider culture and ways.

Johnson is a consummate political insider who, among other things, vetted vice presidential possibilities for John Kerry and played a key role in helping Walter Mondale settle on Geraldine Ferraro back in 1984 -- without, Johnson later told friends with impressive self-deprecating humor, ever imagining that her husband's business dealings could prove controversial in the campaign.

But what is important here is what this incident says about Obama, not about Johnson. The senator's initial reaction was to portray himself as too busy to keep up with the obscure financial doings of people who are not significant to the campaign and to belittle the media for asking him to "vet the vetters."

To treat Johnson, Holder and Kennedy suddenly as mere fact-checkers is as disingenuous as it is ungracious. Obama is clearly the most intelligent candidate of either party since Bill Clinton. But he can outsmart himself if he goes on expecting the media and the public to accept just about any explanation he gives.

Yes, he can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:21 AM

Not all Democrats falling for Obama

Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:55:45 AM
By BEN EVANS and SAM HANANEL

Nothing personal, Sen. Obama, but our re-election comes first. Barack Obama, for all his attention and primary successes, does not go over so well in a fair number of Democratic lawmakers' home districts. So it seems there is little chance that some will endorse him for president.

Some are counting on Republican votes in their re-election bids. Some are newly minted and in rematches with 2006 opponents. Some may be wary of how their constituents will react to a black presidential candidate. Some, too, have made it a practice of distancing themselves from the national party, fearing the inevitable campaign ad that has their face morphing into Howard Dean, the party chairman, and Obama.

Rep. Dan Boren, the only congressional Democrat in Oklahoma, calls Obama "the most liberal senator" in Congress and says he has no plans to make a public endorsement.

"We're much more conservative" in eastern Oklahoma, Boren said. "I've got to reflect my district."

Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat and Vietnam veteran who won his last election by about 1,800 votes, said he admires both Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but feels no obligation to state a preference.

"If it turns out one of them is an ax murderer or something like that I'll make a choice," he joked. Otherwise, "I don't think I need to get involved."

For most of these fence-sitters -- at least 14 as of Wednesday -- it boils down to political necessity: They are vulnerable Democrats in conservative-leaning districts who take pains to avoid aligning closely with the national party.

McCain has his own issues in his party. Many conservatives opposed the four-term senator, who has worked with Democrats and strayed from GOP orthodoxy on some issues, before he sealed the GOP nomination in February. Many still express reservations about him as the party leader.

Because McCain secured the party nomination much earlier in the campaign season, Republicans have not been pressed about their endorsements like Democrats have. But only a handful have publicly withheld their support for him. That includes Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who long has bucked the party hierarchy, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is running his own presidential campaign.

On the Democratic side, Boren said he, like most of the undecideds, will go along with nominating Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver in August.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki challenged Boren over his assessment of Obama and said the candidate had worked with Republicans in the Illinois Legislature and in Senate.

Obama, seeking to become the first black president, is hardly the first Democratic candidate to face such resistance. Over the years, moderates and conservatives have avoided associating with nominees going back to George McGovern in 1972 and including John Kerry in 2004. Public endorsements were not an issue in 2004 since Kerry had wrapped up the nomination early.

"They are all scared to death about getting beat by a Republican," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., one of Obama's most prominent supporters. "I don't think that if the good Lord himself had been nominated as a Democrat that some of those folks would have endorsed him. They are afraid of looking too much like a Democrat because of the kind of districts they're from."

As in the past, many uncommitted Democrats are from the South, which has favored Republicans in recent elections.

Although Obama swept the region in the Democratic primaries with near-universal support from black voters, he often fared poorly among working-class whites. As a result, he is seen as an asset in some districts but a question mark at best in others.

Rep. John Barrow, for example, represents a coastal Georgia district where blacks make up more than 40 percent of registered voters, mainly in urban areas around Savannah and Augusta. Not surprisingly, Barrow -- who won his last election by fewer than 900 votes -- endorsed Obama in February.

But Marshall, the Democratic incumbent in a neighboring district in rural central Georgia, has stayed quiet.

Marshall's district is less than one-third black, and he needs the support of white Republicans to win, including votes from the military community around Robins Air Force Base. He faces a fresh challenge this year from a retired Air Force general.

Republican campaign strategists already have shown they want to link Democratic candidates with Obama and other national figures, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor.

In special elections last month in Mississippi and Louisiana, Democratic candidates Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux faced television ads attempting to make those connections.

But Childers and Cazayoux won surprise victories, raising questions about the strategy's effectiveness.

Still, Childers is staying out of the presidential race, as is his fellow Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor. Cazayoux recently announced he is backing Obama.

Obama's campaign has made some progress in converting the holdouts. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who had insisted she would not budge from the undecided column, budged on Wednesday and endorsed Obama.

Boyda "has been impressed with Senator Obama's campaign because they're willing to take their discussion to all 50 states, rather than just the swing states," spokeswoman Liz Montano said.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a Democratic House leader who helped orchestrate the party's strategy for winning control of Congress in 2006, argues against reading too much into the holdouts. He said most of them always stay out of national politics and that the party is generally unified around Obama.

"They're just going to stick to their knitting," he said. "It's not that they're anti-Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:17 PM

NEW YORK: Presumptive Democratic candidate for the US presidential election Barack Obama has established a small early lead over his rival Republican John McCain, a new poll shows.

The poll, conducted for Wall Street Journal and NBC, shows that Obama is leading McCain by 47 per cent to 41 per cent. But still the lead is significantly smaller than the Democratic Party's 16-point advantage, 51 per cent to 35 per cent, when voters are asked, without candidates' names, which party they want to win the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:43 PM

Not all apes are falling for Chongo either, BB!!!!! I know it's a shocking thing to hear, but it's true.

And what's even more mind-numbing than that is this. NOT all Republicans are falling for McCain!!!!!!

My Gawd.....WHAT is the world coming to? ;-) Can NOTHING be depended upon anymore? Is no knee-jerk tradition or unthinking and mindless form of repetitive programmed behaviour safe any longer?????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:43 PM

McCain is having the problem I mentioned earlier--he has to appeal beyond his base but when he does try, the base threatens to desert--or at least stay home.

1) Quite a few figures on the "Religious Right" are not happy with him. Even if they eventually do vote for him, at a minimum he will not have the army of foot soldiers they provided to Bush in 2004. Whereas Obama will still have his legions.

2) WSJ has pilloried him several times recently--including once for embracing the "cap and trade" approach to emissions and then today for voting against opening ANWR to drilling.

3) Tancredo and his followers are not huge fans either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

Regarding the worth of polls on the election 5 months in advance: there are at least 2 big reasons to heavily discount their value, in addition to just the time element.

1) Against Obama---the "Bradley effect"

2) For Obama---the fact that most polls only cover land-lines--whereas many of his strongest supporters have cell phones, and no land-lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:51 PM

This from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal:



We can't find a single issue on which Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting NAFTA. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965.

There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Obama's handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all, to denying he'd heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks, to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself, to repudiating the words and the reverend, and finally to leaving the church.

Most disingenuously, he said recently that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.

A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger's testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Obama's campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Sen. James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.

The point is not that Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the senator's own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate's vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Obama does believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:42 PM

When Obama was speaking in North Carolina this week I saw coverage on NBC and CNN but when I switched to Murdoch's fair and balanced network they were covering a chain of Christian excercise gyms in which the word of God is being spoken over loudspeakers and a strict dress code for women is enforced.


Who knows, Murdoch's next media buy out might be the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 11:33 PM

Will Republicans disappointed by the dirty tactics of their party go for Obama in November?

(AlterNet)

David Iglesias is an evangelical, Hispanic Republican -- yes, that one, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico -- and he has positive things to say about Barack Obama.

I interviewed Iglesias the morning after Obama became the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party: "Obama represents all the promise of America, that a biracial man from a broken family can rise and have a strong shot of becoming our next president." Asked if he's endorsing Obama, Iglesias replied: "I'm not endorsing anybody. Our country has elected white males from northern European countries going back now 230-or-so years. This finally represents that the top position in American government is really open to everyone, and I think that's sending a powerful message not only to Americans, but throughout the world."

While Iglesias does not dislike John McCain, his own party's nominee, his comments bear directly on strategy for a campaign of Obama versus McCain. As the Puerto Rican primary results suggested, Obama still has to make major inroads into the Latino community. Iglesias' home state, New Mexico, is a "majority minority" state -- that is, people of color outnumber whites in the state (others include California, Texas and Hawaii).

Iglesias represents another population at play in this election: disaffected Republicans.

In his new book In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration, Iglesias paints a picture of a highly politicized U.S. Department of Justice, allegedly following Republican Party strategy to prosecute people accused of voter fraud in cases where voter registrations could be seen to help Democratic candidates. Iglesias was not prosecuting these alleged voter-fraud cases, which did not sit well with New Mexico Republicans. Al Gore won New Mexico in 2000 by a mere 366 votes, and George Bush edged out John Kerry there in 2004 by about 6,000 votes. New Mexico is definitely a swing state. Congresswoman Heather Wilson barely held on to her congressional office in 2006. Every vote counts in New Mexico, and the Republicans know it: All three House seats are up for grabs in November, along with the Senate seat being vacated by Pete Domenici. Wilson is giving up her House seat to run for his.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 11:35 PM

TIME remarks:

"When Barack Obama says a John McCain Administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush, he's not just blowing smoke, especially when it comes to economic policy. Yes, McCain is a very different kind of man, with a different history, who will face a set of challenges and opportunities that are different from those confronting Bush. But look through the Republican candidate's campaign pledges on the economy, and you'll see that they really do add up to a continuation of Bush's focus on cutting taxes (especially taxes on corporate and capital income) and moving economic decisions (and burdens) into the hands of individuals.



The McCain camp has responded to Obama's digs by trying to link Obama to Bush (because both are supposedly big spenders) and to Jimmy Carter (because both are supposedly big taxers). It's hard to see either parallel sticking, though--the first is too ridiculous, and the second is too dated. If this election becomes a referendum on the economy and Bush's handling of it, Obama wins and McCain loses. It's as simple as that.
The question, then, is whether Obama can turn the election into such a referendum. The economy appears to be doing what it can to help, with the minirevival of April and May giving way to less encouraging data. But Obama's campaign has never really been about people's pocketbooks. That was more Hillary Clinton's thing.

Now, with Clinton finally out of the picture, the presumptive Democratic candidate is trying to make up for lost time with a two-week campaign swing through battleground states like North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio, talking about the economy at every stop. That's smart. But if Obama's early speeches are any indication, his reinvention of himself as the economy candidate is not going to be a slam dunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 11:20 AM

Still, I think the strongest thing going for McCain is the fact that a lot of voters are going to realize that the Democrats are probably going to end up with strong majorities in both houses of Congress. That being the case, huge numbers of them a going to be very nervous at the thought of Barak Obama at the helm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

WASHINGTON: If Barack Obama were running for leader of the world, instead of leader of the US, he would probably romp home.

The annual global survey of attitudes by the independent Pew Research Centre shows that the Democratic nominee for president has won the confidence of people in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia and is strongly preferred as president of the US over his rival, the Republican John McCain.

In Australia, 80 per cent of participants said they had confidence in Senator Obama, against 40 per cent for Senator McCain.

Similar results were reported from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Japan and Tanzania. ...

Reprinted in the Sydney Herald.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 11:52 AM

"..Gallup says this morning that when voters are asked about which candidate will win, Democrat Obama comes out well ahead of Republican McCain. According to Gallup, 52% of the 822 adults surveyed last week said they think Obama will win the race for the White House. McCain was the choice of 41%. The margin of error on each number: +/- 4 percentage points.." USAT

"After the first full week of general election mode, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are statistically even in the latest Gallup poll.

But that survey, released this morning, shows that a clear majority of Americans believe Obama will win in November. He leads in the perception measure 52 percent to 41 percent, with 76 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents predicting an Obama victory. Two-thirds of Republicans believe McCain will win.

Gallup notes that interestingly, while Obama's support during the primaries was skewed toward younger voters, they are the least optimistic that America will elect its first black president. Only 48 percent of those 18 to 34 said they believe Obama will win, while 52 percent of those between 35 and 54 did, and 55 percent of those 55 and older did.

..." (Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

June 16 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Al Gore will step off the sidelines and make his first campaign stop with Democrat Barack Obama tonight.

Gore, who made the announcement in an e-mail to supporters, will appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit that is scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m. local time.

``A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan, to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama,'' Gore wrote in a fundraising letter. ``From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.''

Gore, who was the party's presidential nominee in 2000, had stayed out of the race between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who conceded the contest June 7. He's appearing with Obama in a state that will be a crucial battleground in the general election. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who ended his own bid for the Democratic nomination earlier this year, also gave his endorsement to Obama in Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

"This from Rupert Murdoch's Wall St. Journal"

Gee I wonder what would make one of the Mudcatters allegedly most against Mr. Murdoch cite a column in the WSJ.

Couldn't possibly be that the column is negative on Obama. Of course not.

So much for that poster's supposed opposition to Mr. Murdoch. He's against him--unless he can use something from the WSJ. A slight whiff of hypocrisy?   Of course not.

And of course the poster is also likely trying to prove Mr. Murdoch's domination of the WSJ. Wrong again. He quotes a column from the editorial page--which has always been Neanderthal--long before Mr. Murdoch came on the scene.   But, as I've said more than once, it does not reflect the quality of the actual reporting--which for my money is the best in the world---and contradicts the editorial page all the time.

And we have yet another baseless and pointless allegation from the same poster--blissfully free from any logic or evidence, as always----that many voters would be uneasy with Obama "at the helm".   Sounds like another special at Smears R Us.

The best things in life don't change, they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM

Very happy to be included as one of the "best things in life..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:22 PM

THe smartest people in life, however, _do_ change as they meet differing conditions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

It's a tough choice, trying to decide to be, or not to be, the "best" or the "smartest."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:46 PM

I think one gets a lot more mileage out of life if he settles for being the smartest and best he can be, and does not worry about comparing himself with every other human being ever made; it's a huge waste of effort, a game not worth the candle, with no "there" there.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

I think one gets a lot more mileage out of life if he/she settles for being happy with what one has rather than always trying to seek or afford the best.

As for personal betterment, follow your bliss.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:15 PM

Yes indeed, baseless and pointless allegations from the CEO of Smears R US are indeed one of the best things in life. Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:31 PM

As Sen. John McCain steps up his criticism that Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama's talk of bipartisanship is hollow rhetoric, the presumptive Republican nominee finds one of his convention delegates in the cross-hairs of the debateÑIllinois state Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale).

The suburban Republican, a former GOP county chairman, appeared in a TV ad for his friend and one-time colleague in the Illinois legislature attesting to the Democrat's willingness to cross the political aisle. The ad was run by Obama campaign throughout the extended primary campaign.

But Dillard, elected on Feb. 5 as a convention delegate for McCain, has asked Obama's top political strategist, David Axelrod, not to use the TV ad for the general election campaign, now that the battle for the presidency is down to a one-on-one partisan contest. Dillard sent a letter to Axelrod at a request of the McCain campaign. Obama campaign aides said they would honor Dillard's request.

The ad, which began airing before Iowa's caucuses in January and was used in later contests, showed Dillard saying that Obama "worked on the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way." In the ad, Dillard also said, "Republican legislators respected Sen. Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well."


Dillard also took part in an early Obama campaign conference call with reporters and discussed the hours he worked with the Democrat in a bipartisan way on issues such as ethics and death penalty reform. But Dillard's involvement with the Obama campaign rankled some Illinois Republicans as inappropriate for a former DuPage County GOP chairman and former member of the Republican State Central Committee.

"In campaigns of any kind, people will want to twist and distort individuals' records. But I owe it to the American public and my friend, Sen. Obama, to tell the truth, for better or for worse, [about] what were the early years of his elected life in Springfield," Dillard said recently. "In many ways, because he is the first African-American to have a realistic chance of being the president, I owe it to everyone to not be partisan in my reflections upon what was Sen. Obama's record in a city in which Abraham Lincoln lived."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:05 PM

The Chronicle discusses Obama's foreign policy missteps.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:52 PM

Gutsy Move...declare independence from the broken system of campaign finance!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 01:44 PM

From US News:

"Obama Up 5 Nationally In ARG Poll An American Research Group poll of 600 likely voters taken June 13-17 shows Obama leading McCain 49%-44% nationally.

McCain Up 1 In Ohio A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Ohio voters taken June 17 shows McCain leading Obama 44%-43%.

Obama Edges McCain In Virginia A Public Policy Polling (D) surveyed of 893 likely Virginia voters taken June 14 and 16 shows Obama leading McCain 47%-45%.

Obama Up 12 In New Hampshire An American Research Group poll of 600 likely New Hampshire voters taken June 13-17 shows Obama leading McCain 51%-39%.

Obama Up 9 In Wisconsin A SurveyUSA automated poll of 538 likely Wisconsin voters released June 18 shows Obama leading McCain 52%-43%. The poll also tests a number of potential tickets, and most combinations show an Obama-led ticket leading a McCain-led ticket by 5 to 7 points.

McCain Up 4 In Alaska A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Alaska voters taken June 16 shows McCain leading Obama 45%-41%.

Obama Up 22 In Maine A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 500 likely Maine voters taken June 16 shows Obama leading McCain 55%-33%."

---

I just love a good horse race.

Especially when the fate of Western civilization rides on the dark horse, win, place, or show.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 01:19 PM

"Although he's been very successful raising money online, and in small dollar contributions, I think Senator Obama would prefer to be within the system, rather than having to race around the country asking for money," says David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to improving America's campaign finance laws. "But with the way things are now, anyone who opts in does so at their peril. And of course every presidential candidate makes his or her decision on how to fund their campaign based on what they think will bring them to victory."

Obama of course has been extraordinarily successful at raising money from individual donors, mainly through his website, with nearly half of the $270m he has already raised coming from small donations by individuals. McCain in contrast lags well behind - so it isn't surprising that his campaign wants to tie Obama's hands over financing. In fact, Obama's advantage has already seen him launch a television advertising campaign in 18 states, including Alaska and North Dakota, that Democratic candidates would not be able to afford at this stage of the campaign.

John McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black has upbraided Obama for his decision, saying: "It seems to me if you're trying to change politics in America that this is a step backwards, to move away from public finance, which everybody's always participated in, rather than a change for the better." But is the fact that "everybody's always participated in" it any reason to continue doing it - especially if you're trying to effect change? Black has rhetorically invalidated himself.

But beyond any semantic sparring - and more to the point - it's Obama who seems truly committed to reforming the finance system, at this point. As Donelly writes: "McCain once authored a fix to the broken presidential public financing system but now refuses to add his name as cosponsor to the same bipartisan legislation." Obama, by contrast, has co-sponsored the same bill and says he would make passing it a priority if elected. Among other things, that would free up about $200m in taxpayers' money for more useful purposes.

Donelly also points out that while McCain has complained about the undue influence of lobbyists when it comes to electing politicians, McCain himself has five times as many lobbyists raising money for his campaign as Obama does: 70 to 14, according to Public Citizen. It doesn't take a statistical genius to realise that's one lopsided fight."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:16 PM

Washington Post:

The Politics of Spare Change
Even $85 million wasn't enough to get Barack Obama to keep his promise.


Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A18

BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn't mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same -- the one for which he received heaps of praise from campaign finance reform advocates such as Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and others, including us. He didn't mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."


Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. "This is our moment, and our country is depending on us," he said. "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people." Sure, and if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd have bundlers, too.

Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice, and anyone can understand why: He's going to raise a ton of money. Mr. McCain played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them, and he had a four-month head start in the general election while Mr. Obama was still battling for the nomination. Outside groups are going to come after him. He has thousands of small donors along with his big bundlers. And so on.

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM

Washington Post:

A False Moderate?

By Michael Gerson
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues, but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue on which Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.


The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform -- leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

This is not to argue that defying your party is uniformly admirable. Sometimes McCain's courage gets mixed up with his pride -- and maybe, in the end, they are indistinguishable. But the same could be said of Winston Churchill, who changed parties more than once. We tend to admire this kind of disruptive independence.

Obama's four years in the Senate have provided fewer opportunities for heresy than McCain's 22. Yet Obama draws scrutiny to this subject by making his transcendence of political categories one of his main campaign themes. He has shown occasional hints of independence on education -- supporting charter schools and merit pay for teachers. But for the most part, Obama's post-partisanship is more a matter of tone. He speaks movingly about the positive role of religion in our common life. He urges fathers to meet their moral and economic responsibilities to their children. He rejects the demonization of pro-lifers (though he refuses to oppose partial-birth abortion). He defends the good intentions of Democratic senators who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts (though he was one of only 22 senators who voted against Roberts).

These are welcome gestures, but they are not policies. Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on liberal congressional overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness. Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

Washington Post:

McCain's Oil Epiphany

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

...


As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. "His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades." One can only marvel at Obama's audacity in characterizing McCain's proposal to change our policy as "old politics," while the candidate of "change" adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.

McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa - as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy olicies - is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.

Alas, McCain's proposed reform is only partial. Still better than Obama, however, who refuses to deviate from liberal orthodoxy. But that is the story of his campaign, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:24 PM

Washington Post:

The Small-Donor Fallacy

By Jay Mandle
Friday, June 20, 2008; Page A19

Not long ago, Sen. Barack Obama criticized special-interest lobbies that "use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years." He has said that his army of small donors constitutes "a parallel public financing system," one in which ordinary voters "will have as much access and influence over the course of our campaign" as that "traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Obama has raised record-breaking sums from small donors, so his announcement yesterday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election did not surprise many. And the idea that the Internet and grass-roots donations will somehow reinvigorate our democracy is appealing. But this notion is not borne out by the evidence.

As of April 30, the Obama campaign had collected more than $120 million in contributions of $200 or less. In April alone, the latest month for which data are available, Obama raised more than $31 million, about 65 percent of which came from contributions of $200 or less. This seems good for democracy -- but it may not be as good as we think.

Despite the importance of small donors, both Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain are still taking lots of big donations from wealthy special interests. In fact, when the nominating system as a whole is studied over time, the evidence suggests that the role of big donors will turn out to be growing, not shrinking.


Through March, small donations amounted to 39 percent of the combined fundraising of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But over a comparable period four years ago, such contributions made up an even greater share (42 percent) of the fundraising of the two leading Democratic contenders, Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. On the GOP side, small donors were much more important for McCain in 2007 than they were for George W. Bush in 2003. But for most of last year McCain was not the front-runner, and his campaign was famously broke. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, big donors are his bread and butter.

Contributions of less than $200 do not have to be itemized in reports to the Federal Election Commission, so we have no idea how many are made. We also cannot rely on the candidates' rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that "we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50." His campaign's own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors. Obama probably meant that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed were small donors, but the number of donors has not been verified.

Small-dollar donations to Obama have surged this year, and those donors became crucial in the spring as the battle to secure the Democratic nomination intensified. But for most of his campaign, big donors have been Obama's mainstay. Employees of investment bank Goldman Sachs, for example, have contributed more than $570,000 to his campaign.

Another problem with asserting that small donors are an antidote to undue influence by wealthy contributors is that even small donors are almost certainly much richer than the average American.

In a study of $100 contributions to state campaigns in six states during 2005, the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than half of donors earned between $75,000 and $250,000 a year. The median U.S. income that year was $46,000. While it's tricky to extrapolate to the presidential race, it is unlikely that campaign giving has suddenly become a common pursuit of working-class families.

Meanwhile, big-ticket fundraising among the very wealthiest is surging into record territory. Even as he touts his base of small donors, Obama has continued to woo large contributors at events costing thousands of dollars per plate, as has McCain. This suggests that, by themselves, small donations do not offer a real corrective to the pay-to-play system.

Neither does the public financing available to the candidates. This funding is frozen at 1976 levels, which is why Obama has rejected it -- he can raise from private sources more than the amount of the government grant. McCain no doubt would have taken the same path if his fundraising had taken off.

The idea that small donors will somehow reinvigorate electoral democracy, without the trouble of fundamentally reforming our campaign finance laws, is attractive but not yet reality. For candidates to be equally responsive to all their constituents and to open to ordinary voters the same kind of influence and access now afforded a wealthy minority, the only realistic option is to increase the amount of money we allocate to the public campaign finance system. In fact, the small-donor illusion may even be functioning as a fig leaf, averting our gaze from the continued and intensifying stranglehold that big donors have on our democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:05 PM

"Since we announced the decision not to accept taxpayer funds for the general election, tens of thousands of people like you have come forward to declare their independence from a broken system.

This decision frees us to build a movement of millions of people giving whatever they can afford to a campaign that is truly reforming the way our political process works.

It also frees us to take our campaign for change to parts of the country where Democratic presidential candidates haven't spent too much time in the past.

Our first television ad of the general election season goes on the air today.

Sure, we're on the air in places like Ohio and Florida, the typical battleground states. But we're also on the air in North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska -- places that have emerged as competitive because of the unprecedented grassroots energy supporting our campaign.

These ads are supporting a 50-state ground operation that is being built right now by staff, volunteers, and thousands of Obama Organizing Fellows.

But we have our work cut out for us, and we need to grow this movement. Right now, you can declare your independence and help us run a campaign that is funded by the people and for the people.

If you make your first donation today, a fellow supporter is standing by to match your gift and double your impact. You can even choose to exchange a note with them and share why you are supporting this campaign.

Add your voice to our movement by making a matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

Choosing not to accept these taxpayer funds was not an easy decision. I remain committed to fundamental campaign finance reform, and as president I will work to fix this broken system.

But we're facing opponents who have become masters at gaming the broken system as it stands today -- collecting money from Washington lobbyists, special interest PACs, and relying on so-called 527 groups that can take unlimited contributions to peddle lies and smears.

We have chosen to do things differently. You can see for yourself what kind of people own our campaign -- each of these folks have made a donation in the last 24 hours:


Sandra from Tennessee:

"I'm on disability and can't afford to give much but I figure the $10 is worth it. This is the first time in a long time that even the ones who can't afford it are giving, and are excited about a candidate and excited about the process."

Monica from South Carolina:

"The way that this primary and now this general election campaign have been funded truly gives the power to the citizens that are voting. This administration will owe the American people, not lobbyists and special interests groups."

Mauve from Iowa:

"THIS is true public financing. Getting average Americans from all backgrounds and tax brackets to care enough and to believe enough and to hope enough to give what they can."

Tim from Texas:

"Today, for the first time in my life, I contributed to a political campaign. I did so because I have always believed that true power rests with the people, if only those people could be organized. We have the power to take back our country from the special interest groups. There are more of us and when we act together, we are the force that can dictate the direction our country will take."

(Excerpt from an Obama email).

Bruce:

A lot of screed for very little signal...maybe you could use hyperlinks to improve the ratio.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 06:47 PM

YT:

"... In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, ÒIf I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.Ó

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

Mr. ObamaÕs campaign has been notable this year for its success in raising money; he outstripped his Democratic opponents in the primary and seemed well-positioned to out-raise Mr. McCain.

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaignÕs contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.

That said, the Republican National Committee Ñ which does not operate under the same contribution limits as the candidates Ñ has proved to be much more successful than the Democratic National Committee in raising funds.

Mr. Black said that the McCain campaignÕs fund-raising was improving, and that its efforts to raise money in conjunction with the Republican National Committee and several state parties working to elect Mr. McCain Ñ which allows donors to contribute far more than the $2,300 limit that they can give to presidential campaigns alone Ñ was yielding results.

ÒI assume heÕs going to outspend us,Ó Mr. Black said of Mr. Obama, but he added that the money advantage would prove to be less important than it appeared: ÒWe donÕt have to spend as much as he does to win.Ó he said.

For his part, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision to opt out of public financing as one that would limit the influence of special interests in the campaign.

ÒInstead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, youÕve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,Ó he told his supporters in the video message. ÒAnd because you did, weÕve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans.Ó

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 07:14 AM

"A lot of screed for very little signal...maybe you could use hyperlinks to improve the ratio."



Why, certainly Amos: I shall do what you do, and give ONLY the parts that support what I want people to belive, and then let the rest ( ie, the entire, balanced statements) disappear off the net after a few days, as most newspapaer editorials do.

You seem to be a little selective about who the "pop" in popular are- Why not just state "Supporting views on Obama", or "Opposing views on Bush"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 08:54 AM

BTW, Charles Klodhopper, Mike Gerson and Bob Novak are the Rush Limbaugh's of the op-ed pages of the Post...

BTW, Part B... The editorial staff at the Post isn't all that flaming liberal... You missed and Obama slam/slime, bb, in yesterdays edition... Hint: the "other side", half way down.... And this is from the Post itself...

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Post endorse McCain... They seem to delight is slaming Obama every chance they get... And they still are ardent supporters of the Iraq war just as they have been since the very beginning...

So much for the liberal media???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 09:18 AM

Just because they are liberal does not mean they are stupid....

It just might be they want the best person for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 09:28 AM

...lol, bb...

BTW, did ya' go back and read the Obama/slam that you apparently missed??? I'd sho nuff hate for you to miss yet another opportunity to slam Obama... Might cost you some sleep...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

Unlike Amos, I see no need to post every criticism of someone I do not support ( several times) If the point has been made in one article, that should be enough.


You seem willing to attack anyone who says something you don't agree with- ever think about reading them and seeing where your candidate needs to change to appeal to a broad enough group to win?

I will be waiting to see if you are going to evaluate the ones that slam McCain... Since you have been known to claim that sources are only true when they agree with you, and then regardless of the truth of what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:14 PM

BB-
Aside from McCain's fervent dedication to pursue the Iraqui war, which you seem to approve of, just what does he stand for that you think is worthwhile?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:20 PM

Guilty as charged, sir; it is the sorry legacy of my chromosomes and my early larnin' among the HUmanoids and I have never overcome the weakness. I am a subjective beast, and nothing more.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:29 PM

Ummmmmm, maybe I missed something here, bb, but exactly where did I attack you???

Me thinks that you may be a tad on the hypersensituve side...

(Is that an attack??? Hmmmmmmm??? Well, maybe it is??? But if it is it certainly doesn't on ther surface look like an attack...)

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 02:15 AM

WASHINGTON (AFP) Ñ Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has surged to a 15-point lead over Republican John McCain in the latest Newsweek poll out Friday, by far the biggest margin of any recent survey.
The magazine's poll gave Obama 51 percent to 36 percent for McCain among registered voters nationwide -- three times the margin of four to five points that other polls this week have given the Illinois senator.
Obama is enjoying a post-primary bounce after seeing off the dogged challenge of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton earlier this month, and supporters of the former first lady are flocking to his side, Newsweek said.
"The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country," it reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:43 AM

No Slogans here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:01 PM

Dany:

What a hoot!! I was about to post the same link with the comment that you can learn a lot about a politician by what he says to his own staff people. This one is a winner.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:23 PM

The LA Times:

"...(O)n Tuesday, a guest column appeared in Newsweek disputing what has been taken as a given in the campaign: McCain's experience advantage. It argues, provocatively, that the eight years Obama served in the Illinois state legislature before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 2004 might trump McCain's 22 years as a senator from Arizona.

The case is made by Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing magazine, which trains its eyes on state and local government (and, not surprisingly, has a rather small and specialized circulation).

Ehrenhalt concedes that, at first blush, state legislative experience would strike most Americans as a "kind of irrelevant" preparation for the presidency. But he then writes that "looking back on quite a few years covering Congress, and an almost equal number of years following legislatures, I'm drawn to some slightly curmudgeonly comments about what it is that U.S. senators do, and what it is that state legislators do."

Observations that follow include:

"Twenty-first century U.S. senators are, virtually by the nature of the job, gadflies. They flit from one issue to another, generally developing little expertise on any of them; devote a large portion of their day to press conferences and other publicity opportunities; follow a daily schedule printed on a 3x5 card that a member of their staff has prepared; depend even more heavily on staff for detailed and time-consuming legislative negotiation that they are too busy to attend..."

"By contrast, what do state legislators do? ... At their best, they keep all the state's significant issues in mind; it is possible to do that in a state legislature in a way that is not possible in Washington. During the years that Obama served in Springfield, 1997-2005, he was forced to wrestle with the minutiae of healthcare policy, utility deregulation, transportation funding, school aid, and a host of other issues that are vitally important to America's coming years, but that U.S. senators are usually able to dispose of with a quick once-over. State legislators have to do this largely on their own, without ubiquitous staff guidance, because staffing is not lavish even in the more professional state capitols."

"...For a smart, curious and hard-working young legislator -- for a Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate -- can we be so sure that the skill set picked up over eight years in a state Capitol is inferior as presidential preparation to two decades in the pompous, cordoned-off environment of the U.S. Senate? I seriously doubt it."

So there.

We seriously doubt the Obama campaign is going to roll out ads anytime soon that tout Obama's time in Springfield quite like Ehrenhalt does. But his column makes for an intriguing read, nonetheless.

-- Don Frederick

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:48 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

The Democratic candidate's campaign singled out the so-called "Enron loophole" for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation. Oil closed near $135 a barrel on Friday - almost double the price a year ago.

"My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores commonsense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future," Obama said in a campaign statement.

Obama's campaign blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican who serves as Republican candidate Sen. John McCain's co-chairman and economic adviser. The Obama campaign accused Gramm of inserting a provision into a bill in late 2000 "at the behest of Enron lobbyists" that exempted some energy traders from government oversight.

Houston-based Enron collapsed in scandal in 2001 when it was discovered the company had vastly overstated its income...."CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 12:52 AM

Yeah Amos,

While he did go thru a couple of standard stump vignettes, most of the video exhibits a side of him that we won't get to see as the general election nears. I guess the whole thing becomes a media matchup now.

I'll tell you, I really miss working the canvass routes and the calling lists. I got footsore and the staff took pity on me - actually gave me my own logon to do my calling from home.... like I was one of those old Eugene McCarthy Era luddites that I would see hanging around the gathering places. ;-)   

But what I miss most is the kids, and their zeal and their quiet confidence.   The atmosphere inside the campaign is the most race-neutral environment that I have ever experienced. The beauty of their purity and their work has brought me to quiet but insistent tears on several occasions.

Working for the campaign has caused me to recall all sorts of nooks and crannies in my life where I witnessed barbaric racism - mostly Philadelphia Street stuff in my youth - along with a good deal of memories from my own community organizing activities in 1970s SW Baltimore. Perhaps my involvement with the Obama movement will give me a chance to put the racial incidents (they have been many - they have sometimes been bloody) into context - to make some use of them - maybe engage in part of the cleansing dialogue that Barack - in his soaring response to the Rev Wright blowup - has called for us to undertake as a nation.

The single political occurance that comes most frequently to my mind is the Julian Bond/Lester Maddox standoff regarding the seating of the Georgia delegation in the mid '60s.   Though I was very young at the time, in my mind's eye I can still see their faces on TV and the shots of the convention floor - the offered compromise - and then Maddox leading his group off the floor.   Thus Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' was begotten. The implicit racism in Nixon's clever opportunism is readily apparant. It has sustained his party for the better part of 40 years...

...but now, my friend Amos, my comrade volunteer, the chickens might indeed, at long and dear last, be coming home to roost.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:01 AM

Danny,

Thank you, sir, for your work.
It is our one best shot, and we should give it everything we can.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:30 AM

Maureen Dowd kicks Karl Rove right in the nuts for dissing Barack (on top of a whole big pile of earlier offenses against humanity).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

The Los Angeles Times -- Twelve-point lead for Obama: "Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has taken a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the opening of the general election campaign for president, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. In a two-man race between the major-party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll, conducted Thursday through Monday." The survey of 1,115 registered voters has a margin of error on each result of +/- 3 percentage points.

• Rocky Mountain News -- Nader says Obama tries to "talk white:" "Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to 'talk white' and appealing to 'white guilt' during his run for the White House. Nader, a thorn in the Democratic Party's side since the 2000 presidential election, has taken various shots at Obama in recent days while ramping up his latest independent run for president. ... The Obama campaign had only a brief response, calling the remarks disappointing."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:08 PM

Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate

Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.

Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure.
Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today.

Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy. No American voter can afford to ignore the lessons contained in this book.

About the Author

Webster Griffin Tarpley (Massachusetts 1946) is an intelligence expert and historian who has been studying and exposing covert operations for over thirty years. He is the author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic Terror (2005). He has appeared on C-SPAN, CNN, Fox News, and many more.

http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Postmodern-Making-Manchurian-Candidate/dp/0930852885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214413510&sr=1-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:12 PM

Wow--what a crock of crap, Guest Unknown. I suspect this man is a raving asshole.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:17 PM

Hmm.

Well, there's an interesting alternative viewpoint.

Only time will tell if there's anything to it.

I'll say this. I can hardly believe that the corrupt oligarchy which runs the Democratic and Republican parties would dream of letting anyone but a hand-picked servant of their world-dominating fascist policies get to the Oval Office. And if so, and if he gets elected, then Obama is their man.

If he's not their man, he's in very great danger.

Anyway, time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:27 PM

"the catastrophic Carter presidency"?

I remember Carter establishing the Dept. of Energy. I remember Carter's emphasis on the need to find renewable (and cleaner) energy resources.

Carter was labelled a 'doomsayer' for talking about energy resource limits.   We were told that it was 'Morning in America'. (It was, in fact, closer 4:30 in th afternoon.)

I remember very clearly that on the day after the 1980 election - the very first working day for the new President-elect, Ronald Reagan lunched with the CEO of Texaco. The fix was in...

"catastrophic presidency" indeed!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:30 PM

Yeah, I don't get that bit either. Seems to me that Carter was the unfortunate recipient of something he was not in any way to blame for (the Iran Hostage crisis)...and that destroyed his presidency. It would have destroyed just about anyone's presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DannyC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:34 PM

Surprised I haven't been locked out. This fascist forum normally does that after one post.

Anyway, Obama has never been elected in a fair election. State Senator in Illinois--his opponent was forced off the ballot by TriLateral Commission lawyers at the last minute. US Senate Democratic primary and General election--both his opponents were destroyed by FBI files. Sex stuff. So, Obama has obscure origins and powerful lawyers backing him. His past has never been fully investigated. He hasn't been vetted, and he's going to lose on account of it. A nasty piece of work, supported by bigger money than the Bushes ever tapped into.

The Dems made a mistake by not pushing for Hitlary. Now we'll have a president who spent SEVEN YEARS IN THE HANDS OF SOVIET MIND MANIPULATORS. Geez. Why are you Dems so easily led?

Brezinski's goal, by the way, is to pit the US against Russia/China. He's written it all up in his books. Now he has his stooge ready to rubberstamp all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:42 PM

So you think Obama's unvetted past will sink his election chances? Interesting. I wonder if you're right?

I really don't think that either the Democrats or the Republicans are a pleasant prospect to contemplate...but the way the media works in the USA there is simply no one else who's going to get elected. The sheep will eat what the media feeds them on a daily basis...because they are mostly not even aware that there IS anything else to eat.

The most powerful thing in society is the flow of information. That determines what most people think about everything, and it determines who they will vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:46 PM

A question: Are the ideas of "Soviet mind manipulators" really any worse for the world than the ideas motivating those presently governing in America?

;-)

Just wondering what you think about that. Seems like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM

June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Barack Obama has opened a 15-point lead in the presidential race, and most of the political trends -- voter enthusiasm, views of President George W. Bush, the Republicans, the economy and the direction of the country -- point to even greater trouble for rival John McCain.

Illinois Senator Obama, winning support from once skeptical women and Democrats, beats McCain 48 percent to 33 percent in a four-way race, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows. Independent candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader get 7 percent combined, with the remainder undecided.

Obama's margin and most of the poll's findings in other areas give the Democrats a commanding advantage more than four months before the November election, says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director.

``The Obama voters are much more energized and motivated to come out to vote than the McCain voters; McCain is still struggling to win over some of his core groups,'' she says. ``The good news for Obama is also that he seems to be doing better on the issue that is uppermost in voters' minds, and that is the economy.''

Two-Way Race

The poll shows that the third-party candidacies of Barr and Nader, who political experts say likely will be on the ballot in most states, are hurting Arizona Senator McCain slightly more than Obama. In a two-way race, Obama's lead over the presumptive Republican nominee narrows to 12 points.

(Bloomberg)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:11 PM

Once more the credibility of posts is compromised by hiding behind the name GUEST...and don't you JUST love conspiracy theories? The very stuff of some politics :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:12 PM

Washington Post


The Wrong Way to Kick An Oil Habit

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, June 25, 2008; Page A13

High oil prices, like a walk under the summer moon, can drive normally rational people to do foolish things they later regret. For Barack Obama, it is a fling with a windfall profits tax on American oil companies -- one of the most thoroughly discredited economic policies of the past few decades. A 2006 Congressional Research Service report found that Jimmy Carter's version of the tax generated less than one-fourth of expected government revenue while depressing domestic oil output between 1.2 percent and 8 percent and increasing dependence on imported oil between 3 percent and 13 percent.

It is typical of a tired economic liberalism to look at the global energy crisis and see American companies as the problem -- even if punishing them leads to greater dependence on foreign oil. But it is also naive to believe this dependence will be addressed by the normal working of energy markets.

Those markets are producing what one economist calls the "greatest wealth transfer the world has ever known." In a single year, the revenue of oil- and natural gas-producing Persian Gulf states have nearly doubled -- giving nations in the region hundreds of billions of surplus dollars to play with. Recent Saudi promises to increase oil production may help ease prices. It is also the profitable accommodation of an addiction.


How much money are we talking about? Because the Gulf monarchies are extravagantly secretive, the estimates vary. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency declares official reserves exceeding $300 billion, but the real number is probably much larger. And this does not include the wealth of individual royals. Brad Setser, my colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, estimates that Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds have perhaps $1.5 trillion set aside for a rainy day.

And what do these countries do with this money? Mainly they buy bonds through Swiss and English financial intermediaries. But they are also trying to defuse world outrage at this massive wealth transfer through some high-profile charity work. Saudi Arabia recently pledged $500 million for the World Food Program. Late last year, members of the Arab League promised about $700 million to the cash-starved Palestinian Authority.

In both cases, there is less to this generosity than meets the eye.

Oil-producing countries in the Middle East are large importers of food and declining producers (as water in the desert becomes too valuable for use on grain). So Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others have begun using petrodollars to buy and rent farmland in other countries -- nations such as Egypt, Pakistan, Cambodia and the Philippines -- to ensure their own "food security." This may eventually lead to political instability in food-producing countries, as citizens ask: "Why are we sending staples to the Saudis while we have our own food shortages and inflation?" And by abandoning their production and locking up arable land in other countries for their own use, oil producers will only make global food markets tighter, accelerating the rise in food costs.

On help for the Palestinians, the pledges of Arab countries have always come easier than actual donations. As of May, many Arab League members had yet to honor their promises to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The Saudis have performed better than most. But their $170 million-a-year commitment needs to be put in perspective. London's Sunday Times reported that the late Saudi King Fahd, in preparation for a 2002 summer vacation, spent about $200 million to renovate his Mar Mar Palace in Marbella, Spain -- a mansion built as a replica of the White House.

And by far the most consistent form of Saudi "generosity" since the 1970s has been the promotion of Wahhabism -- a minority form of Islam that tends toward extremism and anti-Semitism -- through the global distribution of madrassas, mosques and missionaries. According to one knowledgeable estimate, this effort has cost at least $75 billion.

It should not surprise us that oil producers pursue their interests, excesses and ideologies with our money. But the massive transfer of wealth to some of the world's least responsible nations should disturb us. And confronting this problem -- with rapid increases in auto fuel efficiency and the urgent encouragement of alternatives to oil -- will involve a cost and commitment more general and more serious than a misguided windfall profits tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:17 PM

Washington Post


Patriot Games

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, June 25, 2008; Page A13

When in the course of political events it becomes advantageous for a presidential candidate to dissolve a campaign promise, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the candidate at least refrain from wrapping himself in the Declaration of Independence.

Not Barack Obama.

Click on Obama's campaign Web site and you'll find a virtual parchment scroll, complete with running tally of how many "citizens have declared their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential campaign truly funded by the people."

Written as " the PEOPLE," in that familiar, evocative style -- and with a July 4 deadline for signing up.

So Obama isn't just junking his campaign pledge to participate in the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same. He isn't just becoming the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign fueled entirely by private money.


No, he deserves praise for this selfless -- scratch that, patriotic-- move.

"Our opponents are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven they are very good at it," Obama's site declares. No mention that Obama's been pretty good at it himself, raising $295 million to John McCain's $122 million. "To compete" -- as if he wouldn't be competitive otherwise -- "Barack has decided to keep putting his faith in ordinary people like you giving only what you can afford."

Ordinary people, that is, if your definition of ordinary people includes bundlers who can collect six- and even seven-figure sums for your campaign. Because even as he was rhapsodizing in public about "the grass-roots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far," Obama was privately cozying up to Hillary Clinton's major fundraisers.

Earlier this month, he dispatched his campaign manager, David Plouffe, to woo Clinton bundlers in Washington and New York. This week, Clinton will introduce Obama to nearly 200 of her major bundlers, including some who have raised $1 million or more, in a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel.

"This group could represent 50 million, if not 100 million, bucks," said one top Clinton strategist.

Their money is central to Obama's bet that he will do better raising money on his own than taking the $84 million in public financing for the general election. The Obama campaign is aiming to bring in another $300 million for the candidate -- $200 million of that from smaller donations, $100 million from the big players -- plus $150 million for the Democratic Party, much of which would also come in big contributions.

Donors can give $2,300 each to Obama's primary and general election campaigns. So can their spouses. Each can also give $28,500 to the party. So you and your spouse are welcome to write a check totaling $66,200. So much for the campaign truly funded by "ordinary people."

The Obama campaign likes to point out that 93 percent of its 3 million contributions have been $200 or less; nearly half have been $25 or less. Those numbers are impressive, and they reflect a healthier mix of small donors than the McCain and Clinton campaigns. But they are also misleading. One-third of Obama's cash has come in the form of contributions of $1,000 or more. Even in the age of the Internet, those don't tend to arrive courtesy of the Check Fairy. Bundlers help.

I don't take issue with Obama's decision to opt entirely out of the public financing system. That was bound to happen eventually. Obama is smart to exploit his fundraising advantage over McCain. The political price of his about-face will be negligible. Likewise, I don't begrudge Obama his bundlers -- or Clinton's bundlers, for that matter.

What's galling is Obama's effort to portray himself through this entire episode as somehow different from, and purer than, the ordinary politician. Different might have been coupling the announcement with a self-imposed limit on the size of donations. Different might have been -- it could still be -- taking the big checks but acknowledging that, since bundlers will be bringing in even bigger hauls, disclosure should be adjusted accordingly, to reveal not only who raised $200,000 but also who brought in $500,000, who $1 million.

Obama's not the first politician to break a promise. He may be the first to do so in the guise of John Hancock, exuberantly signing the Declaration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:53 PM

Hey, DS, almost every official theory out there is a conspiracy theory. ;-)

Example 1: The US government theorizes that a shadowy group called Al Queda somehow planned and executed the 911 attacks all by themselves, using 19 Muslim operatives including some grossly incompetent pilots who couldn't fly a Piper Cub properly, let alone a 747. GREAT conspiracy theory! LOL!

Example 2: The US government theorizes that Iran is trying to secretly build nuclear bombs and blow up Israel with them. Another popular conspiracy theory.

Strangely enough, those sponsoring the above conspiracy theories attack most opposing viewpoints by calling them "conspiracy theories". I find that quite ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

Hmmmm. The substance of opinion if not the style of a beloved female Guest doth ring a bell. If it walks like a duck...?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:41 PM

I knew he was my kinda of guy:

"The Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama showcased his diverse musical taste, ranging from Bob Dylan to Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen, after revealing the playlist on his iPod.

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, to be published this Friday, the Illinois senator said he had "pretty eclectic tastes".

The list of bands reads like the acts at a summer music festival, with the Rolling Stones, Sheryl Crow and Ludacris all in the mix.

Obama said that, growing up, he listened to Elton John and Earth, Wind & Fire but that Stevie Wonder was his ultimate musical hero during the 70s.

The Stones' track Gimme Shelter topped his favourite songs from the band.

His selection also contained 30 songs from Dylan. "One of my favourites [for] the political season is [Dylan's] Maggie's Farm. It speaks to me as I listen to some of the political rhetoric."

In the song, Dylan sings about trying to be himself, "but everybody wants you to be just like them".

The jazz legends Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Charlie Parker were also included in the compilation."...

(Guardian)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:47 PM

Yeah, Eb, but much more entertaining this time around as the commie-connection is one of the various Swiftbaot ideas that is very much on the McCain 527 table... I personally like that one... You know, callin' yer opponent a "commie"... Deja vu, Joe McCarthy 'n all that... I love it...

They have bettter ones than that will be launched over the coming months but "Commie Obama" ain't a bad opening move... Wait until they say that Obama is part of al-Qeada... Oh, that one is gonna be real fun...

Swiftboaters, start your engines!!!

Word on the street is that Obama has some 527ers that are gonna cut loose on McCain as womanizing cheater who has over 50 lobbiest as his advisors... No, wait a minute... That stuff is all old news...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM

I believe the comment about Soviet mind control was in reference to McCain's lengthy imprisonment in the Vietnam conflict, not to Barack Obama. Obama was characterized in that post as a front man for corporate fascists, not communists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:22 PM

These guys chap my ass, but what pains me worse is the thought of the dozens of briquet-brained ne'er-do-well meatballs who will allow such things to seep into their festering swamp-minds and multiply like vicious viruses. What bothers me is that people like that still pose as human. It is a great disservice to the species, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

Does the "H" stand for "honest" or "humble"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

Not to fret, Amos... Most of these folks don't vote... They just complain and complain and complain...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:38 PM

Well, I would vote in your elections if I could...but I'm not an American citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:53 PM

Dem governors unite behind Obama

"On Thursday, the nationÕs Democratic governors will gather in Chicago, united in one common goal: to bring real change and a new direction to our nationÕs capital.

For more than a year, weÕve engaged in an energetic primary and a robust debate, involving some of the most talented candidates who have ever endeavored to lead our nation. Many of us picked sides, we fought hard, and the rhetoric was passionate and tough.

Yet, from the start of the campaign, we agreed on a key point: that when it was over, we would join together again under the leadership of our nominee. Today, in Chicago, we will come together to show the strongest support for Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

The stakes in this election are enormously high and, as governors, we know all too well how urgently change is needed in this country Ñ the kind of change Barack Obama will bring. Governors deal in real time with the real lives of our constituents. Rising gas prices, rising mortgage foreclosures, rising unemployment, rising health insurance costs, education, security Ñ these are the close-to-home issues confronting working people. And while thereÕs a lot of talk about them in Washington, thereÕs been very little action.

With a former governor currently occupying the Oval Office, the past eight years should have been a success story of federal-state relations. Instead, the Bush administration has conducted an unprecedented assault on effective governance by ignoring statesÕ rights, cramming down unfunded mandates and dangerously expanding the reach of the federal government.

Sadly, we find examples of this everywhere. In the case of childrenÕs health insurance, this administration vetoed a bipartisan effort to extend the program to cover more uninsured children. Further, with no input from states, the Bush administration Ñ supported by John McCain Ñ unilaterally and stealthily changed federal rules to cost-shift to state taxpayers $50 billion in Medicaid services over the next five years, robbing teaching hospitals of critical funding and cutting health services provided at schools, including services for special needs students. Those costs donÕt just vanish; they must be absorbed by each and every state.

Governors hold great pride in their stateÕs National Guard Ñ we are commanders in chief of Guard troops who are now deployed worldwide. Yet, when our troops return home, their equipment stays behind. Last year, the National Guard Bureau reported that the GuardÕs equipment budget is almost $38 billion underfunded. States absorb much of that loss.

Our constituents struggle to buy groceries and gasoline because of a recession brought on, at least in part, by the subprime mortgage industry that Washington allowed to run unregulated and ignored.

Enough. Our nation cannot withstand a repeat of the past eight years.

The change Barack Obama talks about starts in Washington, D.C., but it will have tremendous impact in every state in the union. Change means restoring sense to our foreign policy. It means taking bold steps to ease our dependence on foreign oil and shift toward renewable energy sources. And it means jump-starting this economy to help our families thrive again. ..."


By GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO & GOV. MARTIN O'MALLEY | 6/19/08 7:43 AM EST

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:53 AM

CNN (Jack Cafferty):

"Barack Obama is widening his lead over John McCain in early polling. A new Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll shows Obama topping McCain by 12 points – 49% to 37% – in a two-man race. If you include third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, Obama leads McCain by 15 points. A recent Newsweek poll also shows Obama up by 15.

CNN's poll of polls reflects this growing gap as well, with Obama now leading McCain by 8 points – 48% to 40%. That's double the 4-point lead Obama held in this average of polls less than two weeks ago.

Obama's lead may be due in part to his positions on domestic issues, with many voters saying he'd do a better job than McCain handling healthcare, taxes and the economy, the nation's number one issue. McCain once said he's not an expert on the economy. He continues to insist that the fundamentals of the economy are very strong."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:26 AM

Washington Post


The Obamacons Who Worry McCain

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, June 26, 2008; Page A19

What is an "Obamacon?" The phrase surfaced in January to describe British conservatives entranced by Barack Obama. On March 13 the American Spectator broadened the term to cover all "conservative supporters" of the Democratic presidential candidate. Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.

Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama's camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.

Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.

That danger was highlighted in a June New Republic article on "The rise of the Obamacons" by supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, who was a middle-level official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He expressed "disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country" -- echoing his scathing 2006 book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." While Bartlett says "I'm not ready to join the other side," his anti-Bush furor characterizes the Obamacons.


The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

While he never would use such language, Colin Powell is said by friends to share Hunter's analysis of the GOP. His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.

While Powell may not be a legitimate Obamacon because he never was much of a conservative, that cannot be said for his close Senate friend Hagel. He has built a solidly conservative record as a senator, but mutual friends see no difference between him and the general on Iraq, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the Republican Party. In a speech today at the Brookings Institution, Hagel is expected to urge Obama and McCain to reach out to each other. At the least, Hagel is not ready to strap on armor for his longtime political ally and office neighbor, John McCain.

Reports listing additional Obamacons do not add up to tides of conservative Republicans leaving their party. Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker is a Democrat who entered government in the Kennedy administration. Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams (an African American) leads me to believe that he has no intention of endorsing Obama. Conservative author Richard J. Whalen is for Obama because he sees a dead Republican Party, but he also was for John Kerry in 2004.

Nevertheless, Obamacons -- little and big -- are reason for concern by McCain. They also should cause soul-searching at the Bush White House about who made the Republican Party so difficult a place for Republicans to stay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:40 AM

McCain is a good man, but he has more important concerns than the Obamacons; as the figure-head-elect of the Republican Party he has a personal responsibility which, I think, he may not feel up to--to generate some fresh air in a fetid charnel house.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:47 AM

"he (McCain) has a personal responsibility which, I think, he may not feel up to--to generate some fresh air in a fetid charnel house."

Yes. ;-) But...you could say the same of Obama in regards to the Democratic Party. Both of those parties can be described as a fetid charnel house, IMHO. (The "H" stands for "happy"...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:52 AM

There's a world of difference in the current phases of the two entities, LH. Obama is successfully revitalizing the Dems, while McCain is not having any reinvigorating imapct I can see on the sorry Republicans who still have the Bush albatross rotting around thier necks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 05:54 PM

Yes, that may be so. I regard McCain as just more of Bush. Matter of fact, I think he might be even worse than Bush in office, given the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:14 PM

Interesting op-ed that bb posted... I read it during my lunch break today... I usually don't get too far into Novak's op-eds but I read the entire thing...

I've wondered if Colin Powell would endorse Obama and have also thought that Powell would be an excellent choice in a s econd shot at Secretary of State but with a "new" mission... He allready knows alot of the players so I think he would be great...

Hagel??? I don't know??? There's definately a role for him in an Obama administration but I confess to not knowing enough about him, other than he is a Repub who opposes the Iraq War, to know where he would fit but he and Obama are tight so, who knows???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:56 PM

Howard Dean writes:

As of this month, the Democratic National Committee no longer accepts =
donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs.

We're joining the campaign of our presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, in =
setting a new standard for a people-powered politics.

Unlike John McCain and the Republican National Committee, we will not =
allow Washington lobbyists or PACs to control our campaigns, manipulate =
our candidates, or drown out the views of the American people.

But we face a crucial financial reporting deadline on Monday night, which =
will be the first test of the financial consequences of this decision.

Please make a donation of $25 now to show that our party is at its best =
when it's powered by ordinary people giving whatever they can afford:

https://donate.barackobama.com/DNCdeadline

Your support of our 50-state strategy has helped create the opportunity =
for Barack Obama to run a true 50-state campaign -- but we need your help.

We have our work cut out for us.

John McCain and the Republican National Committee had a three-month head =
start on the general election, and they raised nearly $45 million last =
month alone.

Over the past three years, we've worked tirelessly to build our party from =
the ground up in all 50 states.

Now, for the first time in a generation, a presidential campaign is =
putting staff in all 50 states so Democrats across the country can compete =
in races up and down the ballot.

And that campaign, and the national party supporting it, are refusing =
contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

We'll need unprecedented resources to build our operation in every state =
-- and we'll need them at the same time we're cutting ourselves off from a =
major fundraising source campaigns usually rely on.

---

This is a damned historical miracle--a whole party turning its back on special interests. It may not be snow-driven purity but in the world of American politics, it is worthy of plaudits.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:24 PM

Days after revealing the "eclectic" contents of his iPod, Barack Obama was feted at a music award ceremony where Sean 'P Diddy' Combs led a rallying cry of "Obama or Die".

Support for the Democratic presidential nominee was a recurring refrain at the Black Entertainment Television awards in Los Angeles.

"If we all register and vote, we will have the first black president in the history of America," rapper Combs told the crowd, before chanting "Obama or Die", a twist on his non-party, get-out-the-youth-vote slogan from the 2004 election, "Vote or Die".

Accepting her best female R&B artist award, Alicia Keys, echoed Combs, telling the audience it was time black people removed the word "can't" from their vocabulary.

Article continues
advertisement

"Together we can do anything," she said, before referencing the Illinois senator's "Yes We Can" motto with a shout of "Obama y'all!"

Other stars present wore clothes emblazoned with Mr Obama's name.

While the presidential nominee did not attend the ceremony, he was close by at a lavish fundraiser where Hollywood stars paid up to $14,000 each to show their support.

The night, attended by the likes of Samuel L Jackson, John Malkovich, Don Cheadle, Heidi Klum and Cindy Crawford as well as an array of directors, producers and studio executives, was seen as a demonstration of Hollywood unity in the wake of the divisive nomination race.

Many former Hillary Clinton backers were among the 900 attendees, who were entertained by British singer Seal performing Sam Cooke's A Change is Gonna Come.

Mr Obama is the cover star of the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine and in an interview reveals his musical hero to be Stevie Wonder.

Discussing his iPod playlist, he says he had "pretty eclectic tastes" ranging from Bob Dylan, Sheryl Crow and Jay-Z to Miles Davis and Yo-Yo Ma. He also dispenses some carefully considered views on rap, saying while he is concerned by the materialism and misogyny of some the lyrics, he believes "the genius of the art form has shifted the culture and helped to desegregate music".

The senator already has a strong following among younger voters, but the BET "shout-outs" were seen as evidence of a further coup - the support of figures at the cutting edge of contemporary youth culture.

"Barack Obama is not only the first black presidential candidate destined to earn a party nomination, but he's also the first truly cool candidate of the new millennium," writes Ann Powers in the Los Angeles Times. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

With just a few days left before June ends, there's a clear frontrunner for the month's least surprising political development -- the endorsement Barack Obama received today from the AFL-CIO.

The massive conglomeration of 56 national and international unions -- comprising about 10.5 million workers -- steered clear of making a pick during the primary season because there was no consensus choice among the group's various affiliates. Many of the unions backed Obama, many supported Hillary Clinton and (while he was in the race) some were for John Edwards.

Once Obama emerged triumphant, though, it was a foregone conclusion the federation would get in his corner. And it's the clout the group's increasingly sophisticated political operation will add to his side that makes the endorsement, though predictable, noteworthy.

The days are long gone when union members voted in virtual lockstep with their leaders. But over recent campaign cycles, the federation has gotten better and better at marshaling its manpower and money to aid its favored candidates. Its get-out-the-vote efforts, for instance, played an important role in fueling the strong Democratic showing in the 2006 midterm elections. ... (LATimes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Hillary Rodham Clinton lauded Barack Obama for "his grit and his grace" as she resumed public and private campaigning Thursday to support the candidate who dashed her hopes of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.
The New York senator spoke to two trade groups before an evening meeting to introduce Obama to her most loyal fundraisers, while behind the scenes the two sides are working out details over the extent of her involvement with Obama's campaign going forward.
"I am asking you to do everything you can to help elect Barack Obama," Clinton told the American Nurses Association, a 2.9-million member group that backed her candidacy. "I have debated him in more debates than I can remember and I have seen his passion and his determination and his grit and his grace. In his own life he has lived the American dream."
Clinton and Obama plan to appear together for the first time since the end of the primary on Friday in symbolic Unity, N.H. Ñ where each got 107 votes in the state's January primary. Clinton won New Hampshire in an upset that set the stage for their long campaign, and it is now a critical battleground for the general election.
Obama told reporters Wednesday that he thinks she'll be extraordinarily effective in speaking for his candidacy and he'd like to have her campaigning for him as much as she can. "I think we can send Senator Clinton anywhere and she'll be effective," Obama said.
But the extent of her travel for Obama is not clear. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Wednesday that they have not scheduled any events after New Hampshire. "We don't have any specific knowledge of her schedule past Friday," Plouffe said.
Three Clinton confidants Ñ Cheryl Mills, Minyon Moore and Robert Barnett Ñ are in talks with Obama's campaign to work out details of her future involvement, including travel, her role at the national convention and resolution of her more than $20 million debt. Part of their argument is that Clinton can spend more time helping Obama if she isn't working to pay off her debts.
Some Clinton supporters, including some of those attending Thursday's fundraiser meeting, remain frustrated that Obama is not doing more to help with her debt while they are raising even more money for him. In response, the Illinois senator has asked five of his top donors to coordinate an effort to do so.
"As those of you who were on the call yesterday heard, Barack has asked each of us to collect five or six checks to help Senator Clinton repay the people who provided goods and services to her campaign," finance chair Penny Pritzker said Wednesday in an e-mail to Obama's national finance committee. "He made this request in the spirit of party unity. Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to help us beat John McCain."
"We recognize that this has been a long and, at times, hotly contested campaign," the e-mail said, with a "Clinton for President Debt Retirement" donor form attached. "But in the same way Senator Clinton has asked her supporters to move beyond the primary campaign, Barack has asked us to help in this effort to defray her debt. As he said on the call, `We are all in this together.'"
Clinton's debt includes $12 million of her own money. She has said she is not asking for help to pay back that portion. Obama told reporters Wednesday he wouldn't send an e-mail asking his small-dollar donors to donate to Clinton because "their budgets are tighter" and they probably couldn't make much of a dent.
Clinton told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Thursday that every issue the group is fighting for is at risk in the campaign between Obama and Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain
"We have to be determined to chart a new course and we cannot do that without electing Senator Obama our president," she said. "So that is what I'm going to be working for, that is what I'm going to be fighting for."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:34 PM

Let's put some brains back into the White House--elect Barack Obama.

2   2   0   0

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:18 AM

"Now that it turns out Barack Obama and Bob Dylan share a mutual admiration, the analysis can be the beginning of what all this means and how Dylan's oracular, obscure lyrics might shed light on Obama's candidacy. After all, the two men are among the most highly analyzed of their times. Dylan's songs have prompted a talmudic literature so extensive as to constitute an entire field of study, with every utterance and offhand lyric studied as though it were a scrap of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And analyzing Obama's significance has become an equal obsession in some quarters. Put the two together and you get a sort of harmonic convergence of delphic inquiry, a perfect storm of over-analysis. You can picture a group of geeks in a room somewhere--the sort of people who would otherwise be arguing about the finer points of Klingon grammar, or who used to believe that Paul was dead--cross-referencing Dylan's lyrics with Obama's speeches.

An interesting element of Obama's musical preferences, by the way, as described in the issue of Rolling Stone out today, is that they track some of the candidate's key demographic support groups. For instance, the candidate says he likes the rappers Jay-Z and Ludacris, and so do many of the young, hip and/or African-American voters who have lent so much energy to his campaign. Obama also cites among his favorites some of the well-worn staples of classic rock radio--songs by the Rolling Stones and Stevie Wonder--likely to resonate with the educated, upper middle-class voters that form the other key pillar of Obama's support."

Baltimore SUn

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:05 AM

My guess is that the interest in Dylan's lyrics and uterrances will considerably outlast the same in Obama's... ;-)

Meanwhile the great American election soap opera lurches on interminably toward November, consuming vast amounts of money in an unnecessary fashion, trashing lives and personal reputations, and providing constant manipulative entertainment for the befuddled masses.

In the latest riveting episode the formerly bitter rivalry between Obama and uber-badgirl-Hillary is miraculously transformed into a warm, supportive, loving relationship between loyal friends who have always loved and respected one another deeply! This stunning turnabout has viewers transfixed in their seats, and chowing down on popcorn and soft drinks as they breathlessly await THE FINAL CONFLICT!!!

Yes, we are (very) slowly but steadily approaching the climax of our show as the Silver Warrior John McCain, the mad leader of the dark forces of the Sith, marshalls his evil minions to take the White House and dominate the Galaxy!

Will Obama and Hillary be able to stop him and defeat the Dark Side once and for all? We'll know in about 5 months from now. That's enough time for one hell of a lot more spending and HooHah...so prepare to eat a whole lot of popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:33 AM

Washington Post:

The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

-- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping.

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico and threaten unilateral abrogation.

Today the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.


Obama's long march to the center has begun.

And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the past eight years.

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a preemptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:35 AM

A Tactical Leap of Faith

By Michael Gerson
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17

The latest findings of the Pew Forum's massive and indispensable U.S. Religious Landscape Survey reveal some intriguing confusion among Americans on cosmic issues. About 13 percent of evangelicals, it turns out, don't believe in a personal God, leading to a shameful waste of golf time on Sunday mornings. And 9 percent of atheists report that they are skeptical of evolution. Are there atheist creationists?

On the relation of faith to politics, two points stand out in the survey:

First, there is a clear connection between piety -- praying often and attending worship services frequently -- and political conservatism across nearly every religious tradition. Seventy-three percent of evangelicals who attend services at least once a week believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases; among more loosely affiliated evangelicals, the figure is 45 percent. Jews who pray daily are twice as likely to call themselves political conservatives.

Second, religiously conservative people have more in common with the general public on political issues than some liberals and conservatives assume. Fifty-seven percent of evangelicals agree that "government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt." More than half of evangelicals believe that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost. And though 50 percent of evangelicals still identify themselves as Republicans, that number has declined amid the broader trend of political alienation and restlessness.


Barack Obama's campaign looks at this political diversity and sees opportunity. His advisers report to me that the candidate's evangelical outreach is deeply in earnest -- a long-term personal goal, not a political ploy. Obama is as comfortable with the language of personal religious commitment as was Jimmy Carter -- a facility that usually comes with sincerity. His recent meeting with 30 major religious leaders in Chicago was, by most accounts, a constructive success. His staff has conducted more than 200 American Values Forums -- faith-based town halls -- and plans to hold house parties and dorm meetings on similar themes.

But along with these advantages, Obama has challenges, particularly when it comes to evangelical outreach.

As James Dobson has inartfully pointed out, Obama is not a traditional evangelical when it comes to biblical interpretation and certain moral issues. But this should hardly surprise us, since Obama has never claimed to be. He came to faith in the United Church of Christ, one of America's defining liberal denominations -- the first to ordain women (in 1853) and to endorse same-sex marriage (in 2005). Obama is properly understood as a man of the religious left, in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. According to a recent poll by Calvin College's Henry Institute, Obama has expanded his appeal among mainline Protestants (who, it is often forgotten, are traditionally Republican). But he also seems determined to call an evangelical bluff: Since you now praise King as a model of religious involvement in politics, you need at least to consider me.

The greatest obstacle to this consideration is abortion. I've seen no good evidence that evangelicals are becoming less pro-life (a previous Pew poll indicated that young evangelicals are actually more pro-life than their elders). To blunt this issue, Obama calls attention to his views on adoption, teen pregnancy and the sacredness of sex. He insists he is open to late-term abortion restrictions, if they are accompanied by broad exceptions for the health of the mother. But when the up-or-down political decisions came, Obama would not support a ban on partial-birth abortion or even legal protections for infants who are born alive after the procedure.

An evangelical vote for Obama requires a large mental adjustment: "I like his views on poverty or torture or climate change, even though he cannot bring himself to oppose the most brutal form of abortion." This may work for some, particularly more loosely affiliated evangelicals. But for most pro-life people, the protection of innocent life is not one issue among many, it is the most basic, foundational commitment of a just society. And John McCain has his own appeal to these voters -- remaining pro-life while opposing torture, addressing climate change and championing human rights in places such as Burma and Sudan. So far, McCain's support among evangelicals is holding up -- a recent poll shows McCain with a three to one advantage over Obama.

In today's environment of discontent and reassessment, a Democratic presidential candidate might achieve a historic political breakthrough with religious voters. Obama has great advantages in this attempt -- except on the issue that matters most.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:36 AM

Trivial Pursuits

Enough sniping. Barack Obama should accept John McCain's offer on town hall meetings.

Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A16

"WE'VE HAD about as positive a presidential campaign that we've seen in maybe a generation," Barack Obama told Fox Business Network yesterday. Perhaps, but that's not saying much. The gravity of the issues -- war and terrorism abroad, an economy struggling with soaring energy prices and mounting foreclosures at home -- is belied by the triviality of the campaign debate. The political discourse is dominated by misleading sound bites and blistering e-mail accusations. Each campaign pounces on a misstep -- or alleged misstep -- by the other, or someone loosely associated with the other, and seeks to inflate it into the telling faux pas of the day, or at least the hour. In this, the campaigns are aided and abetted by a 24-7 news mentality that needs fresh, and easily digestible, material to keep the audience entertained without taxing its attention span.

This is not, as Mr. Obama's comments suggest, a new development, yet the velocity, ferocity and constancy of the assaults have intensified in this cycle. The uproar over Obama vetter James A. Johnson gives way to the uproar over John McCain adviser Charles R. Black Jr. Neither faux scandal offers particular insight into how either candidate would handle the weighty issues facing the next president. Little matter. No shot remains untaken, no derogatory adjective goes unused. Why debate health-care policy when you can attack a surrogate? The theory seems to be that the victor is whichever campaign can yell "flip-flop" the loudest.

The sad part is that the country will be choosing between two presidential candidates who can do better -- and who, as Post reporter Dan Balz correctly noted the other day, have said they want to run a different, more civil and more substantive campaign. Indeed, underneath the volleys of vicious triviality, the candidates are engaged in serious discussion, and serious disagreement, about important issues, from tax policy to treatment of detainees to health care. On energy, for instance, Mr. McCain wants to lift the ban on offshore drilling; Mr. Obama does not. Mr. McCain pushes for an expansion of nuclear power; Mr. Obama is more skeptical of nuclear energy and attacks Mr. McCain's support for a storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Both men support a cap-and-trade regime to address climate change, but there are important differences between their approaches.

The sooner the sniping stops and the serious discussion starts, the better off the country will be -- and the best way to achieve that would be for the candidates to meet, one-on-one, as often as possible. Mr. McCain's proposal to hold weekly town hall meetings was -- as the Obama campaign said -- "appealing." That was more than three weeks ago. Since then, the Obama campaign has countered with the offer of a single town hall meeting, on nobody-will-be-watching July 4, and a second debate on foreign policy -- this in addition to the three traditional fall debates. Mr. Obama has written that "one of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings." He launched his campaign decrying "the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial." Now, he should seize the opportunity to practice the change he preaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:43 AM

"About 13 percent of evangelicals, it turns out, don't believe in a personal God"

I would love to see the wording on the survey question, or questions, from which that was derived. Or, the definition of "evangelical" that the pollsters were using. Something there doesn't make a lick of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:49 PM

From "the most-quoted college professor in the land"

"He ran to the left to get nominated, and he is running back to the centre in the general election," said Larry Sabato, a politics expert at the University of Virginia. "You can call it flipflopping, or you can call it readjusting, or you can call it determined to win."

'Candidate's stance at odds with former position'
as reported in today's Guardian.

'In the latest in a series of policy reversals for the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama came out in support of yesterday's supreme court decision overturning a gun ban in the city of Washington that had been a model for fighting urban crime.'

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

You can get the original report from thweir website, frog. Google Pew Forum and "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey ".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:20 PM

Sparks are flying in the 2008 culture wars.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, leader of the largest Methodist congregation in the country, launched a website yesterday titled "James Dobson Does Not Speak For Me." The site is a jab at Dobson, a stalwart of the religious right who this week called Sen. Barack Obama's interpretation of the Bible in a 2006 speech distorted "to fit [Obama's] own world view, his own confused theology."

Caldwell's site launched a day after Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program aired a harsh assessment of Obama's speech on faith and public policy and encourages readers to sign a statement declaring that Dobson does not represent them.

"I think it's a crime and a shame that Senator Obama has had to explain the fact that he's a Christian," Caldwell said in a recent interview. "Criticize his politics. Criticize his stance on whatever, but don't question his faith. Never in the history of American politics has someone said that he is a Christian and someone came back to say, 'No you're not.'"

If Rev. Caldwell's name sounds familiar, it may be because he is the same Rev. Caldwell who introduced President Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention and last month officiated at Jenna Bush's wedding ceremony at the presidential ranch in Crawford. This election Caldwell is firmly in the Obama camp and doggedly trying to help the campaign bring other pastors and parishioners along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:08 AM

Nobody even has to say they are a Christian in the first place in Canadian or British or French political campaigns. Why should they have to say it? What has it got to do with whether or not a person should be elected???????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:21 AM

It didn't used to mean that much, LH, until Rove got the bright idea of turning the Christian right into a huge voting machine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:53 PM

Boy, talk about a sad situation. The rest of the western world watches it in amazement.

You know what it really is? It's a mixing of the affairs of church and state. In that sense it is somewhat comparable to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:56 PM

LH--

I can only surmise you have not been following the conversation...You are perfectly right of course, but I think this issue was raised about eight years back....





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:07 PM

Yes, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent here.

Feel free to resume your normal programming.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:31 PM

Obama has never been elected on a level playing field. He was fast-tracked because of skin color and is being touted now because of skin color. The man voted for the PATRIOT Act and the REAL I.D. Act. So much for his concern for "the people."

Obama reminds me of GWBush. When the teleprompter is running he's fine, but he stammers when he has to address a substantive question extemporaneously. Both men are brain-damaged drug abusers.

Clinton knew he'd been seen somewhere, sometime with a joint in his hand, so he said he held one at a party but never inhaled. Obama said he had his arm tied off, ready to shoot heroin, but he didn't. He doesn't recall who saw him shooting up where, so he did a Clinton. And Larry Sinclair says Obam's gay. So.....we have a homosexual junkie black fascist with a wildly racist wife poised to be inserted into the white house. Man o man. All because of a phony ad campaign taking advantage of flouride/mercury-damaged Americans. Your TVs put you into trance states so you'll buy Frankenfoods peddled as "healthy," so of course they'll sell you a Frankencandidate they claim is the "alternative." Then you have to decide whether to blow your head off with your right hand or your left.

And then you people get all misty over "the environment" and want to give Gore/Obama their Green Army to protect the environment, while they support the aforementioned Frankenfood industry and all the other things environmentalists are supposed to be against:

"Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock...."

The Obama/Gore Green Army will be the Hitler Jugen. They will take everything you have because that Obama sticker on your bumper is made out of toxic plastic.

Nader's running again. So, it's either Nader or the nadir for the tree huggers. Vote Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:57 PM

I do believe we have an asshole logging in as a Guest!! What a remarkable thing.

I am always interested in the facts behind these tirades, but I often find them to be fallacious, often bitterly malicious and invented.

But I am not arguing with someone too paranoid to adopt a regular handle.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:18 PM

Yeah, that Gore Oil thing always gets to the tree huggers. And then there's this:

"ON THE MORNING OF THE ATTACKS on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, along with a million other readers of the New York
Times including many who would never be able to read the paper again, I opened its pages to be confronted by a color photo showing a middle-aged couple holding hands and affecting a defiant look at the camera. The article was headlined in an irony that could not have been more poignant, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives." The couple pictured were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former leaders of the 1960s' Weather Underground, America's first terrorist cult. One of their bombing targets, as it happened, was the Pentagon."

http://www.rightmindsforum.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/rightminds?cmd=get&cG=131383030353&zu=313138303035&v=2&gV=0&p=

So, Dohrn & Ayers support Obama. They should have been executed decades ago. Foul individuals, haters of America, like Michelle Obama. They all worked for Sidley Austin, too, which is involved in a September 11 lawsuit:

Our research has linked Sidley Austin associates, including Michelle Obama to the use of `poisoned' QAT tax shelters and the extorted war-game insiders who wittingly or unwittingly were duped into helping Airbus guide a droned Boeing 767-200ER tanker into the South Tower on 9/11.

Abel Danger warns that Sidley and IRS associates have responded to our published work with a desperate attempt to `paralyze' the 9/11 investigators, including Emperor Clients 1-9, with '9' being Eliot Spitzer....

http://www.scoreboard-canada.com/cin-spitzersqat.htm

The above is in reference to a lawsuit that contends a "military-industrial" attack took place on 9/11. The man pushing the case is a forensic economist and has patent records, buisiness records, etc. showing what technology was used in the attacks, and who owns the patents. Al Gore's name comes up again (misc. patents), and the Bushes and lots of the other usual suspects. Michelle Obama probably didn't know she was helping with the attacks (compartmentalization), but the evidence is there. She DOES hate America, but just how much?

And Obama's slum lord history. That's a bog. Taking advantage of the downtrodden. I hope we see some good ads featuring the people he "helped." lol

And then the gay thing:

Three openly homosexual black men, once members of Rev. Jeramiah Wrights Trinity United Church, all murdered within 40 days of one another starting in November 2007.

Donald Young, The Church Choirmaster
Nate Spencer
Larry Bland

Was someone trying to keep these men silent? Before he died, Donald Young contacted Larry Sinclair via email and telephone. Sinclair is the man who has said Barack Obama supplied him with cocaine which they did together as part of sexual romp in a hired limo.

http://www.scoreboard-canada.com/cin-spitzersqat.htm

In the tome, published in 1995, Obama writes that he once entered the freezer of a delicatessen with "my potential initiator," a junkie who "pulled out the needle and tubing" for Obama.

"Right then an image popped into my head of an air bubble, shiny and round like a pearl, rolling quietly through a vein and stopping my heart," recalled Obama.

(Translation: "I didn't inhale". Sounds like he was high on heroin when he had that image floating through his head...stopped his heart...oh, wow, man. Far out)

http://bigheaddc.com/2007/12/10/book-obama-tried-to-inject-heroin/

Obomber's been selected and fast-tracked. He and his wife hate America. He was shoved into the primary process at the last minute and has only got to where he is because he cheated in Florida and Michigan (he allowed each vote to count as half a vote, when the Constitution originally allowed blacks something like 5/8 human status. So Obama believes people in Florida and Michigan are worth less than the old black slaves).

He's dirt. He's detritus. Skeletal dope fiend with a rig hanging from his arm, a rictus of death on his face. That's how I'd draw him for a political cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:23 PM

Al Gore inherited the oil stock from his father, by the way, Al Gore, Sr. Gore's a bigger "oil man" that GWBush, who failed in the business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:29 PM

GUest:

Your opinion of Obama is so far divorced from actuality that it hardly supports discussion.

Ricochet shots that go wild, inuendo, snide overtones intended to cause knee-jerk hatred...it's a sorry lot of piss in an oatmeal bowl. You can tie strings from any chosen target to the wickedest people in the world and try to make the case that doing so makes the target wicked, but it won't wash. You know why? Because it's paranoid and stoooooooooopid.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:25 PM

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn did not hate America. They, like other protestors against the Vietnam War hated imperialism and considered it to be the antithesis of what IS American, and they chose a foolish and immature way of fighting against it. That's the kind of thing that young and passionate and foolish patriots do. A similarly young and passionate Serbian patriot named Gabriel Princip assassinated two Austro-Hungarian royals in 1914 and he started a world war which killed millions of people. He didn't do it because he hated any nation, he did it because he LOVED his own nation, as did Ayers and Dohrn...and he was under the impression that he was defending his own nation.

To say that Ayers and Dornn hated American is asinine. They were under the impression that they were defending traditional American values when they took on what they saw as "the Establishment", a ruling elite that they felt was betraying America.

To not realize this is to be as blindly caught up in your own passion and anger as they were in theirs.

The same goes for your remarks about Michelle Obama. She doesn't hate America...she hates what she sees as entrenched racism existing IN America. That does not equate to hating America, it equates to loving America, and feeling that there is something gone way wrong that needs to be corrected in order to restore America to the land of her own dreams.

Nobody hates their own country. They may, however, very well grow to hate something that is going on in their own country...or someone who is running the government of their country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:09 PM

Michelle Obama (I hate whitey) said recently that for the the first time in her life she was proud of America. The pastor in her church said, from the pulpit, God damn America. Bad, bad racists. Bad, bad Americans. They hate the country.

Dohrn and Ayers blew things up. That's how you show love of your country? I don't think so.

You people have been mesmerised by the news media fine tuning the color control on your TV sets. Uncle Obomber's black(ish), and that's all that matters to you. He has the backing of the CIA/FBI spook organization (their dossiers caused the ruination of 2 of the 3 candidates he's run against), he has Foundation money backing him (Ford foundation funds his racist church too), he chooses to remain married to a raving racist, his homosexual past dalliances are dropping dead like flies. Shades of Bill Clinton.

Sad thing is, the money backing Obama is the same money that backed Hitler. The ultimate Aryan joke, using the Anglo-American banking system to install a black, junkie, racist homosexual. He, in one package, is a cross-section of most of the groups Hitler hammered. He's associating with known terrorists, too, while he voted for bills that can designate YOU a terrorist for breaking a state or federal law (Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act). Obama's the worst of the worst.

But...Hitlary has more popular votes. And their fortifying Denver for the convention, so maybe the system will work as designed and Hitlary will get the nomination. The 20% contingent of superdelegates was originally set up because of the Mondale defeat (he lost 49 of 50 states). Mondale waltzed in out of nowhere and stole the nomination at the last moment, so the superdelegate system was implemented...the plan being to let cooler heads prevail in the final selection. And since no one's committed yet to vote for Obama, there could be an upset. There'll be riots of course, because television has convinced you koolaid drinkers Obama is the chosen one, but after that passes at least we'll have a real choice. Continue the neocon agenda of Bush or go with Hitlary. Not much better as a choice, but preferrable to what the koolaid drinkers want.

And Obama's being handled by Z. Brezinski. Obama wants to talk to Iran rather than bomb them, but as Brezinski has written, Iran needs to be developed as a formidable foe of Russia/China. So, if Obama is installed in the white house, you'll all be happy that the rhetoric on Iran dies down, and you'll deny what Brezinski has TOLD you is going to happen. In 4 years we'll be preparing for war against Russia. You think things are bad now...

The rest of the world knows what's coming. It appears Obama's about to be installed. Bush, Hillary and McCain did not want to bomb Pakistan, but Obama did. We're now bombing Pakistan. The Polish missile shield is a Brezinsky gambit...nothing Bushian about it. The top two Air Force people (military and civilian) were just fired on the same day. Bush wouldn't do that in a runup to war with Iran...another move preparing for Obama (the 2 were probably fired for the Minot incident, where Dick Cheney tried to steal a bomber full of nukes...they were fired as a signal that rogue nuking in the middle east won't be tolerated). So a gigantic shift to the Brezinski/Obama world policy is taking place. Putin sees all this going on and knows the ultimate goal is the destruction of Russia, and he recently called the U.S. a "monster."

Obama's just another GWBush, but at least GW thinks he's acting in the best interest of the U.S. Obama hates the country and wants to destroy it with nuclear conflict. Probably a satanist. I should look at some of his speeches and see how often he uses the word "sacrifice." That's a giveaway...talking about literal human sacritice. His desecration of the presidential seal already has the Illuminati all-seeing eye on it.

You folks need to support Hitlary. At least when she starts her mass murdering we'll know she and Bill have a history of it and might be able to stop it. But Obama will get you to sip a little more koolaid while you're standing in line at the guillotines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:25 PM

"Dohrn and Ayers blew things up. That's how you show love of your country? I don't think so."

George Washington and his generals and commanders blew things up too. The British saw them as terrorists at the time and would have hanged them if they had caught them. Washington and his people saw themselves as patriots. And so did the British loyalists who were fighting them! They ALL saw themselves as patriots. Dohrn and Ayers saw themselves as patriots too. Otherwise they would not have been strongly motivated at all to take such extreme political action. These young and passionate people, wrongheaded and foolish though they may be, ALWAYS see themselves as patriots, and your refusal to recognize that shows your own inability to empathize with other people. You lack the kind of compassion which understands why another human being does the things he or she does, you only read the outer cover of the book, you never look past it. This makes you the fanatic and the hater, just as much as those you castigate. Perhaps more so.

To interpret Michelle Obama's remark about being "proud of America" for the first time as meaning that she hates America is just patently ridiculous. It doesn't even deserve the energy it would take for me to type out a rebuttal.

Does she have some racist tendencies? Oh, probably so... If so, she is in good company, because about 99.5% of Americans, both Black and White, have some racist tendencies, and those will evidence themselves now and then when people are under stress.

You don't judge a human being on the basis of every idle word that leaves their mouth in every moment of their lives...unless you are an unscrupulous opportunist who is only looking to tarnish other people's reputations...

You judge them by the overall sum of ALL the things they have done in the course of their lives....and you take into account WHY they did those things.

That would demand a little patience, a little perception, a little humility, and a little ability to put yourself in another's shoes.

Let's see some of that for a change from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

Guest:

The spin that needs control here, thou nameless poltroon, is the spin of parnoia and half-baked ideas inside your own skull, I am afraid.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:37 PM

There you go again, dribbling koolaid. I expect to be locked out at any moment, by the way. I get whipped with the fasci whenever I sneak in here.

Sympathize with Ayers and Dohrn? Nah. They were on the losing side. They should've been executed. Only because they were connected to money did they survive. Their compatriots are still serving time, aren't they? You've been duped, Little Hawk, which is no mean feat. You've always posted well-considered things, so to me this is just further proof of the brainwashing the media is using to sell Obama.

Obama has said his past is not releveant. He's mumbled about national security even...what a joke. A freakin' junior Senator who already views himself as Ceasar. He's sold you on the idea that he is the only choice, he is inevitable, and to question him demands censure. Like I say, I guess they've sold that attitude well if they can whip you into such a frenzy.

Let me look around for some mad-bomber terrorists to put in charge of Canada, and let's see how you like it. Maybe we can make Dohrn the ambassador to Canada...take a few bombs with her...get you folks up to speed.

Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:18 PM

I'm well aware that the media is up to their usual tricks pushing Obama, Guest...just as they do with all the candidates they push. I did not post what I did because I particularly support Obama. I did not post what I did because I support what Dohrn and Ayers did. I posted it because I am encouraging you to see other people as complete personalities with complex motivations and people who imagine themselves doing "the right thing", not as cardboard stereotypes of evil monsters to be served up as a human sacrifice on your emotional firing line.

Like you said, Dorhn and Ayers were on the losing side. That made them criminals in the public eye. On the winning side they would have been seen as patriots and heroes...or possibly as martyrs. That's how fickle people are in their judgements of others.

ALL those people who do things like Dohrn and Ayers did see themselves in their own eyes as patriots and they all love their country and imagine that they are fighting FOR it. That's the part that you apparently don't get and will never get it. It doesn't mean they were RIGHT, but that's how they felt at the time.

You don't respect your enemies, and you don't see them as fully human like yourself. You hate them. You want to see them all executed. That's your error, and it is a quality natural to all fascists to think in those terms, so you might make a very good fascist if you were so inclined, I'm thinking. Fascism wears many hats, but it is always driven by a ruthless form of righteousness that sees evil EVERYWHERE...except for the evil hidden in its own breast.

You're right that my posts are usually well-considered. That's because I am fueled more by genuine idealism about humanity's possibilities rather than by sheer hatred of others and a deep sense of personal grievance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:51 PM

Hey guys--let's take a little rational perspective into account. Forty years ago, when they were in their early twenties at best, and Obama was nine, was the period in which they played with bombs. Seems to me you're collapsing things together in order to make histrionic statements.

If your damn idealism is so pure and genuine, why not advise on pragmatic courses of action for the future instead of caterwauling about the conspiracies and impossible evils in the world?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:44 AM

Der Spiegel ponders an Obama visit to Europe. The article discusses the political tightrope for the German chancellor and the delicate balance of considerations in supporting Obama (who is madly popular in Europe) too overtly:

"Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Obama will definitely meet, is well aware of his radiance. But she can't afford to give him an over-exuberant reception because that could alienate President George W. Bush, who only just visited her a few weeks ago during his European farewell trip and whose father, former president George H.W. Bush, is due to attend the July 4 opening of the new US embassy in Berlin.

Besides, too much cheering for Obama would be an affront to McCain. Merkel can't afford to be as outspoken as her government's coordinator on trans-Atlantic relations, Karsten Voigt, who said recently that Berlin welcomed any US presidential candidate -- especially Obama.

One conservative US foreign policy expert smiled at the thought that such considerations might make Merkel refrain from meeting the Democratic candidate. He recalled the controversy caused last year by her decision to meet the Dalai Lama. "If the Chancellor can meet the Dalai Lama, she should be able to meet Barack Obama." ".

Grin for the day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:16 PM

Amos, my pragmatic courses of action for the future can pretty well all be found in Dennis Kucinich's campaign platform and his continued rhetoric in Congress, so look up his speeches on YouTube and there you will find my pragmatic courses of action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:52 PM

LH:

Well good--my remarks were not aimed so much at you as at Guest the fearful, the anonymous, the covert, the secretive.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 01:27 PM

Washington Post:

Obama's Dodge on Handguns

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, June 30, 2008; Page A11

After months of claiming he had insufficient information to express an opinion on the District of Columbia's gun law, Barack Obama noted with apparent approval Thursday that the Supreme Court ruled that the 32-year ban on handguns "went too far." But what would he have said had the high court's 5 to 4 majority gone the other way and affirmed the law? Obama's strategists can only thank swing Justice Anthony Kennedy for enabling Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion to take the Democratic presidential candidate off the hook.

Such relief is typified by a vigorous supporter of Obama who advised Al Gore in his 2000 presidential campaign. Believing that Gore's gun control advocacy lost him West Virginia and the presidency, this prominent Democrat told me: "I don't want that to happen with Obama -- to be defeated on an issue that is not important to us and is not a political winner for us." He would not be quoted by name because he did not want abuse heaped on him by gun control activists.

This political reality explains the minuet on the D.C. gun issue that Obama has danced all year. Liberal Democrats who publicly deride the National Rifle Association privately fear the NRA as the most potent conservative interest group. Many white men with NRA decals on their vehicles are labor union members whose votes Obama needs in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. That is why Obama did not share the outrage of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, an Obama supporter, over the Supreme Court's decision.


What may be Obama's authentic position on gun rights was revealed in early April when he said at a closed-door Silicon Valley fundraiser that "bitter" small-town residents "cling" to the Bible and the Second Amendment. That ran against his public assertion, as a former professor of constitutional law, that the Constitution guarantees rights for individual gun owners, not just collective rights for state militias. But his legal opinion forced Obama into a political corner.

Arguments before the Supreme Court defending the D.C. handgun ban were based entirely on the view that the Constitution's rights applied only to state militias. During oral argument March 18, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether the Second Amendment has "any effect today as a restraint on legislation," since such militias no longer exist. Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general representing the District of Columbia, replied that "it doesn't," and added, "You don't make up a new use for an amendment whose prohibitions aren't being violated."

Obama's dilemma was that his reading of a Second Amendment that "means something" made it difficult for him to say the D.C. law was constitutional. His public pronouncements were so imprecise that the Associated Press mistakenly reported that he "voiced support" for the handgun ban at a February news conference in Milwaukee.

In March and April, I tried for weeks to get a simple yes or no from Obama on the D.C. law's constitutionality. When the question was put to him directly for the first time at ABC's presidential debate in Philadelphia on April 16, he answered, "I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." On National Public Radio on April 21, the day before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama said, "I don't know all the details and specifics of the D.C. gun law." He had not been asked and had not volunteered his opinion before Thursday's decision.

The issue will return when Chicago's handgun ban, modeled after the Washington law, is challenged in the courts. As a Chicago lawyer, Obama can hardly plead ignorance as he did concerning the D.C. ban. But with the case wending its way back to the Supreme Court for the next year, Obama will not have to answer the question before November.

While Scalia's opinion for now saves Obama from defending a court that had emasculated gun rights, one inconvenient truth confronts the candidate. He has made clear that as president he would nominate Supreme Court justices who agree with the minority of four that the Second Amendment is meaningless. Would he want a reconstituted court to roll back the D.C. decision when the Chicago case gets there?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

Obama rejects Clark's statement
Posted: 01:45 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Obama rejects Clark's comments, his campaign said.

(CNN) — Barack Obama formally rejected Gen. Wesley Clark's recent comments Monday that questioned whether the John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander in chief.

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

The comments came in an interview on CBS Sunday when Clark suggested McCain's experience as a prisoner of war did not alone provide the necessary experience to set the country's national security policies.

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told CNN the comments were "the lowest form of politics," and the Arizona senator himself expressed disappointment with the comments on Monday.

"I know that General Clark is not an isolated incident but I have no way of knowing how much involvement Sen. Obama has in that issue," he told reporters. "I know he has mischaracterized some of my statements in the past including our involvement in Iraq but I'll let the American people decide about that. "

Responding to the Obama campaign's rejection of Clark's comments, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, "We've learned we need to wait and see what Senator Obama actually does, rather than take him at his word."

Meanwhile, in what appeared to be an attempt to soften Clark's comments, Obama said in speech Monday that "no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters of both sides."

"We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop," Obama said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:37 PM

Bruce:

Your boy Novak is a bit over the top. I doubt you can find a single Supreme Court justice who believes the 2d Amendment is meaningless, and for sure you will find none who have said so. So Novak is putting ideas into their mouths and claiming that Obama agrees with these ideas...when neither the Supremes not Obama have such ideas in the first place? How disingenuous can you get?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:42 PM

"So Novak is putting ideas into their mouths and claiming that Obama agrees with these ideas...when neither the Supremes not Obama have such ideas in the first place? How disingenuous can you get?"

What, you mean like the editorials in the NYTimes you were always quoting to "prove" how evil Bush was? Are you that worried that the NYT might lose it's monopoly on defining what people say?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:53 PM

Novak, Klodhopper and Meyerson are the 3 Rightie Amigos at the Post, Amos... They will never say one nice thing about anyone who is not a Republican... Period... The are the Post's Swiftboaters...

As for GUEST??? She either has no life or is highly dependent on some rightie blog for the stuff that drolls outta her in ream and reams of utter diaria of the keyboard...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

Bruce:

FIrst of all, if you think my postings were illogical, how dare you perpetuate the error and use the earlier wrong to justify the later one?

Second of all, I never used the NYT to prove anything. I collected opinions and reports from a variety of sources. The Times writers usually say things clearly and well. In addition to that they have some sensibility for the larger issues of the liberal tradition, such as the value of the Constitution, the importance of civil rights, and the unspoken duty of leaders to let their decisions be informed by a fundamental regard for humanity. All three of which standards I saw frequently being ignored or trampled in Bush's rush to war.

Third of all, if you had some diagreement with some writer I posted for the kind of meretricious abuse of logic that I just accused Novak of, I would probably have agreed with you. I do not like rhetorical dirty tricks. Believe it or not. But that is not the same as believing folks should speak truth to power and voice their considered and honerst opinions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:11 AM

And now, Oh Bummer wants to expand the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. I suppose if he's elected he'll put Reverend Wright in charge of the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:21 AM

Oh, bull shit, RIginslinger. Cool your buttons and pay attention to what he is saying instead of lashing out at your private demons and blaming him for stirring them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:30 AM

They aren't just my demons, Amos. You've got to wonder what the Daily.Kos readers are thinking now. Maybe they'll get behind the Green candidate, that's probably their next best chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:47 AM

"But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a protest from those in his own party who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy."...

---

"...Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) plans to slam President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo op" and a failure on Tuesday, and says he would scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration.

Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush's faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives — which Bush founded during his second week in office — "never fulfilled its promise."

"Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded," Obama says in prepared remarks. "Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed."

Obama was referring to accusations by John J. DiIulio Jr., the office's first director, and David Kuo, his former deputy, that White House support for the program was driven more by swing-state politics than by compassion for the needy.

The White House views the office as one of the cornerstone's of Bush's legacy, making Obama's vow a very personal one.

Reaching out to evangelicals who are nonplussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grass-roots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership — not a photo op. That's what it will be when I'm president. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

"The new name will reflect a new commitment," he continued. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart — it will be a critical part of my administration."

Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: "I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

The Obama campaign released plans saying his new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, working within the White House, "will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients."

The campaign listed four goals:

—Train the trainers to enable local faith-based organizations to learn best practices, grant-making procedures and service delivery so that they can better apply for and use federal dollars.

—Partner with state and local offices so that federal efforts build on successes made at the state and local level.

—Hold recipients responsible by conducting rigorous performance evaluation, researching what works well and disseminating best practices.

—Close the summer learning gap by focusing faith-based and community-based efforts on summer learning programs for 1 million children.

"

What aspect of these positions in particular is it that starts your arm-waving going there, Rig?

I agree the world woudl be better if everyone took personal responsibility for their spiritual states, but that ain't the way the human race has organized itself, for whatever sorry reasons. Given the real politik of the situation, this sounds like a reasonable approach IF his caveats are duly respected.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM

Arianna Huffington slaps Obama around for sliding center-wards:

"From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December."


Her rationale is interesting.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 12:47 PM

It just seems to me, with all of this going on, it's hard for the voters to know what the candidate really does think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

Riginslinger, Obama did that specifically because I called up Michelle Obama the other day and told her to tell Barack: "Look, Barack, make an announcement that you want to expand the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. It'll get you some votes and it will also drive Riginslinger out of his tiny mind."

They know about you, man, and they really, really enjoy annoying you. ;-)   Trust me. Obama is going to do more things like this, and it will be mainly just to ruin your day and give you something to bitch about on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bee
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:34 PM

I've avoided this huge thread, but thought to take a look-in in honour of Canada Day. This last page alone reflects much the same conversations being had elsewhere on the internet, particularly in various science blogs. The campaigns are monstrous engines throwing up all sorts of dirt and detritus, most of it from deep in the candidates' pasts and likely irrelevant to what they think, believe or plan now. The latter is what is important, IMO.

From the looks of it, though, Obama will be the next American president, and it looks as if he will continue the current practice of pretending religiously based organizations will use government money in a positive secular manner, and therefore continue to support such doomed initiatives.

How his government will relate to Canada is a mystery. I'm not sure Canada has ever crossed the man's mind, barring that little NAFTA eyebrow raiser. Obama is still right of centre, AFAICS, on many issues settled leftishly years, if not decades, ago in Canada, despite our current God-bothering PM (who knows he'll lose the next election if he lets any of his religious lunatics off-leash).

Good luck, neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:35 PM

Sounds about right to me, Bee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

Rig:

I gotta tell ya, I feel your pain. Knowing what someone really thinks in the parlous waters of national politics is about as sure as knowing exactly where lightning is going to hit.

Like many people who are denied a decent rasher of honest information, I have to fall back on my sense of how rather than what as person thinks. This is a reflection on their character, their analytical skills and methods, and their sense of importances. I am persuaded on this criterion to support Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:48 PM

Little Hawk - I'm flattered that the presidential candidate would go to so much trouble just to irritate me. But when you go back and look at what's really come down here, the only two candidates who were actually willing and eager to tell you what they really thought were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Frankly, I'd be happier with either one of those people in the White House than anyone who is still left running.


               I will certainly admit that Obama isn't throwing up any more smoke than his competitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:48 PM

Yeah, I like how Obama thinks too. I can't stand how McCain thinks. That in itself would be the decider for me if I had to choose between them.

I'd rather have Bush as president than McCain. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 02:49 PM

Hey Rig, How do I write in the Dennis/Ron ticket?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM

I would much prefer Kucinich or Ron Paul too, Riginslinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:50 PM

Hell, we have as much chance of that as we do of getting Tom Jefferson back into office, guys. Politics is not just a flow of ideas good and bad, whichi s what we tend to focus on. It is also a flow of huge, massive intersecting classes of sentiment, emotion, force, effort, money and several billion egos. As such, it grinds exceeding slow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 10:59 PM

Barack Obama gave another speech today, in Independence, Missouri, on the subject of who we are as a nation, and how we shall define patriotism.

The text is here. It's a rip-snorter of a speech.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:44 AM

Yeah, he's desperately trying to fend off the accusation of being unpatriotic. I wonder if this will help him?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:52 AM

Obama's shuffle to the right suggests this man is ruthless enough to win

Obama's sheer eloquence, combined with the string of recent policy flip-flops, points to another worry many Democrats are beginning to voice about their nominee: that there might be a hollowness to him...
a man bent on winning and ruthless enough to make sure he does. That's the standard operating procedure for Republicans. For Democrats it takes some getting used to.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:52 AM

Rig, you are a puredee witchhunting snark sometimes. It was your crowd who peppered him with stupid remarks about flag pins and pledges of allegiance, like a lot of McCarthyist wannbes, and when he stands up and calls bullshit on it, you say he's desperate. What horseshit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:30 AM

What ever those folks said, and I was not one of them, didn't do anything by the way of damage compared to what his good friend Reverend Wright did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM

Well, as I have said before, you need to take rersponsibility for the kind of crappy remarks you forward, or re-reflect, even though you know they are crap. Stand up and own your own viewpoint instead of trading in sewage.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:08 PM

That article you provided the link to is an interesting one, Wolfgang. It suggests to me that the usual controlling forces which always end up dominating American foreign and domestic policy are, as always, well in control of the political agenda, and that Obama will serve them in the usual fashion once he is elected (if he is).

McCain will also serve them in the usual fashion.

So get ready for more of the same. The great American leopard is very unlikely to change its spots at this juncture.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM

Now don't be like that, LH... It's defeatist and that ain't you... Come on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:19 PM

The inability to perceive differences is a great failing in acuity, good Hack. You disappoint.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM

Hey, I'd still rather see him in charge than McCain, guys. ;-)

So if I was there, he'd get my vote.

But I do not expect the leopard to change its spots. I have said all along that I will be very surprised if the USA withdraws from Iraq.

Dennis Kucinich will have the very same causes to fight for after this election as he did before it...with one exception: Bush and Cheney will not be around to impeach any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:28 PM

COmplaints of Media Bias as regards Obama.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:21 PM

It's a two sided sword, Amos, with Big Media... They are steamed that Obama got the nomination and so, conscoius or not, they do not view Obama positively... They look for negatives in him... I can't decide if it's bias or prejudice or a combination of the two???

The other side of the swordn is the complete pass that Big Media gives it's darling, John McCain... They are infacutaed with him because he gives them unlimited access and is very accomodating... I've read where he has picnics and feeds 'um and boozes 'um up...

I mean, lets get real here... This is what it is and it ain't all about Fox... The Washigton Post holds Obama to a much higher standard than it does McCain... If Obama gibves a major policy speech the Post will run it on A-17 while McCain will get front page for saying something as repeatative as "The surge is working", which, of course, the Post loves because it has supported the Iraq war since the very beginning and has bit ob every sorry ass aecuse that Bush can think of for US being there???

Now as for Obama and the Post, Obama only gets front page if it's negative or at best, neutral...

Thats the way it is...

Like I said on another thread, Obama ain't the nominee that the corportists wanted... Oh yeah, they wanted him to do well so they could pump out their chests an boast of just how colorblind everything is in our little military/industrialist state but, make no bones about it, they wanted Hillary...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:27 PM

I think you may be quite right about that, Bobert. I think they had figured on Hillary all the way, and Obama was just there to make it look good, like you say. The usual dog and pony show.

But something else you said caught my attention. The part where you say that the media is infacutaed with McCain. It reminded me of how madly infacutaed I was with this girl back in junior high school...only it didn't get me anywhere at all, because she couldn't interpret my infacutaeization. She didn't know what it meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:52 PM

As true today as it was back then, LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:58 PM

Perhaps. But I am less inclined to fall into intense periods of infacutaeizantion now than I was then... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:01 PM

Well, infactuation is good for the soul... Not too sure about that "infactaeizantion" stuff is so I won't comment...

Might of fact, I have recently been going thru a little infactuation with an ol' high school girl who I only went out with once but nevermind that... I wouldn't have a clue what she is doing now and plau, I am very happy with the P-Vine...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 07:00 PM

From Canada:

"Thank you, Barack Obama, for transforming politics"

JASON REED/REUTERS


This positive force is starting to bring good things to the political system in Canada, too

Jul 04, 2008 04:30 AM
JOHN LASCHINGER

As our American neighbours celebrate their nation's birthday, politicians in Canada might be tempted to consider the transformation that appears to have taken place in the U.S. over the last 12 months and ask if those same forces could shape future politics in Canada.

A candidate for president has taken on the political establishment by refusing to accept donations from Washington lobbyists, refraining from using negative ads, voting and campaigning against the Iraq war and urging Americans to help him make real changes in Washington.

This transformation has propelled a relative unknown into the nomination of his party for president. Adding to the scope of the transformation is the fact that for the first time in U.S. history the candidate for one of the major political parties will be black.

But the magnitude of the change that has occurred does not stop there. Barack Obama's campaign has eclipsed all fundraising records and has motivated young and black voters, traditionally high non-voters in the past, to both show up at the polls and to part with some of their hard-earned dollars via the Internet to support him.

Before examining the possibility that this transformation might spread to Canada, it is important to examine from a campaign strategist point of view what brought about this historical change.

After directing campaigns in and outside of Canada, my experience has been that voters everywhere (Canada, the U.K. and new democracies like Kyrgyzstan) are driven by either positive or negative forces. Hopes and dreams battle fears and disappointment. The outcome of each election depends upon the relative weight of those forces as perceived by the electorate.

Looking at the U.S. campaign from Toronto, it is relatively easy to explain the emergence of Barack Obama. First, Americans (especially Democrats) today want change. Their country is in a very unpopular war, the economy is tanking under the weight of a subprime disaster, consumer confidence has been shaken to 1929-type lows and George Bush is the most unpopular president in history. No wonder Americans want change.

And second, along comes a candidate who embodies change and actually campaigns single-mindedly on it. (Hillary Clinton also represented change based on her gender, but she tried to campaign on both experience and change and this diluted message allowed Obama to be the more credible "change candidate.")

Could this type of change happen in Canada? In fact, we have already had one candidate produced by a transformation of our federal political system: Pierre Trudeau in 1968. At that time, Canadians balanced the disappointments of the Liberal government with the dreams and spirit that had been generated by Expo 67 Ð and came down on the side of dreams...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:54 AM

"There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine.

Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there.

When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact. ..."
"

("Across the Pond", a German blog)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:06 AM

Normal... The press loves McCain and is willing to be McCain's lap pit bull...

Maybe Obama needs to take a few pages outta McCain's game plan and pry the press with BBQ and booze... And sit for hours in bull sessions with them... That is what McCain does and it has been effective... When we look back at the Repub nominatin' campaign it seems that McCain spent more time campaigning to Big Media then he did campaigning to the voters... Good strategy...

But realistically Obama probably couldn't pull it off because the McCain folks would say that was flip-flopping...

BTW, had Bush flip-flopped on his decision to invade Iraq back during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days the world would be a much more stable palce today and gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon and over 4000 Americans would still be alive, and 30,000 Americans wouldn't be disabled and upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqis would still be alive and the US would have respect in the world... Flip-floppin' ain't a bad thing... Inflexibility in today's world is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:33 PM

"If Senator Barack Obama is elected president, he'll be leaving the Senate behind. But the presumptive Democratic nominee took steps today to ensure he'll stay in touch with his old colleagues.

Obama's campaign announced the formation of a Congressional Liaison Team today, which will "ensure that the member of Congress' counsel is considered in overall message strategy, campaign planning and execution."

The four team members are hardly household names, but three of the four have close ties to the Obamas:

-- Senior Advisor, Phil Schiliro -- Chief of Staff to Representative Henry Waxman of California

-- Senior Counsel, Mike Strautmanis -- A chief Obama advisor, served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff in Obama's Senate office

-- DNC Policy Director, Karen Richardson -- Obama's Iowa policy director, served as Deputy to the Policy Director in Obama's Senate office

-- Director of Congressional Affairs, Michael Robertson -- Served as Deputy to the Chief Counsel in Obama's Senate office"

---

This strikes me as an innovation that will bear good fruit, and a sign of good footwork.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:36 PM

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has unwittingly joined the five-man Democratic race for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.

DeKalb CEO and U.S. Senate candidate Vernon Jones has mailed "thousands" of flyers across the state bearing an image of himself and Obama holding microphones in front of a campaign crowd with the headline: "Yes We Can!" (Details here).

At first glance, it appears the two men are at the same campaign event. But they are not. The photo of Jones was digitally joined with one of Obama.

Jones acknowledged that his campaign combined the photos, but said he wasn't trying to mislead anyone. His Democratic opponents immediately accused him of implying he has been endorsed by Obama, an idea quickly shot down by Obama's campaign.

"The Obama campaign was not involved with the use the Senator Obama's picture in this mailer, and despite what this mailer inaccurately suggests, Senator Obama will not endorse a candidate in the U.S. Senate primary in Georgia," said Amy Brundage, a Chicago-based Obama spokeswoman. She declined further comment.

Jones said the campaign ad was not meant to imply an endorsement by Obama.

"Absolutely not," Jones said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon. "What it does say is that Obama and I share a vision for a new America." He added: "Obama and I represent the future of Georgia and America. We want to balance the budget, create jobs, provide affordable and accessible health care and prevent folks from losing their homes.""

---

You know he's risen from the ranks when they start trying to ride his shirt-tails! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

You've got to wonder where they'll end up!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

Barack is under fire in both the LA Times and the NY Times for too much revision toward the center, and raising questions abouthis fiscal blueprint being excessive.

TIme will tell.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM

"Barack is under fire in both the LA Times and the NY Times for ..."

And yet, you do not see fit to give us their critism? Hardly evenhanded, old chum....

I seem to recall a number of redundent postings when they had something to say about Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:01 PM

Obama denies shifting to reach political center

Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32:50 PM
By LIZ SIDOTI

Asked by a voter about accusations of flip-flopping, Democrat Barack Obama dismissed the notion Tuesday that he has been shifting stances on Iraq, guns and the death penalty to break with his party's liberal wing and court a wider swath of voters.

"The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event.

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

The Illinois senator was responding to a question from a self-described "reformed Republican" who said he worked for Democrat Bobby Kennedy four decades ago and thanked Obama for restoring "that faith."

"You had an interesting week off being accused of flip-flopping, which is mostly nonsense," the man said. He then asked Obama to restate his Iraq position, and Obama used the opportunity to dispel the idea he had changed his stances on a range of issues.

Since wrapping up the Democratic nomination last month, Obama has voiced positions that break with the Democratic Party's left and have seemed at times to shade his own past positions on a range of subjects. He's drawn criticism from some liberal Democrats who question his loyalty and from Republicans who accuse him of flip-flopping.

His remarks aside, Obama is clearly competing for the center of the electorate. Originally best known as an anti-Iraq war candidate, his latest commercials make an obvious play for voters across the political spectrum by focusing on family values and patriotism as well as "welfare to work" and lower taxes.

Over the past few weeks, he angered liberals by supporting compromise electronic surveillance rules for the government's eavesdropping program even though the bill provided immunity that he opposed last year for telecommunications companies that conducted warrantless eavesdropping. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, he said he favors both an individual's right to bear firearms and a government's right to regulate them.

And, he broke with death penalty opponents when he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children.


On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months. He has said that the safety of U.S. troops and the stability of Iraq might force him to adjust that timetable -- a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals even though he's long said the nation needs to be careful leaving Iraq.

"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education," Obama told his audience here. "I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and squarely in the Democratic camp."

But, he said: "I'm not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith."

So, he said when he talks about the idea of recruiting churches and other religious groups to provide community services through faith-based initiatives, as he did last week, "that's not something new. I've been talking about that for years now. I've been organizing with churches for years in the community. So the notion that somehow that's me trying to look more centered, more centrist, is just not true."

He also raised the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of individuals to bear arms and said: "I actually have said that I agree with that for years, even before the ruling came down." He said that doesn't contradict his view that "we've got decent controls over the use of illegal firearms in our community."

On Iraq, he drew cheers when he said: "I opposed this war from the start" and "I have also consistently said that once we were in, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM

"Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you.""



It is a pity that his voting record is so much against what I want to have in the executive branch- he is obviously one of the best candidates to run in the last 50 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM

I remember when we were volunteering, a young Obama support saying something alaong the lines of " I can hardly wait for Obama to get elected so that he can pull all the troops out."

I looked at him and said. "He isn't going to pull them all out right away he's going to do it based on conditions and he will most likely leave a couple of divisions in reserve for training and to deal with terrorists." The kid asked me where I got that idea. I said "From Obama." The kid looked at me Like I had suddenly grown a second head.

In politics, people hear what they want to hear. The sad thing is that the Press is little better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 03:29 PM

Washington Post


Mr. Obama on Iraq

His hint of softening on his unrealistic withdrawal plan is only sensible.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008; Page A14

BARACK OBAMA has taken a small but important step toward adjusting his outdated position on Iraq to the military and strategic realities of the war he may inherit. Sadly, he seems to be finding that the strident and rigid posture he struck during the primary campaign -- during which he promised to withdraw all combat forces in 16 months -- is inhibiting what looks like a worthy, necessary attempt to create the room for maneuver he will need to capably manage the war if he becomes president.

Mr. Obama's shift came when he was asked last week about his withdrawal plan, which he first proposed in late 2006, a time when Iraq appeared to be sliding into a sectarian civil war. Since then, a new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy has helped bring about a dramatic drop in violence, and the Iraqi government has gained control over most of the country. Among other things, Mr. Obama said "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- an apparent acknowledgment that the hard-won gains of the last year should not be squandered. He also said that "when I go to Iraq, and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

This statement hardly altered Mr. Obama's longstanding opposition to the war or his basic strategy of ending U.S. involvement in it as soon as possible. But it suggested that he won't pursue his 16-month timetable without regard to the consequences in Iraq or the counsel of U.S. commanders. As we see it, that's a modest but real step toward a responsible position on a conflict that, like it or not, involves vital U.S. interests. Yet Mr. Obama's words drew so much heat so quickly that he felt obliged to hold a second news conference the same day, in which he insisted that his position hadn't changed and affirmed that he hadn't seen "information that contradicts the notion" that the 16-month timetable was workable. Over the weekend some of his Democratic supporters argued that he can't afford even such a nuanced shift in position, lest he undermine his antiwar support and lessen the contrast between him and the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.


In fact, Mr. Obama can't afford not to update his Iraq policy. Once he has the conversations he's promising with U.S. commanders, he will have plenty of information that "contradicts the notion" of his rigid plan. Iraq's improvement means that American forces probably can be reduced next year, but it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq's neighbors. The Democratic candidate is reportedly planning a visit to Iraq in the coming weeks. That will offer an opportunity for him to lay out a new position on the war that both distinguishes him from Mr. McCain and gives him the freedom to be an effective commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

Dealing with facts is not hypocrisy.

It's intelligence at work.

Obama asserts he is not departing from his principles against the Iraq engagement, but that he is willing to review how to implement them based on fact-gathering. I twould be foolish to do anything less.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

Plans that cannot be amended are not very good plans...

Witness the Japanese plan of attack at Midway Island, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,The Pariah
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM

I fear, based on a rising tide of his self-contradicting policy statements, that fears about both his inexperience, his ego and his motives may be too close to the mark. I take nothing from his detractors, but only from his own remarks.

At the risk of being seen as a heretic, I see parallels between this candidacy and that of the late Jack Kennedy. I lived through the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower years and have, perhaps, a different perspective than many who know this period only through the filter of history books and jaundiced professors.

While he had his successes, notably the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Peace Corps and the energizing of young people through his personal charisma, he also had the "Bay of Pigs," his serial philandering and a number of other personal political miscalculations, any of which could have spelled disaster for all of us. I truly believe that, had he lived, he would not have come to be regarded as the saintly popular figure the media has helped to construct. Tragically, assassination does that for public figures.

Likewise for his brother, Bobby, who was beloved by legions of young, idealistic fans, but who could behave (as his son currently does) like a self-important jerk. He was abrasive and often overreached as Attorney General. I do not believe he had either the maturity or the temperment to be President.

All I needed to know about Teddy, the youngest brother who desperately wanted to live out the truncated legacies of his older siblings, was Chappaquiddick. Mary Jo Kopechne still cries out for justice from her watery grave. The immaturity and bad judgement that led to her death, and the lame attempt at a cover-up, could not deter the voters of Massachusetts from electing "The Last Kennedy" despite his obvious shortcomings. They have continued to compound this felony for many years.

I want someone to lead the U.S. who has demonstrated integrity, fidelity and courage, and who has also demonstrated leadership ability. I see none of these qualities in Senator Obama, despite all the media apologists and campaign strategists who would have us believe he is the Messiah come to save the people.

---

Please remember to use one consistent name when you post. If you post under a variety of names, you risk having all your posts deleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM

Obama does seem rather similar to John F. Kennedy in a number of respects...and, yes, Kennedy would probably not be seen as so saintly now had he not been assassinated. Whether Obama will make a good president or not is yet to be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:48 PM

If you want to see a radical flip-flop on Iraq, watch McCain, now that the Iraqi government is demanding a timeline for US troops to leave. He's already on record as saying that if this (improbable) event were to occur, we'd have no choice but to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:32 AM

Washington Post:

The Candor Gap

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 9, 2008; Page A15

It is one of our fondest political myths that elections allow us collectively to settle the "big issues." The truth is that there's often a bipartisan consensus to avoid the big issues, because they involve unpopular choices and conflicts. Elections become exercises in mass evasion; that certainly applies so far to the 2008 campaign. A case in point is America's population transformation. Few issues matter more for the country's future -- yet it's mostly ignored.

Two changes -- aging and immigration -- dominate, and they intersect. In 2005, 12 percent of the population was over 65; by 2050, that will be almost 20 percent. Meanwhile, immigration is driving population growth. By 2050, the population may exceed 430 million, up from about 300 million now. About four-fifths of the increase will reflect immigrants and their children and grandchildren, estimates the Pew Hispanic Center. The potential for conflict is obvious. Older retirees and younger and poorer immigrants -- heavily Hispanic -- will compete for government social services and benefits. Squeezed in between will be middle-class and middle-age workers, facing higher taxes.

What do the supposedly plain-spoken John McCain and Barack Obama say about these looming problems? Well, not much. Of course, they're against poverty and fiscal irresponsibility. They oppose illegal immigration and favor "reform." But beyond these platitudes, they're mostly mute. It's not that the problems are secret. Dozens of reports have warned of population aging, which affects most wealthy societies. Global aging is "a demographic shift with no parallel in the history of humanity," argue Richard Jackson and Neil Howe in "The Graying of the Great Powers."


By their estimates, U.S. government benefits for retirees (mainly Social Security and Medicare) will rise from 9 percent of national income in 2005 to 21 percent by 2050. The outlook is worse for many other rich nations, some of which face shrinking populations. In Germany, retirement spending is projected at 29 percent of national income in 2050; in Italy, it's 34 percent.

Similarly, immigration is widely studied. Pew projects that immigrants will constitute 19 percent of Americans in 2050, up from 12 percent in 2005. The Hispanic share of the population will double, from 14 percent to 29 percent. If most immigrants assimilated rapidly, this wouldn't be worrisome. But many, especially low-skilled Hispanics, don't.

Consider a new study of Mexican Americans by sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz of UCLA. Compared with their parents, the children of immigrants did make progress, they found. Incomes increased; English-language skills spread; intermarriage rose. But after the first generation, additional gains were grudging. Third-generation Mexican Americans were only 30 percent as likely as non-Hispanics to have completed college. In the fourth generation, about 20 percent still had incomes below the government poverty line. "Assimilation, where it occurred, was far slower than it was for European-Americans," write Telles and Ortiz.

Because government policies might mute these problems, they ought to be subjects of campaign debate. We could lighten the burden of aging by curbing government benefits for wealthier retirees and raising Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to reflect longer life expectancies. These changes would move federal retirement programs back toward their original purpose -- a safety net for the most vulnerable. We could refashion immigration policy to favor skilled over unskilled immigrants, because they contribute more to the economy and assimilate faster.

What we do, or don't do, about these issues will profoundly affect the character of the country in 10, 20 and 50 years. Doing nothing is a policy -- a bad one. That's what Obama and McCain essentially offer. It's easy to explain why. To discuss these issues frankly might be political suicide. It could alienate crucial blocs of voters: retirees, Hispanics. Blunt talk would expose a candidate to charges of being mean-spirited (against retirees) or racist (against Hispanics). What political consultant would advise such a course?

People complain about governmental gridlock. But what often obstructs constructive change is public opinion. The stalemates on immigration and retirement spending are typical. We avoid messy problems; we embrace inconsistent and unrealistic ambitions. We want more health care and lower health costs; cheap energy and less dependence on foreign energy; more government spending and lower taxes. The more unattainable our goals, the more we blame "special interests," "lobbyists" and other easy scapegoats.

In this campaign, we have a candor gap. By and large, Americans want to be told what government will do for them -- as individuals, families, consumers -- and not what it will do for the country's long-term well-being, especially if that imposes some immediate cost or inconvenience. Grasping this, our leading politicians engage in a consensual censorship to skip issues that involve distasteful choices or that require deferred gratification. They prefer to assign blame and promise benefits. So elections come and go, there are winners and losers -- and our problems fester.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:42 AM

I agree with Samuelson...

With 527's armed to the teeth and ready to pounce it has become almost impossible for a candidate to be 100% forthright... Obama must feel like he is on a recon mission behind enemy lines seein' as the 527's have become the way that the Repubs structure their campaigns these days...

(But, Bobert, the Dems have 527's, too)

Ahhhhh, yes they do and I think it would be very interesting to know how much money goes into Dem 527's verses Repub 527's but, alas, the Repubs have blocked legislation in Congress that would require this info to be made public knowledge...

So, if you are a candidate, you had better walk softly thru the 527 mine field...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Bored in July
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:43 AM

And today, the NYT & Huffington Post are piling on Obama for the sea change on his stand on issues he has been running on since January 2007 to May 2008.

So Obama said one thing to get nominated, and will say another different thing entirely to get elected.

Welcome to US presidential sleeze politics! Nothing new under the sun here.

We all knew we would have a novelty candidate from Democrats after Super Tuesday. Obama is a novelty candidate because of his race, Clinton was a novelty candidate because of her gender.

Scratch the surface of either of (or McCain) and all are cut throat, ego maniacal politicians who will do or say anything to win. In that sense, there is virtually no difference between them. Which is why the idealism virgins will be the next election cycle's cynics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:44 AM

"From: Bobert - PM
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:42 AM

I agree with Samuelson..."



And I agree with Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Bored in July
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:21 AM

"In this campaign, we have a candor gap." sayeth Journalist Samuelson.

Well, duh!

This journalist blames everyone EXCEPT the powerful special interests who control the media, and the journalists (sic) themselves who muzzle any discussion whatsoever of the issues.

The media elite (and they are an extremely small group of humans completely disconnected from living the stuff of real life) directs the messages to mold the public opinion he claims is "the problem".

Harumph.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM

Pat Buchanan
Don't Misunderestimate Obama

Tue Jul 8, 3:00 AM ET


With 68 percent of Americans believing George Bush has done a poor job, and 82 percent saying the country is on the wrong track, the election of 2008 will turn on one issue: Barack Obama.

If Sen. Obama can convince the people he is "one of us," and not some snooty radical liberal from Chicago's Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America as a fever swamp of racism and reaction, a la the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator will be the next president.

The election of 2008 thus mirrors the election of 1980.

Then, the country wanted Jimmy Carter gone. Americans had had enough of 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and 7 percent unemployment. They wanted the Iranian hostage crisis ended, violently if necessary. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America wanted a leader who would not kiss Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek but reassert American power.

The issue then was Ronald Reagan. Portrayed as some Al Capp cartoon of a crazed right-winger and B-Grade Hollywood actor given to spouting Reader's Digest bromides, Reagan was regarded as ridiculous by much of the media and too big a risk by much of the nation.

In one debate with Carter, Reagan erased the misperceptions and turned a close race into a cakewalk. That is Barack's opportunity.

A savvy politician, he has measured correctly the hurdle he must surmount and is moving expeditiously to alter an image of him forged by his own past associations and policy positions. In three weeks, he has jettisoned his new politics in a stunning display of raw pragmatism.

A prime minister must be "a good butcher," H.H. Asquith told Winston Churchill on naming him First Lord of the Admiralty, "and there are several who need to be pole-axed now." Four years later, Asquith would pole-axe Churchill over the Dardanelles disaster.

Obama is not lacking in this capacity that Richard Nixon, too, felt was an indispensable attribute of a statesman.

Samantha Power was tossed off Barack's sledge after calling Hillary a "monster" and suggesting Barack's Iraq timetable was not set in concrete. Robert Malley was canned for having talked to Hamas, though that was his portfolio at a think tank for conflict resolution.

Barack pole-axed pastor Wright and, though he said he could no more repudiate his church than his family, shortly after the second time Wright went off, Barack severed all ties to Trinity United.

Barack has spoken of how he cringed at the racist reaction of his white grandmother after she was accosted by a black man on a bus. Grandma has now been rehabilitated in a new ad as the loving woman who inculcated good old Kansas values into little Barack.

When his own surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, suggested John McCain's war service did not automatically qualify him as presidential timber, a storm erupted. Barack proceeded to cut the general's legs off.

His had been one of a few Senate voices to speak of Palestinian suffering. But Barack's address to the Israeli lobby read like it was plagiarized from the collected works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

When the Supreme Court declared every citizen has a Second Amendment right to a handgun, Barack stood with Justice Scalia. When Scalia said the court ought not to have taken away Louisiana's right to execute child rapists, Barack was with him again.

When Congress voted the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding with the Bush administration in wiretapping citizens, Barack stood with Bush and the telecoms. Fearing it might cost him his huge money-raising advantage over McCain, Barack tossed campaign finance reform over the side.

In Ohio, Barack was a populist opponent of NAFTA. He is now a free-trader. Yet when economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told the Canadians pretty much the same thing, Barack disinherited him.

As July 4 approached, Barack gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org for their "General Betray Us" ad mocking Gen. David Petraeus. And that flag pin Barack got rid of after 9-11, calling it a "substitute ... for real patriotism"? It's back on the lapel.

Last week, Barack said that, after he meets with Petraeus and his field commanders in Iraq, he might "refine" his commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months.

And finally, Obama has co-opted President Bush's faith-based initiative and claimed it as his own.

What is Obama up to? Having secured the nomination, he is moving to convince the nation he is neither a black militant nor a radical, but a man of the center who will even listen to the right.

Though infuriating to readers of The Huffington Post, this may save Barack. For in Middle America folks worry less about politicians adjusting positions than about True Believers willing to go over the cliff with flags flying — and taking us with them.

Reagan was no Barry Goldwater. He knew when to "hold 'em," and he knew when to "fold 'em." Yet, America still knew who Reagan was.

We may be misunderestimating Barack. But the question of 2008 remains: When all is said and done, who is this guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:34 PM

THis kind of palaver is a cheap and easy way for guys like tha to make a living, Bruce. It says little of substance.

This Obama is a man of quick intelligence and a strong character. Worth watching.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

Quick intelligence and a strong character? Well, yes...but can he match Chongo Chimp when it comes to that?

And can McCain or Obama benchpress 500 pounds without even breathing hard? Hmmm? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:45 PM

Um...I hate to break it to you, but Chongo's vocabulary is only about 2 % of McCain's, and McCain's only about 15% of Obama's, according to authoritative analytical studies done by the statistical team at Puldit, Ottomi, Ash, the famous New York statisticians..../

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:11 AM

Tossing around fancy words like "jejeune" or "frisson" to impress people never solved a cold case or landed a hot dame, Amos... ;-)

Chongo told me to tell you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM

Washington Post:

Clintonites at Arm's Length
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, July 10, 2008; Page A15

"I would say he was pretty underwhelming," a longtime Democratic activist said several days after he and some 200 other big-money supporters of Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign met with the victor, Barack Obama, in Washington on June 26. Gus will support and contribute to Obama as the party's nominee, but he is not enthusiastic about it.

He is not alone. After the closed-door session in the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel's ballroom, Gus was among 20 participants who gathered for drinks to talk it over. They agreed that it was not an "exciting performance" by the candidate who has entranced monster rallies across the country. Obama was "low-key" in a perfunctory appeal to them.

The Clintonites do not feel alienated, as supporters of Edward M. Kennedy did in 1980, when they never resigned themselves to Jimmy Carter's renomination. None of these loyal Democrats talked about sitting out the general election campaign against John McCain or locking up their bank accounts. Since a donation does not indicate the benefactor's degree of enthusiasm, what difference does it make if they're not enthusiastic? It signals a lack of confidence by important Democrats in a candidate whose charisma is supposed to cancel out his inexperience.

Only one member of the Mayflower group whom I contacted (the one least critical of Obama) was willing to let his name be used. Gus is a multimillionaire trial lawyer whose name would be widely recognized as a Democratic money man. He is no "Friend of Bill" who automatically signed on with the former president's wife. With his support sought by several of the presidential candidates, Gus at one point considered backing Obama but ended up with Clinton because she seemed the best qualified, most electable Democrat. Contrary to the media consensus, Gus found the Clinton campaign to be one of the best-managed in his wide experience.


Just what Gus and his friends were seeking in the encounter with Obama is unclear, but they left dissatisfied. As has been reported, Obama said that he and his wife, Michelle, each were writing the maximum $2,300 check to help erase Clinton's massive campaign debt. Obama added that he would ask his supporters to contribute as well.

But, in the opinion of the Clintonites, he did not open the door to his campaign, because he asked nothing of them. Big-money Democrats who could have expected to be named U.S. ambassadors by a President Hillary Clinton realized that they would get nothing from a President Obama. The train had left the station, and they were not aboard.

Terry McAuliffe, long the Clintons' faithful political servitor and Hillary's presidential campaign chairman, played the cheerleader after the meeting. "This is unity!" he declared to reporters assembled in the Mayflower's long lobby. Vernon Jordan, another longtime Clintonite, was similarly upbeat.

But the tone of what really happened inside the locked ballroom was quite different once Obama and Hillary Clinton had their cordial say and the floor was opened for questions. The first "questioner," an angry woman from New York, demanded a roll call of presidential preference at the Denver convention. Next came another distraught woman who declared that Clinton's candidacy was the victim of "misogyny." One participant told me, "This is as tough a crowd as Obama is going to face the whole campaign."

It was so tough that Lanny Davis, the participant who let me use his name, tried to change the mood. Davis, who was a Clinton White House aide and remains a fervent supporter of both Clintons, rose to say that the presidential contest had been painful in dividing Democratic families -- alienating him from his Obama-supporting son, Seth Davis, the prominent college basketball reporter. Now, he said, they are together again.

But Davis admitted to me that there is "a lot that needs to be done" for all wounds to be healed. "It's going to take a long time," Gus said of achieving unity. The minds of the Clintonites are with Obama, but not their hearts. That helps explain why the presidential race appears close in what otherwise shapes up to be a horrible year for Republicans, and that is why the nominee's "underwhelming" performance at the Mayflower is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

In reading that article you just posted, BB, I experienced not even a very small frisson. In fact, I found it all rather jejeune. ;-D

Amos, you listening?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:52 PM

LH,

What, are you running for Saint, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

You mean there's a position open now? Hey! Yeah, I'd be interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:00 PM

LH - the bad news is - it's usually posthumous :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

Yeah, that's true. Even in Joan of Arc's case, although certainly the common people regarded her as a Saint while she was alive. It just takes the Church a long while to catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:43 PM

Anything can be arranged, LH. But I agree--the article was kinda jejeune and, well, meretricious.

You guys are missing the core strengths in the candidate and missing why they are important. I only hope when the stupid millstones and histrionics die down, he'll still have enough edge and enough elbow room to show his stuff.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:56 PM

Obama's frequent regrets may make us sorry


By Luke Boggs
For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/10/08

Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator.

On Wednesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he regretted allowing his young daughters to participate in a family TV interview with "Access Hollywood."

It was an abrupt shift from decision to regret, even for Obama. The family sat down for the interview on July 4, and the first segment ran on July 8. By the next morning, Obama was saying he regretted including his daughters, even before the other two parts of the interview could air.

I'm not sure why. The interview was nothing but happy public relations, revealing that the Obamas enjoy riding bikes together and that the senator isn't a big dessert fan. (Pies are an exception.)

I suppose there may be a handful of humorless activists out there somewhere carping that Obama was "exploiting" his kids for political gain, but that would be an absurd complaint.

The guy is running for president of the United States, for heaven's sake. Family members have been a constant in American politics for a long time. And Obama having his daughters at his side in a puffy little holiday interview should have been no big deal to anyone.

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

In November 2006, Obama said he regretted buying property adjacent to his Chicago home from Tony Rezko, a longtime supporter and big-time fund-raiser who has since been convicted of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

In February 2007, as his presidential campaign was beginning, Obama said he regretted saying that the lives of American soldiers who died fighting in Iraq had been "wasted."

In April 2008, Obama said he regretted his choice of words when he told some well-heeled donors in San Francisco that "bitter" folks in Middle America who have lost economic hope "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

To be sure, these are choices worth regretting. Anyone can understand why Obama would regret his land deal with a convicted felon. And even liberal Democrats like Obama have been careful not to say American lives have been "wasted" in Iraq, even as they imply the same thing when they dismiss the war effort as corrupt, inept, unnecessary and worse.

Obama's most costly regret, however, may well prove to be his condescending shot at those decent, hardworking Americans he said were desperately clinging to God and guns and bigotry. It was a regret-worthy statement that said volumes about Obama's easy contempt for those in what elites call "flyover country."

Perhaps the American people are looking for a regretful guy this time around. After eight years of George W. Bush, whose dogged lack of regrets continues to exasperate his critics, perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

But I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of Americans understand that you don't get a bunch of easy do-overs in the Oval Office. You have to make tough calls, even when they may be politically costly.

I can't help wondering what Obama might regret in four years as president. What might he regret doing —- or not doing —- on the world stage? What might he regret saying —- or not saying —- to Putin or Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad?

Only time will tell. Depending on what happens in November, we may begin to find out next January. When we do, some voters may well have regrets of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:57 PM

last was me...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 07:22 PM

Probably all the voters will have regrets in January, given our options in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM

On t'other hand, we have the Shrub, who never regrets anything. And McCain, who seems to forget what he said last year or last week or...
Take yer pick--regrets or forgets.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:32 PM

OR Obama, who keeps moving towards the right so fast that we will have Bush's third term under a Democratic president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:32 PM

last was me...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM

Gee BB, I thought you didn't like an absurdly simplistic approach to the political scene. Guess I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:03 AM

Either that or you're wrong now. ;-) Which will it be, Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

A solid majority (56%) give the Obama campaign letter grades of A or B for the job he is doing to convince the American public to vote for him, while only 32% say the same of the McCain campaign. More than a third (35%) offer a grade of C to McCain's campaign so far, and nearly as many (30%) say the campaign has earned a D or F.

The grades voters give to the Obama campaign for the job it is doing convincing them to vote for him are the highest measured for any candidate over the past four election cycles. In June 2004, for example, just 39% gave Bush's efforts an A or B; even fewer gave high grades to Kerry's campaign (31%). In contrast, McCain's middling grades are slightly lower than those awarded to Bush in both 2000 and 2004. McCain's campaign does garner higher grades than the 1996 Dole campaign, which only 22% graded highly.

In this regard, the 2008 campaign has the largest disparity in high grades for the Democratic and Republican candidates over the past four election cycles (24 points). The gap between the grades for Obama and McCain is even larger than for Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in July 1996; at that time, 37% gave Clinton an A or B, while just 22% gave top grades to Dole.

(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:11 PM

BB-
"Obama, who keeps moving towards the right so fast that we will have Bush's third term under a Democratic president."

Well, since you seem to approve of Bush's previous two terms, and McCain claims that he's not a continuation of W, I assume you're going to vote for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM

1. 2nd attempt to post re Ron's being wrong:

"Why can't he have been wrong before AND wrong now as well?"

2. I will vote for the candidate that I feel will be best for the country- as I hope ALL voting in this election will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

The very thought that Ron Davies could ever be wrong about anything at all is deeply disturbing to me, because I think of Ron as having something approaching and quite probably exceeding Papal infallibility, but his statement in his post of 10 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM ("Guess I was wrong.") makes it quite plain that he was either wrong then...or he's wrong now! You can't get around that, because it is borne out by cold, cruel, undeniable logic.

I've lost a lot of sleep over it, I can tell you. It seems that there is nothing one can depend on anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 06:06 AM

Gough Whitlam, at his 92nd birthday party, commented that Australia now has a prime minister who can speak Mandarin, and it looks as though the US will soon have a president who can speak English.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

Keep your fingers crossed on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:35 PM

< href=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/index.html>Obaama discusses foreign policy issues like a man with a brain,-- a refreshing change from Cowboy Chimp W.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:40 PM

Voting is required to fullfill the delusion that Diebold, Everest, and USVS counts the actual votes.

please vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:04 PM

Washington Post:


Terms of (Dis)Engagement
Obama and McCain Need to Debate the Postwar U.S. Role Debate on Iraq Should Focus on What Happens After U.S. Troops Withdraw

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, July 14, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama has been teetering between two imperatives on Iraq. He needs to adjust his withdrawal plan, drawn up more than 18 months ago, to the dramatic changes on the ground during the past year -- so that he will have the political mandate to pursue a sensible policy if he becomes commander in chief. But he also needs to keep his antiwar base happy and not blur what looks like a big contrast between his strategy and that of John McCain.

This Story
Terms of (Dis)Engagement
Mr. Obama on Iraq
The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge
This month he learned that his dilemma can't be easily finessed. When he tried hinting that he would "refine" his policy based on "more information" from "commanders on the ground," the blowback was so fierce he had to hold a second news conference the same day denying that he had altered his scheme to withdraw all U.S. combat forces within 16 months of taking office.

So what now? Obama's easy way out is to stick to the 16-month timetable through the fall campaign, while subtly altering the justification for it. He's already made a start: Before, he said the forced march out was needed to extract U.S. troops from a "sectarian civil war." Now, they will be coming out because withdrawal will be consistent with "the need to maintain stability," as he put it on July 3. It's at least possible -- or possible enough for a political campaign -- that regular combat units would no longer be needed for "stability" by the middle of 2010.

Still, there's a better way for Obama to solve his Iraq problem -- one that is honest about the state and stakes of the war but still sharply differentiates him from McCain. What's more, it's a solution dreamed up by Democrats who are among the candidate's advisers on defense. As outlined by Michelle Flournoy, Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security, the strategy would focus on the biggest difference between the presidential candidates -- which is not about troop withdrawals but about the role the United States should play in Iraq five or 10 years from now.


Flournoy, a senior Pentagon official during the Clinton administration, points out that in the short term, the differences between Obama and McCain are mostly illusory. The next president will probably inherit an American force in Iraq of 130,000 to 140,000 troops -- and either one would probably reduce that number to about 100,000 in 2009. McCain will be obliged to remove at least some troops because of the strain on the military and the need to send reinforcements to Afghanistan. But Obama will find it hard to withdraw more than five brigades his first year even if he wants to. "There are limits to how quickly you can draw down without risking real chaos," Flournoy said.

That doesn't mean Obama's Iraq policy would be the same as McCain's in 2009. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior aides recently have begun talking about negotiating a withdrawal timetable ending in 2011 or 2012, well after Obama's end point but before McCain's 2013 goal for withdrawing "most" troops. McCain's likely response, Flournoy says, would be to "tell the Iraqis they have to convince us we can go." Obama would come from the other direction: "Convince us we should stay."

The argument of Flournoy's team is simply that Obama should be open to Iraqi arguments -- that an American withdrawal should not be dictated in Washington but carefully negotiated with the Iraqi government. A time extension could be used as leverage to obtain more progress, such as steps by Maliki toward a durable reconciliation with Sunni leaders. The Democratic experts call their approach "conditional engagement," as opposed to either the "unconditional engagement" of McCain or the "unconditional disengagement" that Obama has mostly espoused.

Allowing withdrawal to become a matter of negotiation would require a noticeable shift by Obama. But it also would open up the most vital debate about Iraq -- what the nature of U.S. engagement there should be after the war ends. As Flournoy sees it, McCain is likely to see Iraq as a base for advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region, starting with the containment of Iran. That's why he's been comparing Iraq to Germany and South Korea and saying U.S. troops could stay for 100 years. In contrast, even a modified Obama policy would rule out an American troop presence once Iraq were stabilized, on the theory that a long-term base would do more harm than good.

"Part of the fleshing out on the Democratic side is defining what's the long-term relationship with Iraq," says Flournoy. It's a task Obama would be wise to take on before the election -- and that might make his contrast with McCain look smart as well as sharp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM

A ...representative for John McLaughlin told FOXNews.com Monday that the television talk show host wasnÕt using a racist expression Ñ ÒOreoÓ Ñ to describe Barack Obama during an episode that aired this past weekend, but was merely summing up what he believed to be the view of Rev. Jesse Jackson.

McLaughlin spokeswoman Becca Baker said the transcript shows that McLaughlin was not expressing his own point of view, but JacksonÕs view of Obama.

ÒItÕs clear from both text and context that John McLaughlin is speculating why Jesse Jackson said what he said about Barack Obama. ItÕs JacksonÕs view of Obama, not McLaughlinÕs,Ó she said.

The former Jesuit priest and Nixon administration official was asking his panel about the tense relationship between Obama and Jackson when he called Obama an ÒOreo.Ó

While also a delicious cookie, the term ÒOreoÓ is a derogatory term used against blacks that accuses an individual of being Òblack on the outside, white on the insideÓ

ÒDoes it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that someone like Obama, who fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo Ñ a black on the outside, a white on the inside Ñ that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for,Ó McLaughlin asked, according to a transcript from The McLaughlin Group, the highly-rated show that launched the shouting head-fest that embodies cable news.

McLaughlin was discussing the recent Obama-Jackson clash in which Jackson was caught on an open microphone accusing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of being condescending toward black people during a FatherÕs day speech about responsibility. He also then said, ÒI want to cut his nuts off.Ó

Jackson apologized multiple times afterward and Obama said he accepted JacksonÕs contrition.

In addressing the panel, McLaughlin said Jackson may be angry about Obama potentially replacing Jackson as a civil rights speaker, a position Jackson has fought for in speeches and past election runs throughout his career.

A Gallup poll out Monday shows 29 percent of blacks named Obama as the leader they would choose to discuss racial issues, with Jackson at third with 4 percent. Al Sharpton was listed second with 6 percent....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:44 PM

Well, there's a lot to comment of here:


            There are some folks who think Jackson either knew the mic was hot, or turned it on, for the purpose of drawing a distinction between himself and Obama, hoping to boost Obama's campaign.




    "Jackson was caught on an open microphone accusing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of being condescending toward black people during a FatherÕs day speech..."

                  Obama talks down to everybody. Some of us feel it is his greatest political shortcoming.



       "He also then said, ÒI want to cut his nuts off.Ó"


            Hasn't Michelle already done that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:28 PM

Rig:

You are, fundamentally, a decent person; why you persist in acting the part of an underhanded slime-ball is beyond me. It is really beneath you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:20 AM

Just commenting on what's there. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:33 AM

Amos,

Recall your comments about Bush before you post criticsm of otther's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:28 AM

Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility
Monday, July 14, 2008 7:38:46 PM
By GLEN JOHNSON and DAN SEWELL

Democrat Barack Obama insisted Monday that blacks must show greater responsibility for their actions. In remarks prepared for delivery at the annual NAACP convention, the man who could become the first black president said Washington must provide greater education and economic assistance, but that blacks must demand more of themselves.

"If we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families and our own communities," Obama said. "That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework and setting a good example."

He added: "I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch -- none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives."

Obama, who grew up without his father, has spoken and written at length about issues of parental responsibility and fathers participating in their children's lives. Yet a similar speech by the Illinois senator on Father's Day prompted an awkward rebuke from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Democratic presidential contender in 1984 and 1988, a protege of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and a fellow Chicago political activist.

Jackson apologized last week after being caught saying on an open microphone that he wanted to castrate Obama for speaking down to blacks.

Republican candidate John McCain is scheduled to address the 99th meeting of the nation's largest civil rights organization on Wednesday.

Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass denied the candidate was trying to boost support among white voters with his own "Sister Souljah" moment. Addressing a black audience in 1992, Democrat presidential candidate Bill Clinton accused the hip-hop artist of inciting violence against whites. Some black leaders, including Jackson, criticized Clinton, but it helped reinforce his image as a politician who refused to pander.

"It's not just a speech aimed at black audiences. It's aimed at all parents," Douglass said. Noting Obama also called for more corporate and government responsibility, she added: "This is a larger theme of responsibility."

While Jackson complained about such Obama speechmaking, other civil rights activists from the NAACP disagreed. They think Obama is doing a good job balancing his role as a black candidate with the need to speak to all races.

"He can't be totally focused on the black community," said Kelvin Shaw, of Shreveport, La., Shaw said he is most interested in what Obama plans on nationwide economic issues like rising oil prices, household costs and jobs. "We need to be talking about not one race, but what affects all people."

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, the city's first directly elected black mayor, disputed Jackson's argument that Obama is ignoring other important issues for blacks such as unemployment, mortgage foreclosures and the number of blacks in prison.

"I think he absolutely has," Mallory said. Besides his messages about responsibility, Mallory said, Obama has talked about jobs, health care, education, and other "areas where black people are disproportionately affected."

Civil rights veteran Julian Bond, the NACCP board chairman, drew loud applause in a speech Sunday night when he described Obama's candidacy as a milestone.

"The country seems proud, and I know all of us here are, that a candidate campaigning in cities where he could not have stayed in a hotel 40 years ago has won his party's nomination for the nation's highest office," Bond said.

Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who was an aide on Jackson's presidential bids, said blacks understand Obama is trying to be elected president in a majority-white nation. But he said there has been frustration for those who want Obama to lay out a specific agenda for the black community beyond speeches from the pulpit about responsibility.

McCain plans to talk about education, including expanded merit-pay programs for teachers who improve their students' academic performance.

Walters, the political scientist, said the Arizona Republican's visit is a way to say he wants to represent all groups.

"It strikes a good tone," Walters said. "If (McCain) is elected president, he can say, 'I was there, I have an open door.'"

In his remarks, Obama also criticized his rival. "Sen. McCain is going to be coming here in a couple of days and talking about education, and I'm glad to hear it. But the fact is, what he's offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:31 AM

Salon has a fine article on what Obama really told the NAACP, much of which was not covered in the press because their high-light issue was the Rev Jackson's pissing contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,GoGreens!
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 11:35 AM

Headlined on 7/7/08 at opednews.com:
McKinney Poised to Challenge Obama For Left-Wing and Black Voters

by Vivian Berryhill

As Senator Barack Obama continues pivoting away from those primary-election positions and promises that once galvanized his Democratic base, he may have a new worry looming on the horizon in the person of Cynthia McKinney. A former Georgia Congresswoman, McKinney is said to be a shoo-in as the Green Party\\\'s 2008 presidential nominee when their convention is held in Chicago, July 10-12.

Securing the Green Party\\\'s 2008 standard-bearer position would bestow on McKinney the historic title of \\\'first\\\' African American woman to be on the ballot as a viable candidate of a major party for President of the United States. That title alone will not only lessen the aura surrounding Barack Obama\\\'s position as the \\\'first\\\' African American male presidential nominee, but she may also siphon off just-enough left-wing, African American, and women voters, to sink both their chances for victory in the Fall.

Obama, in his quest to appeal to Reagan Republicans and Independents, is gravitating toward a more \\\'centrist\\\' position of late, which is causing serious ire among many of his followers, and those who supported and believed in his pre-General election message. And McKinney, being the shrewed politician she has always been, is set to capitalize on the Obama backlash. Recently issuing the following statement, McKinney\\\'s camp unashamedly challenges progressives/liberals who are disappointed in Obama:


\\\"There can be no effective reasoning with those African Americans who want only that a member of \\\'The Race\\\' occupy the Oval Office - no matter the character and politics of that Black individual. But self-described progressives of all races cannot excuse their own docility in the face of Obama\\\'s rightward lunge - especially when there exists one last opportunity to threaten the Democratic nominee-to-be with a backlash against his betrayals of progressive principles - one last chance to affect Obama\\\'s behavior before Election Day, November 4, and beyond. Cynthia McKinney.

It\\\'s time for people claiming to be progressives who supported Obama, to accept that they were bamboozled by a champion slickster. Actually, that\\\'s putting the best face on the situation, since most of Obama\\\'s progressive credentials were simply wished into existence by folks who were tired of even pretending to fight. Obama now dares to drop all pretense of progressivism, trusting that there will be no ramifications on the Left, especially among the otherwise most dependable progressive constituency, African Americans\\\".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:15 PM

All this rhetoric about Obama pivoting away from his base is, as far as I am concerned, a lot of bushwah smoke. The guy offered only one thing from the beginning--intelligent, comapassionate and principled attention. That's what folks loved about him, aftyer eight years of duckery, dodgery and unprincipled profiteering from the Feds.

I applaud McKinney's courageous step in coming forth, but I don't think it is going to do anything except possible give the most adamant Hillaryites a place to turn to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

I think it's more likely that the left wing voters who were abandoned by Obama will be more likely to go Green than the disenfranchised Hillary voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

"In a speech delivered in advance of an overseas trip, Obama said fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority. Beyond that, he called for securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states, achieving energy security and rebuilding international alliances."


So, if he has information about nuclear weapon programs in, say Iran, he would go to the UN, have a resolution requiring Iran to comply with it's obligations under NPT, and then do what? Find a group of countries that agreed with him and invade Iran??????



Bush's Third term, for sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM

Washington Post

The Iron Timetable
Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008; Page A16

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.


At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:03 PM

Somebody's really missing the point.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

Yes, Obama IS missing the point. To base one's decisions on the facts required that one get the facts before making decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

"To base one's decisions on the facts required that one get the facts before making decisions."

Don't be ridiculous! Where would George Bush be today if he had ever done that?

(grin)

The tough don't gather facts! The tough make decisions, baby, tough decisions based on unalterable dogma and unshakeable faith in their own rightness! Then they sift through all the available facts, rumours, and non-facts, and outright lies to find whatever they can there that might appear to support their decisions.

That is standard procedure in power politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:21 PM

As I said- Obama, Bush's third term...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:06 PM

You have to visit Iraq to know how to fight a war there.

The Republican hawks worship Churchill. Did he have to visit occupied Europe to fight Hitler?

Did Reagan have to visit the Soviet union to fight the cold war?

Did Bush learn the proper approach to Iraq when he went there and handed out turkey legs?

Did McCain learn from his photo op in the market place?

Obama has talked to Crocker and Petraus in this country and there are many other sources of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM

"If (McCain) is elected president, he can say, 'I was there, I have an open door.'" Trouble is, it seems to be a rapidly revolving door. And McCain can't seem to remember were he came in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:54 AM

Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the mess that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.

Mr. Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able to ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban — the true threats to American security — are resurgent. But he has not matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq. Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.

Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Mr. Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq — which fostered a presence for Al Qaeda where there was none — has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday and in a speech on Tuesday, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.

(NY Times Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:05 AM

"George W. Bush's contempt for the rules and institutions of international politics, his revival of preventive war, with all its unforeseeable consequences, his abrogation of the rule of law in his own country, and his ignorance of every issue related to environmental conservation have become, for me and for the vast majority of Germans, synonymous with a high-handed, ugly America. This state of affairs has provoked not only rage and horror, but also great sadness, for the United States has always been the symbol of freedom, democracy and law.

Although Barack Obama's style, when viewed from the comparatively disillusioned perspective of "old Europe," may sometimes look troublingly messianic, most people of this country nevertheless hope that he'll be able to bridge the gaps his predecessor will leave behind, and that he'll do so not just as a self-styled symbol of change, but also as an actual president who promises a different presidency.

..."

(Christoph Peters, German writer)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM

I do not regard the war in Afghanistan as having been "a war of necessity" at all, Amos. It was a war of choice, and the choice was inappropriate. The war in Afghanistan has not made Americans safer, it has further endangered them.

The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911. It did not plan or sponsor or envision such an attack. The attack was planned secretly and sponsored by a small number of non-governmental operatives...conspirators...people who did not represent any sovereign nation or any government. 911 was a criminal act, not an act of war by one sovereign nation against another.

It should have been responded to as a criminal act, not used as justification for a war on the nation and government of Afghanistan.

Let's say a private group of people somewhere in the USA secretly planned to blow up a building in Japan...or Belgium...or Lybia...or wherever...for their own reasons. Let's say they succeeded and killed several thousand people. That would not be a reason for Japan or Belgium or Lybia to declare war on the whole USA! It would be a police matter, because international criminal acts are dealt with by the police, not by the armed forces. 911 was a police matter. A big one. It was no cause for a fullscale war against any other nation.

As such, it was an unprovoked and illegal war in my opinion, and it remains an illegal war to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

Thanks for your views, LH--when I quoted the der Spiegel writer above, I was not asserting they were my opinion. However it must be acknowledged that Afghanistan, in intentionally protecting bin Laden and his organization, was much more culpable of acts of war than Itraq ever was.

I concur that prosecuting bin Laden and his little organization as criminals would have been much better in some respects. It might have been a logistics nightmare, given the insularity of local police forces across the world, but it would have been much more palatable and probably more effective in the long run.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:46 PM

I don't think the Afghans were intentionally protecting Bin Laden, Amos, but we'd probably have to look into that some. What they did at the time as far as I recall was that they requested that the USA provide some evidence of Bin Laden's or his people's involvement in 911...and they said that if some evidence was provided then they would arrest Bin Laden and put him on trial.

That's a normal response for any country to give if some people on its soil are accused of committing a criminal act in a foreign country.

The American response to this completely normal Afghan request for evidence was absolute contempt. It was never even taken seriously, it seems. Some people in the American media were already saying on the very day of 911 that it could be linked to Osama Bin Laden. Where did they get that information? And why does the FBI to this very day list Osama Bin Laden as an international criminal for various terrorist acts (the attack on the US destroyer Cole, and bombings in Africa...) but they do NOT include the 911 attacks on that list! Apparently they don't think they have any substantial evidence to link Osama with 911. Mysterious, ain't it?

Sarcastic remarks were made stateside about "Sharia law" and how the Afghans would never give Bin Laden an honest trail...but the real agenda was crystal clear...the US government had already decided on a war in Afghanistan anyway, and was not even slightly interested in any legal procedures that the Afghans might initiate in regards to Bin Laden. It was not worth discussing as far as Bush was concerned. He wanted a war. 911 was the incident that enabled the public to accept such a war. The war wasn't really about Al Queda, Amos...it was about long range strategic concerns in Aghanistan and central Asia, it was about building pipelines, it was about oil shipping routes, stuff like that.

It was already in the planning stages well prior to 911, but the American public was told nothing about that.

This is a big game, Amos. It has nothing to do with really protecting the American public or any other public from anything, in my opinion. It has to do with strategic interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM

I think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were in league with each other and that they were both very bad for the Afghani people.

They were the local and foreign franchises of the groups created with US and Saudi funds to fight the Soviets. All they know how to do is fight authority. It was the height of stupidity for the US to leave them to run the country when the Soviets left. America, and the West in general turned its back on the people of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, just as they turned their backs on the Russian and other ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union after it collapsed. All the Russians knew was autocracy. We did not help them advance. Now they are again ruled by the methods of the KGB.

We are paying for that now. Sooner or later the messes need to be cleaned up. the longer we wait. The more expensive the cleanup. Its now too late for Russia. The will probably have to wait for the oil to run out and for their system to collapse again before their citizens will have another chance a t self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:15 PM

OSama bin Laden has been viewed on tape by millions overtly discussing the takedown of the two towers. I don't think there is any case to be made that he wa snot behind it. Afghanistan actually ducked the question first by denying he was in country. They were not forthcoming. There's no question the intell community had reason to believe he was behind it because they had warned the President about it just a month earlier.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM

Uh-huh...but I don't buy all that, Amos. Some of it, maybe...not all of it.

We could argue about 911 till we both went blue in the face as to who really was behind it, and who planned what...and we could also argue about the possibility of faked and doctored videos...but I've gotta get some other stuff done today too. ;-) Maybe another time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 08:44 PM

Well, I don't much mind what you buy or not, but I am always open to facts, should you have some.

Do you think AL Qeda is not the organization behind the attacks of 9-11-01? Or do you think Osama bin Laden is not the main exec behind Al Qeda? Or what?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:49 PM

"Its now too late for Russia."


                Jack - Don't you think you're selling the Russian people short?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 10:14 PM

Russia will always restore itself, given time. They're a very strong nation, and they have weathered worse times than the present situation.


Amos, I'll PM you about what I think about those questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

1200 years ago the Russians were ruled by the Vikings who named the country and called them slavs. The words "slav" and "slavic" come from the fact that they were slaves of the Vikings. Then came the Mongols. Then came the Tzars. Then the Communists. Then a few years of uneasy democracy and poverty for the masses. Now wealth, relative prosperity and a restoration of a measure of imperial pride under Putin. Putin is hugely popular he make the trains run on time and he feeds the hungry. Russians now say democracy is over rated.

I am not optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:57 AM

Democracy, as it is presently being practiced in the western world...IS overrated as a matter of fact, way overrated, because it's mostly a phony, money-dominated scam by corporate-controlled parties that betray the people who vote for them.

REAL democracy, however, would be a very good idea. For that I think one would need some very major reforms in things like campaign financing, for one. And it would help if the present political parties were dismantled entirely and replaced by something much more democratic than they will ever be. I wonder when we'll ever get to try it...real democracy?

Mother Russia is Mother Russia, Jack. She will not die...no more than America will die. No more than China will die. No more than France will die. There are some things you cannot kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 08:34 AM

Washington Post:

The Audacity of Vanity
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008; Page A17

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 Ronald 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 John F. 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 the elder -- 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 Hudson Institute 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 lectern, 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:03 AM

KRauthammer is asinine, and posting long examples of it is teejous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:11 AM

And the NYTimes editorials are assinine, yet you have posted long excerpts from them, repeatedly.

Are you afraid someone might actually read something critical of Obama? Not to worry- If I post it, they will assume it is false, even if it is just quotes from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 10:28 AM

"In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 48 percent of registered voters said Obama would make a good Commander in Chief, compared to 72 percent for his Republican rival John McCain"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/18/obama.trip/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:36 PM

The one thing that probably causes deep envy and feelings of inadequacy to arise in Obama's breast is this: he is not Charles Krauthammer and he never will be! ;-)

If he were, though, he would feel secure in giving a speech not just at the Brandenbury Gate, but also atop Mount Ararat, I should think...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:52 PM

You seem to be attacking the author, and NOT what he has written. Are you reasons for disagreement so weak?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:53 PM

"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 Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone. "
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

LOL! I'm just amusing myself, BB. I think Krauthammer is a crabby, mean-minded egomaniac with a rapacious attitude. I've always thought so. He's the "Don Cherry" of American columnists. Now Obama may well be an egomaniac too...I don't know for sure about that. Time will tell. If so, he's still a more likeable egomaniac than Mr Krauthammer, who has the best nasty-guy surname I've ever heard of....God, I love it! Krauthammer! Krauthammer! Krauthammer! You'd think he had been invented by Marvel Comics or something...their new evil genius to take on Spiderman.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM

So, now we should judge the merits of information on opinions of the name of the source?


Oh, bummer!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 01:56 PM

THe TImes editorials at leastr make a fair effort at thoughtfulness; they are not just spume-holes for tyhe venting of inaccurate, arm-waving bile. Krathammer, on the other hand, is a sorry serprent whose joy is in passing out venomous innuendos.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:05 PM

Sorry, Amos,

IMHO it is the NYTimes ( in regrads to Bush ) that is a sorry serprent whose joy is in passing out venomous innuendos.


But if you can't see where someone who disagrees with your basic premise that Obama is the Second Coming would find Obama's actions to be as described in the article, I supppose you would not understand that it is possible to criticise a person without being a spume-hole for the venting of inaccurate, arm-waving bile.

And all that he wrote seems to me ( looking at the facts) to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM

Well, BB, isn't Krauthammer's use of the phrase "a few fainting frauleins" an awfully snide thing to say in that context? What does it have to do with any facts? It is a statement uttered with a sneer...and it makes clear the deeply negative emotions that underly Krauthammer's whole argument. All he really wants to do is trash Barack Obama personally and vent his hostility on the man for his own satisfaction.

His treatment of Obama is as nasty as the sort of snide emotional crap that flies between arguing individuals all the time on this forum. He's pretending to be all objective and focused on issues of substance, but he's really just engaging in character assassination as far as I can see. If he was an Obama backer, he'd be doing that to someone else instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

with your basic premise that Obama is the Second Coming

Bruce:

The lame age-old stunt of creating rhetorical straw-men to knock down will not hunt here.

I have no such premise. Krauthammer's rhetoric is empty nullification, insisting on making nothing out of what is, for reasons of his own. Obama's accomplishments are lsited in multiple places--Krauthammer says they do not exist. His intent in speaking about responsibility is, in a single sour and twisted sentence or two, reduced from a desire for a more ethical Union to condescension and narcissism. Krauthammer's cynicism abotu what can be done, and how tor evitalize the key germinal ideas of the American experiment, are exactly the problem Obama is seeking, as well as any other human ever has, to remedy--yet all this man can do is snarl and be sardonic.

May he have the joy of it; it is not productive, does not lead to any improvements, does not suggest betterment, or even seek it. It is just sour apples in the mouth of a snake.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM

Having read the NYTimes editorials on Bush that Amos has presented, I fail to see how this is any different, in intent or effect.

But I guess those are ok, since in the "Bush" threads the "right" person is being attacked in this ( objectionable when applied to Obama) manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

>>We should judge the merits of information on opinions of the name of the source.

Well yes. Of course we should. Especially when the "information" is in an opinion piece by someone prone to cherry picking and distorting information to make his case.

For instance, the piece you just copy-pasted. There won't be a few fainting frauleins. there will be thousands. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

"Obama's accomplishments are lsited in multiple places--Krauthammer says they do not exist."

Yet, rather than present them to nullify this article, you attack the author. This seems a lot like what you have claimed the Bush administration has done- yet when you do it it is fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

Krauthammer is just pissed because no frauleins will faint for him. His name scares them off. Well, and his face too, probably... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:25 PM

There you go- attacking the author rather than finding flaws in his article...



Seems like the article MUST be correct, since you so vehemently attack him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM

Well, I guess I'm flattered that you're taking me so seriously about all this, BB. ;-)

But I don't give a toot, frankly, about any of it. You're going to have another president in about 6 months. Between now and then there'll be a hell of a lot of noise and hoopla and silliness and nastiness as your two bad joke political parties fight it out for the spoils. Afterward we'll see what we really DO have to worry about in the world, when that new president starts actually doing something.

And Krauthammer will have more stuff to bitch about then too, which is good, because that's how he earns his paycheck. I would not want to see the poor man starve.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:36 PM

Whereas I would be happy to help the editorial staff of the NYTimes to develope a new career...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:05 PM

Its an opinion piece Bruce. It is only as credible as the author.

Doesn't Krauthammer fancy himself a humourist? Why are you getting your information from a humourist? You can't get your information from a humourist. I know this because The Daily Show had a bit on that very subject last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

"Its an opinion piece Bruce. It is only as credible as the author"

Does not even slow Amos down, when it comes to anti-Bush editorials in the NYTimes.


SO I should use a better standard than Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:17 PM

Bruce,

Amos presents opinion as opinion. He doesn't defend the "information" in opinion pieces. When he posts such an articles it is to say that such and such a journalist has such and such an opinion. In fact to post such opinions is the point of this thread. Are you holding yourself to that standard? I ask that question sincerely, much of the time, I fail to see the point of your posts.

Amos and Little Hawk are ridiculing Krauthammer's arguments. I think that is fair game. they are just arguments presented in a way that hints that Krauthammer himself was attempting humor. All I am saying it that it isn't really credible "information" and it is hard to take seriously, when the man himself is not talking seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM

"Amos and Little Hawk are ridiculing Krauthammer's arguments. I think that is fair game"

IF they were ridiculing the arguments, I would agree with you- but I see them attacking the author, and leaving the arguements untouched- hence still valid.


If I were to do the same with the NYTimes editorials, do you think Amos would let me get away with it? I doubt it, and am just looking for a "level playing field"- If Amos considers it OK when applied to Bush, it should be OK when applied to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:36 PM

Charlie K is a very angry man who has no sense of humor and even less common sense... Plus, when it comes to backing Bush Charlie makes McC, with his 95% Bush voting record, look like a maverick... Charlie's would be 100% if he were in Congress...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM

BRuce:

My point about Krauthammer is that he has not done his homework and is pretendinghe has--not that I was volunteering to go do his proper legwork for him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:40 PM

Are you letting Amos an LH get away with attacking Krauthummer? You have a right to say what you want. I'm just saying that defending kraphugger's opinions as "information" is not likely to be effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:45 PM

I don't see why I should tolerate a man whose last name clearly indicates that he is into physically abusing Germans.... ;-) I like Germans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 07:47 PM

Maybe he just likes nailing pickled cabbage.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:01 PM

He will be in Berlin this Thursday, when Germans will hail him as a magician with the ability to transform a gloomy world into a brighter place. Never before has there been so much excitement in Germany over the visit of a presumed US presidential candidate. Obama may be running for the White House, but judging by the commotion, one would think that he had already advanced two steps further and were the president of the world.

Which is precisely the issue. Obama raises hopes that he will not just change America, but politics as a whole.

Obama is the hope of a Western world filled with concerns. A recession looms as does high inflation sparked by exploding demand for commodities and natural resources. Furthermore, no one has yet come up with a convincing response to global warming. No one knows how to bring peace to the Middle East, Afghanistan or Iraq. And no one has a promising strategy for dealing with Islamist terrorism.

At the same time, the West is searching for its place in an "incomplete world order," as journalist Peter Bender describes the current state of affairs. How strong will China, Russia and India become? How should the West interact with these countries? And is there even such a thing as the "West" anymore?

It is time for leadership. And only one man inspires the kind of confidence that would enable him to assume this leadership: Barack Obama. Germans, in particular, are pinning their hopes on this man. Whereas just 10 percent favor the Republican candidate John McCain, fully 76 percent consider Barack Obama the better candidate.
...

(Der Spiegel)

---

It's pretty clear that a lot of Europeans see him as dramatically different from anything the Bush family ever spawned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:26 PM

""Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history," wrote McCain, criticizing Obama's call for an early withdrawal timeline. "I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the 'Mission Accomplished' banner prematurely.""


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM

The comparison to Bush's fly-boy posturing and Obama's intention to plan withdrawal is asinine. Bush's goals were to celebrate war and pretend something had happened that had not.

Obama's goals are to end war, or at least shift it to a more rational footing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM

Bruce,

I'm not sure it matters much what McCain says he thinks of Obama. He is hardly an unbiased source.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:58 PM

Jack,

And you imply that the ones presented by Amos are?

You really need to get off that horse- it is dead and stinking. Amos has, by precedent, provided that any viewpoint, no matter how biased, is acceptable on "Popular Opinion" threads. Just look at the blatent political hack jobs he presented against Bush, and in favor of Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 03:18 PM

Bruce,

Come on! McCain is his opponent for gosh sakes! Get serious!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 04:10 PM

Chongo says that both of 'em are "missin' the boat", something Chongo did not do, otherwise he wouldn't be here...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:47 PM

Gee, all this time I thought Obama wanted to end the fighting in Iraq and bring our troops home. He's over there now, and it seems he has "changed his mind." (Nothing new about that though) Now he wants to get our troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan! I wonder if he would have them march there, or ride in trucks.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:30 PM

Doug:

You just look back at what he has said. You will find, I believe, that he has not changed his mind, he is just using it, unlike the people you were so happy to sweep into office last time around.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:28 PM

I think that you can go back as far as Obama has been running and find statements like this. It's pure bull shit on McCain's part even implying that Obama favors a precipitous withdrawal.

Jan 18 blog

"After thunderous chants for several minutes Barack came on, and started right off talking about his plan to get us out of Iraq as carefully as we went in carelessly."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:43 PM

Jack The Sailor,

Obama doesn't want to get out of Iraq. He wants to preserve the "Green Zone" and protect the American Embassy (as big as the Vatican) there.

He wants to redeploy troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan which prolongs the military
incursions into the Mid-East, a futile pursuit as it will not lead to stabilization, there.

McCain, though, has no plan to do anything, you are right. He doesn't even have
a decent foreign policy grasp and is relying on "experts" that are steering him in
a "precipitous" direction. The idea that someone can govern the country just because
they were a tenant in the Hanoi Hilton is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:00 PM

Look up what Obama said when, Amos. All you need to do to read a record of his flip flops on Iraq is Google "Obama flip flops on Iraq" and read it for yourself. You will find lots of documention there and it's not necessarily provided by a blogger.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

Doug:

"Fli[p flop" is a term your guys invented as disapprobation.

The fact is, learning new solutions based on new data is one way to define sanity. Holding on to old solutions when it is clear the data is no longer giving you the best picture is a little bit nutsy.

This has to be differentiated from the ability to hold on to a purpose; you will find, I think that Obama's purpose to get the US out of Iraq as gracefully as possible, has been an unchanging intent from the beginning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:42 PM

"...you will find, I think that Obama's purpose to get the US out of Iraq as gracefully as possible, has been an unchanging intent from the beginning..."


                     Actually, I found it a convenient way to game the nomination. If he's elected he'll probably continue to steer a course to the right for the purpose of garnering larger and larger audineces to talk down to...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 12:02 AM

Obama Makes War Gains
Maliki's Embrace of Withdrawal Timeline Confounds McCain

AMMAN, Jordan, July 21 -- When Sen. Barack Obama left Washington last week, he was under pressure to defend what Republican critics called an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq. By Monday, the White House and rival Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign were at pains to explain why the Iraqi prime minister had seemingly all but endorsed Obama's relatively rapid timeline for getting out.

Obama has certainly not won the argument over Iraq policy. Far from it. His proposal to withdraw U.S. combat forces over a 16-month period still faces serious questions, including from some of the commanders who might be asked to implement it if he is elected.



But the curious turn of events made for an unexpected opening act for the Democrat's week-long tour of seven countries, demonstrating anew the combination of agility and good fortune that has marked his campaign.

Whether Obama can count on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the days ahead is another matter. The Iraqi government does not speak with one voice on this matter, and it is not yet clear how current negotiations with the administration will conclude and how much emphasis will be placed on making a withdrawal timetable or "time horizon" conditions-based.

Beyond that, Obama's opposition to the troop "surge" that has helped quell violence and U.S. casualties -- and that McCain vociferously supported -- leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment. McCain's advisers were quick to suggest Monday that it was only because of the success of the increase that Obama can project the drawdown of troops over a 16-month period.

But as political theater, the events of the past few days have played unfailingly in the Democrat's favor. On Friday, a day after Obama left for Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush administration officials announced that the United States and Iraq had agreed on a time horizon for removing troops. Then, twice in three days, Maliki embraced a withdrawal timeline similar to Obama's. Beyond that, McCain shifted ground to declare that he, too, favors sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan...." WaPo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 12:17 AM

Al Malaki & Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:15 AM

Smart moves by Obama. Looks to me like he is not nearly as "inexperienced" as his opponents are claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:19 AM

Except Obama didn't have anything to do with it. Anyone who's been watching this unfold has to wonder what al-Maliki's game is.

                         All of it reminds me of how the Ayotollah Khomeini helped get Ronald Reagan elected in 1980.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 10:14 AM

Obviously, RIg, he had something to do with the story written about him. As to why the Maliki government decided to make thieir support of the Obama phasing public while he was in country, who knows?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:04 PM

What evil lurks in the hearts of men? al-Maliki knows...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:17 PM

It was smart on Obama's part. He knew which way the wind was blowing. Al Malaki has talked about timelines for a month and McCain and the administration has been saying that he was "mistranslated" and that he did not want timelines. Obama brought al Makali enough press attention so that al Malaki could get his message to the American people without distortion from the administration and the McCain campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:07 PM

"An independent conservative group went on the air with a new advertisement on Monday to be followed by a full-length documentary film that tries to portray Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as an overhyped media darling.


The 30-second spot features a mix of conservative voices, including J. Kenneth Blackwell, OhioÕs former secretary of state; the Rev. Joe Watkins, a Republican strategist; and the commentators Tucker Carlson and Dick Morris. They accuse the news media of harboring a pro-Obama bias, or as Mr. Carlson puts it: ÒThe press loves Obama. I mean not just love, but sort of like an early teenage crush.Ó

The commercial is a prelude to the film, ÒHype: The Obama Effect,Ó which Citizens United plans to release in early September. According to the filmÕs Web site, it will ask Ñ and purport to answer Ñ a few questions about Mr. Obama, including whether he is Òthe uniter the country begs for, or a liberal divider.Ó

Will Holley, a spokesman for the group, said the film would be released in theaters in select markets across the country and offered for sale on DVD.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on the film.

Independent groups like Citizens United are increasingly inserting themselves into the contest between Mr. Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. Another advocacy organization, Let Freedom Ring, plans to begin broadcasting a commercial on Tuesday accusing Mr. Obama of being a flip-flopper. The group, Vets for Freedom, is spending $1.5 million on an advertising and grass-roots effort trumpeting what they say is the success of the troop buildup in Iraq....".

---

Here they come -- the hard-over defamers and slime-merchants of the far right.

They will obscure, alter and twist anything they can in order to do what they think of as "winning", and in doing so they will directly poison the minds of anyone they can reach, who does not have the will to think clearly for themselves. In doing so they will also make toxic the wellspring of democracy by producing ill-informed citizens. This kind of production always strikes me as something akin to selling cigarettes to pre-teens in third world countries. It is morally disgusting even when legally defensible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:26 PM

WÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ

HÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ

2400!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:43 PM

How'd you do that, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

Like Obama, Rigs.. Timing is everything...

Right, Jack???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:05 AM

Washington Post:

Mr. Obama in Iraq

Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A14

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:12 AM

Washington Post

Behind Maliki's Games
By Max Boot
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A15

There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.

A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.

Giving the Iraqi prime minister an added motive to posture about troop withdrawals, even while he explicitly eschews binding timelines, is that he is engaged in contentious status-of-forces negotiations with the United States. He may figure that threatening to boot us out gives him more leverage over our troops. Beyond the negotiations, there is the imperative of Iraq's provincial elections, supposed to take place this year. Maliki no doubt expects that his Dawa party will reap political benefits from appearing to stand up to the Americans.

This is part of a pattern for Maliki, who, though he won office and has stayed alive (literally and politically) with American support, has hardly been an unwavering friend of the United States -- at least in public. Although he was an opponent of the Saddam Hussein regime, he was not a proponent of the U.S.-led invasion. Having spent long years of exile in Syria and Iran, he has had to overcome deeply ingrained suspicions of the United States.

Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave.

In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."

In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."

President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as "lukewarm."

In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.

Even now, when the success of the surge is undeniable, Maliki won't give U.S. troops their due. In the famous interview with Der Spiegel last weekend, he was asked why Iraq has become more peaceful. He mentioned "many factors," including "the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve," "the progress being made by our security forces," "the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias," and "the economic recovery." No mention of the surge.

To his credit, although he has postured as a fierce nationalist in public, Maliki has often accommodated American concerns in private. And, despite saying that Iraq doesn't need many U.S. troops, he has acquiesced to their presence.

But Maliki's public utterances do not provide a reliable guide as to when it will be safe to pull out U.S. troops. Better to listen to the military professionals. The Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.

What would happen if we were to pull out much faster, on a 16-month timetable? Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, says that would be "very dangerous" -- the same words used by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Of course, if the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we will have to leave. But, the prime minister's ambiguous comments notwithstanding, the Iraqi government is saying no such thing, because most Iraqis realize that the gains of the surge are fragile and could be undone by a too-rapid departure of U.S. forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:17 AM

Washington Post:

From Berlin to Baghdad
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A15

The city is in dire straits -- its economy shattered, its citizens desperately hungry. Random violence is rising, electricity is sporadic. Three years after the invasion, hope for a brief occupation has faded. The mission is to build democracy from the ruins of dictatorship, but sober analysts question whether a flaw in the national character makes freedom unattainable.

This is not Baghdad 2008 but Berlin 1948, which makes the reunified German capital a particularly fitting venue for Barack Obama's speech tomorrow. The lush Tiergarten where Obama will speak was then a wasteland where Berliners struggled to grow vegetables in the shadow of the bombed-out Reichstag.

Sixty years ago this month, Berlin stood on the pivot point of history. The Soviet Union choked off food and fuel for the western sector of the divided city. The United States launched an improbable mission to supply it by air.

And a Utah farm boy named Hal Halvorsen, flying C-54 Skymasters in the relentless shuttle, made an impulsive promise to the scrawny children gathered behind the barbed wire fence at Berlin's Tempelhof airport: He would drop some candy for them. Operation "Little Vittles" eventually delivered tons of chocolate, attached to tiny parachutes fashioned from handkerchiefs.

The story of the Berlin Airlift and Halvorsen's mission is told in "The Candy Bombers," a new book by Democratic strategist Andrei Cherny. If the plural of anecdotes is not data, the stacking of historical analogies is not sound policy. Yet, as Cherny writes, "Their story has powerful resonance for our own time. In confronting the Berlin blockade, America went to battle against a destructive ideology that threatened free people around the world. In a country we invaded and occupied that had never had a stable democracy, we brought freedom and turned their people's hatred of America into love for this country, its people, and its ideals."

The lessons of the Berlin Airlift are anything but simple, which is what makes it such a useful historical moment. Cherny's book is something of a Rorschach test on Iraq: The message readers receive may depend on the mindset with which they arrived.

Thus, Obama can rightly point to the airlift as evidence that maintaining America's moral voice is an essential component of its foreign policy. The United States stands to gain as much from a modern-day Candy Bomber as it risks losing from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Those who doubt the capacity of government, in the aftermath of Katrina, to mobilize quickly and implement deftly can take heart from the example of organizational whiz Bill Tunner, who turned a slapdash operation incapable of supplying Berlin into a precision drill that kept the beleaguered city going through a long winter.

Harry Truman's steadfastness in the face of contrary advisers -- some argued for yielding Berlin to the Soviets, others advocated a collision course on the ground -- demonstrated how a determined president, having unleashed the atomic bomb, could then find the narrow path between foolish appeasement and full-scale war. Obama can safely argue that Truman's restrained course was wiser than George W. Bush's rush to war.

But there are lessons from the airlift that should be more unsettling for those, like Obama, who want to be done with Iraq. The impulse of many Americans then, just as now, was to be finished with the entire project. " 'Get Germany off the American taxpayer's back' was the call of conservatives in Congress," Cherny writes.

An occupation that looked irretrievably lost by spring 1948 turned paradoxically into success as the blockade continued. Berliners' misery deepened, but so, too, did their faith in America and democracy. Berliners who had told pollsters since the war's end that they would choose "economic security" over "freedom" changed their attitudes in the face of American kindnesses.

At home, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concerned about strains on the military, pressed to halt the airlift. So did the CIA, whose analysts, Cherny notes, "concluded that the United States was now worse off than if the airlift had never been attempted." Truman overruled them all. "We'll stay in Berlin -- come what may," he wrote in his diary in July 1948.

Sixty years later, as Obama arrives in a prosperous, thriving Berlin, it is fair to wonder whether the Cold War might have unfolded differently had Truman decided not to draw the line there against Soviet aggression.

The allure of quick and definite withdrawal from Iraq is evident. The reward of careful perseverance may become visible only in the long arc of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:18 AM

I don't see the points of these large cut and pastes. Posted without comment and no new information.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:27 AM

I don't see the point of your post, without comment of the Nation article link. The Post articles go away after a week or so, hence I post them. It seems to me that the point made are comment enough- they are the "popular View" that Amos loves to see presented ( against Bush, at least)

My commnet is- Obama is a politician with both strong and weak points, and the effort to gloss over his weaknesses will only make him a weaker candidate in the long run.

So, PLEASE, keep it up.

Back in January I felt that this election was the Democrats to lose- Now I see a real chance for a Republican victory, as the presentation of Obama shows it's feet of clay to the voters in the middle, who will decide this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:03 AM

We can read the The Post or the Nation if we want to, we know where to find the magazines on line. If you want to make a particular point, you can make it without the Post or the Nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:40 AM

Jack,

Try reading my post:

"The Post articles go away after a week or so, hence I post them."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:49 AM

sorry, that was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:05 AM

I peruse photos perhaps more than you read articles. The Maliki smile factor is both amusing and revealing. His photo ops with W when contrated with photo ops with Barack are both amusing and revealing. When Maliki is with Bush he smiles the smile of an elevator passenger when someone has farted or he appears deadpan.
With Obama the Maliki smile is like that of a child's first bicycle with a big red ribbon on the handle bars.

Now for the geometry of change. Barack views change on a timeline. A 2 dimensional line that goes from point A to point B that is still subject to 3D forces.

Bush geometry is much more poetic. Picture a father and son looking out onto a beautiful sunset. "Son, the horizon is usually 26 miles away but you can walk all day and it will still be as distant as it is now." "Gee dad, so when I promise a firm time horizon for the withdrawl from Iraq, it will always be far away?"

"Thats my boy".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:10 AM

It sounds like al-Maliki figures he'll be able to run a scam on Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:22 AM

Bruce:

Please stop implying that I am responsible for your choices.

I am not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM

Amos,

My choices are my own- but I use the precedent that you have established when I decide what might be of interest to those here.





Note to ALL: Amos is NOT responsible for the choices that I make- but you can blame him for the tone established in "popular" threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:15 AM

You can't blame him for the tone on Chongo's "popular" thread...although he does keep trying to derail the process with ludicrous assertions about Chongo's nonexistent sister, "Chinga".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

Well, one thing can be said for Obama's "fact finding" trip and that is that it has been good for Obama and bad for McCain...

McCain is starting to look like a winer... First he complains that Obama hasn't been to Iraq recently and then Obama goes to Iraq and then McCain complains that Obama went to Iraq??? What's that all about... What, McCain didn't think the press would be in Iraq to take pictures of Obama??? The press was in Iraq when McCain went there and took pictures of McCain??? We didn't hear McCain complainining about that, did we???

Tell ya what folks... All Obama needs to do to win the election in NOvember is just sit back and listen to McCain try to wine his way into the White House...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:31 AM

"starting to look like a winer"

Naw...he looks more like a beer and whisky guy to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM

Well, pal, if you don't like the tone of the "Popular Views" threads, and think they are so damn blameworthy, why are you emulating them and blaming it on me?

Slumming?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 03:59 PM

I did read your Post Bruce.

We can read the Post for ourselves. We don't need you pasting it here in bulk. In a discussion you need to present your own opinion, or at least when you present the opinions of others do so concisely and say why it is important. Thats what amos does. You can do it to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:42 PM

Well, I for one don't mind the op-ed's being posted in their entirety but it would be nice to read folks other than the usual cast of bb's writers... We know who they are and better thabn that we know that they are deeply partisan... That's what I like about E,J Dionne and Eugene Robinson... They might be progressive but they aren't partisan...

Klodhopper is the worst of them... If George W. told Charles to stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger the Klod-ster would do it without any thought... Novak and Gerson aren't far behind...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM

>>If George W. told Charles to stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger the Klod-ster would do it without any thought... Novak and Gerson aren't far behind.<<

Bobert,

If George Bush asked them to do it, I think a lot of people would stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:51 PM

Berliners Jam Park to Hear, Touch Obama in Concert Atmosphere

By Patrick Donahue

July 24 (Bloomberg) -- Berlin's city center took on the atmosphere of a rock concert as more than 200,000 people jammed the German capital's Tiergarten park to hear U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Spectators chanted ``yes we can,'' Obama's catchphrase, as the 46-year-old senator stressed the shared ``burdens of global citizenship'' that bind the U.S. and Europe. Beer and sausage vendors lining the park provided refreshments.

``He's extremely charismatic -- I've never seen anybody like this,'' said Wolfgang Zuchowsky, a 73-year-old retired police officer from Berlin. ``It's much better than what we've seen from the American style in the last few years, quite a bit more intellectual than the current president.''

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 06:17 PM

"quite a bit more intellectual than the current president"

Now, there's understatement. (grin) I figured the Germans would love Obama, and so will all the other Europeans.

Obama has a historic opportunity in front of him, because he can generate massive goodwill in the world just by his personal style and presentation, just by who he is. With that goodwill he can do a lot, if he plays his cards right. This could get very interesting indeed. He could usher in a whole new period in international relations if he is wise enough and adept enough to do so...and if the rest of the American system allows him to.

McCain can't do it. No chance. Obama can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:06 PM

If you have not heard the Berlin speech, I recommend you take the time to hear it.

The text is here.


The video of the speech follows a dumb ad here on MSNBC.

They are crazy for this man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:41 PM

As I write I am listening to Obama present a new face for America to his listeners in Europe.

He is demonstrating the most impeccable statesmanship and the spirit of leadership that has come out of an American leader in decades.

And his audience knows that is what they are hearing. He is offering challenges and bright goals, inspiration, responsibility and lucid reasoing.

In this he is showing himself to be ten times the man that George Bush ever was, and twice the man John McCain is.

And that is the way it is, in Berlin on Thursday, July 24, 2008.

Good night, Laura, wherever you are.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:45 PM

I saw snippets this morning of his "tearing down the walls" speech. This is nothing new, we've all heard this kind of rhetoric before, but his presentation of it is so powerful it just about bring tears to the eyes.

I do hope the majority of Americans do not let this chance slip by.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:30 PM

Probabaly the sad part of it is, Obama makes a great first impression. The second time you see him, you begin to tire of the repetition. By the third of fourth time you see him, you're ready for the next act.
                  The problem here is, the German people will only see him once, then he is scheduled to come back and run for the presidency. If he loses, the German's will think there's something wrong with the American people.
                  If he wins, they will see him over and over, after which they will wonder, "what's wrong with the American people?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:35 PM

"What's wrong with the American people?"

Well, that's a rather complex question...

But the real question is, "What's wrong with the American system?"


A man who "makes a good impression" can be a very valuable asset for a nation, because such impressions can inspire people, and inspired people can accomplish a great deal. It's one of the most important keys to effective leadership. It's not the only one, but it helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:10 PM

Rig:

You perhaps can forgive him for repeating his platform, given that he is in the middle of a campaign, and that they are the most critical issues.

I see no reason to project that he will grow tiresome in office, as he has demonstrated repeatedly an innate capacity for reasoning about situations newly, absorbing new data, and being energetically curoious about situations. Quite the reverse of his slothful predecessor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:18 PM

Yeah but who would you rather have a barbeque with?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 11:16 PM

"...as he has demonstrated repeatedly an innate capacity for reasoning about situations newly,..."


                     All I can say is, you've been watching a totally different Obama than I have.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 11:24 PM

He's been watching through a different set of glasses, Rig. He loves Obama. You don't like Obama much at all. That colors your respective views of reality. I'm somewhere half in between the two of you, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 12:18 AM

As has been noted repeatedly, Bearded Bruce, it really is not necessary to cut and paste a whole article for fear it will 'disappear'. It is easy enough to find the columns and articles on the web. Maybe a little more work but Google finds them easily. I do it all the time, both by author and subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:27 AM

L.H.: "What is wrong with the American people?" Answer: nothing.

I think Obama is the messiah (in lower case of course). His speech in Germany was very presidential. Only problem is, he isn't president, and I seriously doubt he will be.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:49 AM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:16 AM

German reviews from der Spiegel:

'A Strong and Gutsy Message'
"The speech of a global citizen," "perfect performance," an "homage to Berlin" -- After Thursday's big Obama show at Berlin's Siegessäule, German politicians seem quite impressed by the US candidate's performance. "This will strengthen the trans-Atlantic bridge," said veteran politician Edmund Stoiber.

REUTERS

Obama's speech earned him praise from all sides of the political spectrum.
Barack Obama was greeted on Thursday night with words of praise from all sides. With his speech at Berlin's Siegesäule, or Victory Column, the Illinois senator appears to have impressed German politicians across the political spectrum.

Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit of the left-leaning Social Democrats praised Obama's speech for being strong and gutsy. "It's a sign," Wowereit said after the speech, "that US politics will take a new course, and it's an homage to Berlin."

Of the many Berlin-centered details in the speech (more...), Obama mentioned the period of the Berlin Airlift 60 years ago, when US and British airplanes delivered supplies to the city as it was besieged by the Soviets. Wowereit said that the friendship born between Germans and Americans as a result of the airlift serves as an example of how far people can come in overcoming the challenges of the world if they learn to work together.

Even Edmund Stoiber, the honorary head of Germany's Christian Social Union party -- the Bavarian sister party to the conservative Christian Democrats -- and former governor of the state of Bavaria, admitted to being impressed by the speech. "The young senator embodies what many people yearn for: charisma and leadership," Stoiber told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "But German politicians will also have trouble meeting his demand to assume more common responsibility for global problems in the world. America is relying on Germany and Europe. This strengthens the trans-Atlantic bridge."
Foreign policy experts in Germany's grand coalition government -- led by Angela Merkel and her conservative Christian Democrats and its junior parter, the center-left Social Democrats -- also praised Obama's speech.

Following the address, Eckart von Klaeden, the foreign policy spokesman for Germany 's ruling conservative Christian Democrats, described it as an "impressive speech." "It was American in the best sense of the word," Klaeden told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "With the exception of a few personal nuances, John McCain also could have given a very similar speech."

Klaeden spoke about Obama's "perfect campaign performance," saying that the speech's main message was that Europe and the US can bring the world's problems under control if they stand together. "That also entails burden-sharing and common sacrifices." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:51 AM

So, Barack Obama's long-awaited Berlin speech is in the books; here are some early returns.
"To much of the world, Bush's talk of freedom is code for messianism, arrogance and empire," says the Nation's Ari Berman. "Obama reframed the debate–and reclaimed the word–with his spectacular speech in Berlin today, when he spoke of "the dream of freedom" as something both Americans and Europeans shared and could be proud of."
"What will the reaction be at home?" asks former Hillary Clinton partisan Taylor Marsh.
"Like it or not, the Obama team has raised the bar with this speech at this setting, especially coming after a week that candidates dream about. For some checking in it could be their first impression; for others another look at a man trying to make history by grabbing a bit of the past and bringing it into the future as comparison. We'll see how it plays and if the media writes a real review or decides to get even for Obama's… er… audacity."
"The speech also endeavored to reconcile patriotism with self-criticism of America, which some Republicans are already trying to locate in his anti-war candidacy and indeed in this very trip abroad," writes Greg Sargent at TPM.
" 'I know my country has not perfected itself.' The line, again, has a hint of a plea; he's asking Europe to forgive America the sins of the Bush years, while insisting that there's nothing incompatible whatsoever between patriotic love of America and caring what the rest of the world thinks of us."
Even Jim Geraghty at National Review praises Senator Obama for his willingness to ask the Germans for more help against the Taliban: "If Barack Obama can convince the Germans to contribute more to the mission in Afghanistan, God bless him, I mean that. But today he probably had a sense of how difficult it will be to get more resources out of Germany. Chancellor Merkel, while a gracious host, emphasized that she has 'no plans to go beyond pledges made last month for the NATO-led ISAF mission.' Additionally, a poll in February showed 85 percent opposed to sending German troops to the south of Afghanistan. Germans love Obama. But will they make concessions to him?"
...(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 10:18 AM

Barack Obama...Good looking, young, sharply-dressed and articulate, he is the epitome of the Can-Do American success story.

To his credit, he is putting flesh on the bones of his claim to reach across traditional party lines.

Liberal in thought, he is nevertheless a tough guy, lecturing the black political establishment on the need to replace a culture of victimhood with one of "personal responsibility."

And in an age that has seen the "dumbing down" of politicians, Obama is almost indecently intelligent. Psychology Today highlights Obama's comment that if Iraq could not stand on its own feet in seven years, "we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years". How many people, it asks, could whip out, unrehearsed, a doubling progression like that?

Put all that together and you have Obamamania.

"People are just so stoked for what they see as a competent individual," said Mike White, a businessman in the key swing state of Ohio. "People want to have hope, people are mesmerised by someone who is this articulate, this competent."

Or, as several commentators have mentioned, someone who is "NGB" – Not George Bush, a man whose intellect seems to rival that of the late president Gerald Ford who, it was said, "could not walk and chew gum at the same time".

The irony is that Obama has borrowed much of his politics from the other side of the aisle. His "personal responsibility" mantra is the cornerstone of the Republican Party.

And McCain's Big Idea, a League of Democracies to bind the US with Europe, Australia, Brazil, India and Japan is the unofficial guiding principle of Obama's multilateralist foreign policy.

The wonder, in the US, is not that Obama has energised a population riven by self-doubt and anxiety, but that he is barely leading McCain in the polls.

Obamamania may stretch across party lines in Europe but back home, it has failed to cross the blue-red divide: The blue, Democrat states on both coasts and around Chicago love him, the Republican red states in between have been left cold.

Part of the reason is simple racism, as pervasive in some southern states as it is generally absent in the Yankee north.

And partly it is that Obama, for all his fizz, is unproven. In the primaries, the voters split between those doing well, who felt it worth taking a chance on Obama, and those up against the wall, who went for Clinton, and may vote McCain for the same reason.

Obama's one and only notable decision from his few years in politics, and the one his supporters say he can hang his hat on, is his opposition in 2003 to the invasion of Iraq. At the time his was a voice in the wilderness in a country gripped by hysteria.

We now know that Obama was right and pretty much everybody else was wrong, proof for his supporters that "judgment" really does trump "experience".

Obama's lead may only be four points, but everyone knows this election is all about him. Americans like Obama. If they decide also that they can trust him, he'll be the next president. If not, they will vote for that human default position that is smiling, doddery 71-year-old John McCain.

The full article contains 1375 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM

There are some individuals who are quite uncomfortable about Obama's enormous popularity among Europeans...

...like these guys

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

Why, DougR and Rig--y'all dint TELL us you wuz working on tellybenision!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM

Jackie says..

"What are you going to listen to someone who agrees with Obama for?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:31 PM

Because he was right about throwing Reverned Wright under the bus, he was just wrong about faith based initiatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:13 AM

PARIS Ñ Sen. Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy staged a joint news conference Friday that was more like a romantic comedy, with Sarkozy's enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidate starkly evident amid many amusing moments.

The two men see eye to eye on most pressing global problems, Obama said, reiterating points he has stressed earlier this week that Iran should freeze its nuclear program and the West must win the war in Afghanistan.

But it was the mood music more than the substantive points that was most striking.

Sarkozy called Obama "my dear" and said he'd work with any American president Ñ but "I am especially happy to be meeting with the senator."

In an effusive, rambling soliloquy, Sarkozy said twice that "the French love the Americans," and declared that "the adventure of Barack Obama, it is a story which speaks to the heart of French people and speaks to the heart of Europeans."

Perhaps sensing that he was going over the top, the French president hastened to add: "It's not up to French people to choose the next U.S. president."

A reporter nonetheless asked Sarkozy if he was endorsing Obama Ñ who half-jokingly said, "I'm going to warn my dear friend President Sarkozy to be very careful about that ... question" Ñ and Sarkozy then said: "It's the Americans who will choose their president, not me."

But he added in an implicit comparison of Obama with his rival, Republican Sen. John McCain: "Obviously, one is interested in a candidate that's looking toward the future rather than to the past."

The two leaders' joint news conference followed a private chat at the Elysee Palace. Both men emerged declaring "a great convergence of opinions," as Sarkozy put it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM

LH: "you talking to me?" If so, because more people will vote for McCain than will vote for Obama.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:25 PM

I don't think that more people will vote for McCain than Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:34 PM

We will find out at election time, Doug. No one can know that for sure now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM

I also don't think that McCain will get more votes than Obama, Dougie...

I think that Obam is gonna twist McConfused in knots in the debates and the American people will turn away from the confused candidate to the unconfused one... I'm sure that the Repubs allready understand that their man is in for a good butt whup in the debates and are prepared to say that Obama took advantage of McOld's age... Well, if Obama can do it then what the heck do you think Putin-head could do with McSenile???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM

Come on, Doug. ;-) How could you possibly know now how many people are going to vote for either McCain or Obama in November? You don't know. Nobody does. You will have to wait and see. Furthermore, how do you know if the vote count will even be honest and accurate? Someone might cheat, you know. It's not unknown for that to happen (on both sides of the Dem-Rep divide). Vote fraud is an old American tradition that goes way back. All you are doing is expressing your own wishful thinking and acting as if it was a certainty that McCain will be elected. You sound like a politican! LOL! That's what they do. You have no idea what may happen between now and November, nor does anyone else here. Either Obama or McCain can lose this election, depending on any number of unknown factors.

Doug...what will happen will happen. It may make you feel good to express a certainty that Obama can't get elected, but it won't make a particle of difference to the eventual outcome. The fate of the USA is not in your personal control. Your opinion does not sway the votes of millions.

And the same is true of the rest of us here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM

My nose says three gets you five your wrong, Dougie-ro.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:40 PM

Obama is a elitist, arrogant, asshole, that acts like he is already president as if he is entitled.

Another ass kissing populist politician who says whatever he thinks he needs to say, according to his 400 advisers and handlers, to get elected.

If this jerk gets elected, people will be so fed up with him that Hillary will be a shoo-in for '12.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:58 PM

don't hold back, Sawzaw, ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

If you act confident and certain of yourself, you're accused of being "arrogant" and "an elitist".

If you don't, however, you're accused of being "a wimp" and "a loser". You are said to be "too weak" to make a good president.

It's just impossible to please some people. ;-) It wouldn't matter what you did.

Pierre Trudeau (former prime minister of Canada from period of late 60s through early 80s)) acted confident and certain. He acted downright cocky, as a matter of fact. He was definitely a member of the elite, and he made no bones about it. People either loved him or hated him for it, but he got elected several times and he remains Canada's most famous Prime Minister.

Sort of like Batman. ;-) He has his detractors too. If you do really well at anything, certain people will hate you for it...specially in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

Sawzaw:

He's acting like a candidate, not a president, and says so. and there is nothing arrogant or elitist about him. You have been putting your ear up against the sewer outlet.

I would like you to detail specific acts you think he has done, or things he has said, that constitute elitism or arrogance.

Put yourself in his shoes, and you'll notice he;s doing a pretty good job of the job he's doing.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:42 PM

Is Obama an Elitist?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:53 PM

If he does well in his job. They might carve his face in a mountain. We need to elect the intellectual elite. The past seven years is what you get by electing Joe six pack.

Obama deserves to be arrogant and this trip was his answer to a dare by John McCain. Is it Obama's fault that he did ten times better than McCain did on his trip? Its McCain's fault!

Like Stewart said we need to elect someone who is embarrassingly smarter than us.

Since the little alien with the big brain from Star Trek, was not born in the US, our next best choice is Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 10:17 AM

"'If you act confident and certain of yourself, you're accused of being "arrogant" and "an elitist".'


                Maybe, but I think Obama's arrogance goes way beyond that. He's like what Jesse Jackson says: he talks down to people.
                He acts like there is only one solution to any problem, and only he has it, and there's no room for debate.
                Speaking of that, he was like that in the debates with the other Democrats as well.

                With an attitude like that, he will never win over working class voters, I don't think, so he shouldn't waste his time with them and look for votes other places.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

Obama is saying that his "one solution" is to look at all the options, and to choose the best one.

That is the right approach. It is way better than McCain and Bush who get lobbiest and oil companies to write their policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:10 PM

I am amazed ast these accusations of arrogance which are being drummed up.

You are characterizing how "he acts" with some opinion, which does not relate to any event or fact. What, specifically, has he said that you felt was arrogant? Because I have seen him trying to reason, or trying to rebut counter arguments, or dispel false rumors, and I have seen him talking with peple of every stripe, and I just haven't seen this alleged attitude you keep projecting on him. So I wonder either what I am missing or what you are inventing and postulating.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

I think, Rig, that the perfect candidate for the working class voters you are referring to might be Sylvester Stallone...he'll never talk down to them! ;-) Arnold Schwarzenneger would also be great, only he was born in Austria (sigh)...that is a danged shame, eh? He would make the ultimate Republican presidential candidate.

The anti-intellectual streak that runs deeply through American society is a peculiar phenomenon. I think it has something to do with the frontier heritage. That and almost a hundred years of westerns and dumb action movies.

You know, Jesse Jackson has always really annoyed me. Why? He's got a really BIG mouth and he panders to people's lower instincts with his emotional dramatics all the time. No wonder he wants to "cut Obama's balls off"...that tells you what you need to know about Jesse Jackson right there. No chance of Jesse Jackson being mistaken for an intellectual, right? No chance of Jesse Jackson being mistaken for a person who can think outside of the narrow definition of his own racial heritage.

If working class people feel safer with a primitive like that than they do with someone who has a bit more class and who doesn't deliberately dumb down the dialogue to appear like "just plain folks"...as so many politicians do...well, then working class people have consented unwittingly to their own enslavement by hucksters like Jesse Jackson, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. A lot of those guys talk a lot "dumber" than they really are (Bush being a possible exception). You know why? They figure it will get them votes.

That is just sad.

Obama doesn't do that. He doesn't pander to a pre-calculated "working class" style of lingo just to get votes from people who fear intellectuals or anyone who is different from themselves. He doesn't engage in the sort of crass, imitative supposedly "Black" histrionics of a Jesse Jackson. He talks like an educated man who is of no particular race whatsoever. That's refreshing to me.

What he does do, though, that concerns me is he talks mostly in very broad generalities that sound good...but it's hard to figure out the specifics from what he says. This worries me some. It doesn't worry me anthing like McCain does.... (grin) But it worries me some.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:50 PM

"Obama doesn't do that. He doesn't pander to a pre-calculated "working class" style of lingo just to get votes from people who fear intellectuals..."


             Obama is one of the most pandering people I've ever seen in public life, but he panders to people who would like to consider themselves to be intellectuals, but don't really have the brain wattage. That's why they hang together in all-knowing groups and go through so many gyrations to prevent themselves from being outed.


                   Personally, I'm still trying to get Jesse Ventura to enter the race, and of course, he's independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 09:11 PM

I'd like to see Jesse Ventura in there too. With Bob Barr, he'll draw off the rest of the "know-it-all/jackass" vote from McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 10:00 PM

Rig:

I notice you still don't have any examples or particulars for your highly judgemental dismissal.

Shame. It might lend substance your argument.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 10:36 PM

I suppose the problem I have is the only people I know who are still adamant about voting for Obama fit the description. The problem is, only a small circle of people know the people I know who are taking that position, so to name them wouldn't really get us anywhere.

                   One could put the network news anchors in that slot, but that doesn't really do the anchors justice either. If we knew some network news anchor wannabe's, they would fit, but I don't know any.

                   At the end of it all, I don't really relish the idea of becoming an advocate for McCain, but the alternative is so distasteful...?

                  I'll just have to mention that I think McCain taking a position in favor of the anit-affirmative action petition in Arizona will get him a lot of votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:22 AM

I'd love to see Jesse Ventura in the race. He is a genuine independent and I'm all for that.

But, Rig, all successful politicians pander to people. That's how they get enough votes to win. McCain (and the Republicans generally) pander to people through emotional appeals to people's jingoistic patriotism and their fears, for example. That makes me sick, because the USA is already awash in jingoistic patriotism and fear, it's what the USA has built itself on, and that's partly what makes the USA so dangerous to other nations.

Obama panders to people who like a much more intellectual and positive sounding approach. A much more international sounding approach. Well, fine. Great. ;-) I'd rather be pandered to that way than be pandered to by anti-intellectual chest-pounding and the politics of fear.

I'd rather vote for a guy who sounds intellectual and positive than a guy who sounds like Joe Blow over at the bar on Friday night raving about how tough he is and how the other guy is "a pussy".

Perhaps I am in a minority (among Americans) when it comes to that? Well...I don't mind. I'm Canadian anyway. Being seen as an intellectual is not a detriment when you are running for office in Canada...or Europe...it's an asset. Being seen as an internationalist is an asset. That may be why Canadians and Europeans are massively in favor of Obama over John McCain. We are not impressed by plain-talkin' tough-guy "war heroes" (who simply got captured by someone and held prisoner), we are impressed by well spoken people who can string a series of reasonably complex sentences together and express a reasonably complex idea...and who can SEE shades of gray instead of insisting that everything be either black or white.

Fanatics see everything in black or white. Fanatics don't want to talk about differences with another nation like Iran, they want to fight. They don't want to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution, they want unconditional surrender. I don't vote for fanatics. They're dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:49 AM

LH

McCain was a much better man and a much better candidate 8 years ago when Rove's dirty tricks stole the nomination from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:31 AM

Yes, that could be, Jack. Either he's gotten too old and brittle...or the party system itself has compromised him badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 07:36 AM

Hmmmm, not much light here, but I'm certainly learning a lot about the biases of the men of Mudcat! LOL!

The working class masses want to vote for Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Really?

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:28 AM

Well...I don't mind. I'm Canadian anyway

Never have you said so much in so few words, my friend.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:07 AM

So good luck to Barack Obama. If he is chosen, then France will be delighted. And if it's somebody else, then France will be the friend of the United States of America."

If that's not an Obama endorsement from the Élysée Palace, I don't know what is. Fair enough: the world has shrunk.

Obama, all silky brilliance, merited the endorsement. He dissected the caricatures that have undermined U.S.-European relations (Europe's militaristic America, and America's won't-get-their-hands-dirty Europeans). He noted Sarkozy's merit in shattering "many of these stereotypes."

He offered a succinct summary of how to wield American might: "An effective U.S. foreign policy will be based on our ability not only to project power, but also to listen and to build consensus."

On specifics, he aced every item, identifying a nascent peace quest between Israel and Syria as a potential "game changer" that has received insufficient U.S. attention; calling for a "steady and prudent" troop withdrawal from Iraq in the light of improved security; pairing two additional U.S. brigades in Afghanistan with a call for greater commitment there from NATO allies "not restrained in terms of their rules of engagement;" and warning Iran not to wait for the next president to stop its "illicit nuclear program" because pressure "is only going to build."

This was a winning performance. .."

---

(NYT Op-Ed)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:02 AM

Any body that does not agree with Amos is wrong. They are this type or that type. They draw their conclusions for a sewer outlet while he gets his intelligence all predigested from RSS feeds and the like, thereby avoiding any thought processes.

"Amos is obviously the smartest man in the world. So smart he does not even have to think anymore.

He just gleefully reposts his "News articles" and bashes anybody that disagrees.

By the way Amos, Where was McCain's last Op Ed in the NYT? The NYT is not one of those sewer outlets is it?

"When a writer for the New York Times questions his own paper for refusing to publish an editorial by John McCain, and a former Clinton press secretary questions the "balance" of the coverage of Obama's foreign tour, you know the media has reached a bias tilting point.

On Tuesday night's "Hardball," Times political writer John Harwood said of the Times decision to spike a McCain editorial: "I was surprised that they did not take it, especially having just run Barack Obama."

And former Bill Clinton press secretary, Dee Dee Myers, called the press coverage of Obama overseas, "extraordinary" and admitted: "It's a legitimate question. Is the press coverage between the two candidates balanced?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:12 AM

McCain submitted an OpEd to the Times, Swz, but the editor rejected it for explicit reasons which he gave at the time. Sound editorial reasons. Namely, the op-ed piece said nothing new or original, and gave no new positions, or ideas.

The NYT is not a blog. They publish against standards of newsworthiness, which McCain's piece did not meet. He could get one published in the NYT tomorrow if he sent one in that did meet that standard.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:24 AM

Sawz:

What I asked for was specifics instead of blind opinionation about his arrogance and so on. It is cheap and easy to throw arouond huge adjectives--I'm an expert at it!--buit it does not support a reasoned comparison of viewpoints.

I listened,for example to the Berlin speech and found it was a fine example of statesmanship, addressing common roots and common cause witht he people of Europe and giving them hope for a rational, dynamic mutual commitment with America for a better future. This is so different than Mister Bush's classic approach that it musthave come as a great refreshing change tot he Europeans. He wa snot being arrogant --and this is evident in the response he got. The Germans know when they are being spoken down to, I'm sure. Buty they also knwo when someone is speaking coherently and intelligently and with an appreciation ofhistory. Perhaps this is what strikes you as arrogant? To his audience, it seemed to qualify him all the more to speak to them.

All this emotional arm-waving couched in spiteful generalizations does not make us understand each other any better. I woudl like to know specifically on what you base your accusations of arrogance, if there are specifics. Because I dn't see what you keep pointing at.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:51 AM

That answers the question once and for all.

Amos rules folks.

He did not have to ponder the question at all. He knew the answer immediately, instinctively, just like built in reflex reaction when you do something automatically without thinking about it.

He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what the NYT would do if Mac sent another one tomorrow.

I assume that Amos, knowing everything, knows exactly what was in that McCain op-ed and can confidently and professionally say it was not "newsworthy". He would never rely solely on what a newspaper with a declining circulation would say in it's own defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:03 PM

Oh, BS, Sawz. The whole issue was discussed thoroughly on the NYT's pages, including the editor's reasoning, and I am simply reporting what they said.

Dear Gawd, what a lot of sarcasm!!

Maybe you should spend your time doing homework, instead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:15 PM

Are you endorsing the NYT statements as the truth?

Either you do or you don't know what was in Mac's piece. Either you do or you don't rely in the defensive statements of a for profit corporation.


Speaking of Op-eds, here is one from F. Castro in a totaly unbiased publication known as Granma. I am sure they publish against standards of newsworthiness and they did not send it back to the author with a list of requirements.

Castro wrote that Obama "portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country." He also offered a summarization of Obama's speech, saying: "Presidential candidate Obama's speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it."

Look, I am just reporting what was written. Don't ask me if I believe it to be true or if I can verify if it is true or not. I don't have the superior knowledge, reasoning or judgement of an Amos type.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

When the editor says that he rejected a submitted piece, and gives his reasoning for doing so, I accept it as the truth. Sure. Why not?

Do you have some reason to think it wasn't? Share the facts.

On the Cuban question, I have no opinion. I suspect Obama's speech is being seriously mischaracterized, though, on the face of it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

Sawzaw...

You quoted your own article out of context to make your dubious point. Why didn't you include the rest of Harwood's words? Because they would negate what you said? If that's the best that "Timeswatch" has on the issue, it isn't much. If it was anything other than a tempest in a teapot. it wouldn't have faded so quickly.

We know the pattern here. The Republicans and their conscienceless little minion monkeys are going to constantly throw pooh at Obama from now til November in hope that some of it will stick. Its what they did to Kerry. Its what they did to Gore. Its what they did to Clinton and Dukakis. I don't think that it will work this time. But i know that won't stop you from trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:47 PM

I suspect that Obama is about where every other US politician is on Cuba. None of them want communism and dictatorship to thrive 90 miles away.

Castro calls is "crimes" against his country. US politicians call it sanctions and point to Castro's "crimes" against his country. Could it be any more straight forward?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM

So Amos tells me I am wrong because of what he thinks or fails to think about himself. I mistrust the defensive statements of a failing corporation that pretends to be a beacon of truth. At one time the NYT criticized the Bush administration for ingoring the Iraq threat. All of that is conveniently gone from their website.

People like to say that Obama will change US relations with foreign contries while Castro claims he is using "the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country."

"Obama is about where every other US politician is on Cuba" does not jive with his "Hope and Change" mantra.

And what were Harwood's words that I omitted that defends the actions of the NYT?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:40 PM

>>And what were Harwood's words that I omitted that defends the actions of the NYT?<<

I think you ought to stop trying to read Amos mind and try reading the article you posted. its closer to your grade level.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM

It isn't the USA's business if a country 90 miles away has a different form of government. The USA has no rightful jurisdiction over the internal affairs of Cuba or any other country outside the USA.

Obama, however, is an American politician and he knows the realities, so naturally he will repeat the usual disingenuous line about Cuba in order to get himself elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM

Details missing from Obama's Social Security plan
Monday, July 28, 2008 11:05:57 PM
By CHARLES BABINGTON

Barack Obama's bid to place a new Social Security tax on very high incomes is either a bold or foolhardy plan, depending on who critiques it. But its potential impact is almost impossible to gauge because he is providing few details on basic questions such as what the tax rate might be, what types of income would be taxed and how the taxpayers' benefits would be affected.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he would work with lawmakers from both parties to resolve such matters. Voters generally applaud bipartisan cooperation, but they apparently will go to the polls this fall with only a vague notion of what Obama has in mind.

Obama made headlines June 13 when he called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, the tax is levied only on the first $102,000 of each worker's income. That covers the entire salary of most Americans.

Obama would not apply the Social Security tax to annual incomes between $102,000 and $250,000, a move meant to avoid alienating several million upper-income voters. His proposed change would apply only to those earning more than $250,000 a year, or about 3 percent of all taxpayers.

When he outlined his idea in the battleground state of Ohio, Obama said it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on "only a very small percentage of their income." He also said the Social Security program needs revamping to bolster its long-term viability.

With Obama offering few details, several news accounts suggested that his proposed tax on very high incomes would be applied just as the existing Social Security tax is levied on incomes up to $102,000.

All workers pay a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on such income. Their employers match it, for a total tax of 12.4 percent. The tax applies only to earned income, not to passive income such as dividends and interest.

In recent weeks, Obama aides have quietly indicated that the proposed tax on incomes above $250,000 might be different in key aspects. The rate probably would be about 2 percent to 4 percent, not 6.2 percent, they said. It's also possible that it would apply to more types of income, including dividends and investments.

As for benefits, the campaign has not said how the proposed tax on very high incomes would translate into new retirement income, if any, for those who pay it.

The campaign "has not put forth a specific plan" for Social Security, Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an interview.

Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, has called Social Security's funding formula "a disgrace," saying young workers will be shortchanged. But he says specific remedies must be worked out with Congress after the next president takes office. He repeatedly has said "everything is on the table," including the possibility of a Social Security tax increase.

That drew fire Monday from the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group in Washington. His comments, the group said in a letter, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

With McCain refusing to embrace or reject proposed changes to Social Security, and Obama offering a plan with few details, the issue has generated relatively little debate on the campaign trail. But any change to the massive program could have far-reaching effects.

Many Americans rely on Social Security for much or all of their retirement income. Some workers, meanwhile, do not realize how much is withheld from each paycheck for Social Security and, to a lesser degree, Medicare.

Nearly three-fourths of all workers pay more in these payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center assumes that workers pay the full 12.4 percent in Social Security taxes, contending that employers would devote their half of the total to salaries if they did not have to make the 50-50 match.

Given the dearth of details about Obama's plans, some Republicans have criticized it, using assumptions that Democrats reject. Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President Bush, argues that high earners would pay the full 12.4 percent tax rate on income above $250,000 while receiving no added benefits.

"A high-income entrepreneur would see his or her federal marginal tax rate rise to 53 percent from 37.7 percent," Lindsey wrote in a June 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed column.

The marginal tax rate is what a person pays on each additional dollar earned. Lindsey wrote that Obama's plans would provide a powerful incentive for the highest-earning Americans to work less, invest less and contribute less to the economy.

Former Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, a Republican, agreed. A person who owns two restaurants and makes $500,000 a year would have little incentive to open a third restaurant under Obama's tax plans, and might even close one, Nickles said in an interview. "He's not going to be hiring more people," Nickles said.

Obama economic adviser Jason Furman, responding to Lindsey in a letter published by The Wall Street Journal, said Obama would "work with Congress on a bipartisan basis to design the details" of his Social Security plan, "including the tax rate, how it is phased in over time, the linkage between these tax payments and benefits, and other critical design elements of this plan."

Furman wrote that Obama "has not proposed a 12.4-percentage point tax increase on earnings above $250,000."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

Seems pretty obvious tha the time for hammering out the details is when one is president, not in the media, so it may be he is saying as much as need be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:50 PM

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama turned his attention to the troubled US economy after he surged to his largest-ever lead over his Republican rival John McCain following his high-profile overseas tour.

(Press Assocn)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:21 PM

Amos:

You sure are getting tight lipped when it comes to 'splanin' things you say. Could it be that you just like to repeat things but you don't really want to discuss them in detail? Hell I know parrots that can do that. You have to be way smarter that anybody. Quit holding out on us.

What critic of the Bush administration wrote this? You do know don't you?

"I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely."

And to the Guest: What is my grade level? And please disclose yours.

Can you come up with the words you claim negates the words I "selected" or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:16 PM

What percentage of the mainstream media is in-the-tank for Barack Obama? Oh, 90 percent, McAuliffe replied.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:45 PM

Today on
Morning Joe, He went back on those words. McAuliffe also predicted that Obama would take 50 States in the general election. He also predicted that Hillary would win the nomination right up to the day she dropped out.

Is McAuliffe at all credible on this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:50 PM

>>Can you come up with the words you claim negates the words I "selected" or not?<<

Read it for yourself. Don't be so lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:53 PM

Media Bias. Hell yeah!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 10:58 PM

Obama: I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore.

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:05 PM

Any politician would be happy to get campaign funds from any source whatsoever. If it's a source he'd prefer not to be seen getting it from, then it will be camouflaged somehow. That's how the game works.

What they all want is the money. Do you think they give a hoot who it comes from? Hell, no, as long as it comes.

Now, if it is the case that Obama is getting an unusually large amount of small donations from private citizens, then the Democrats would want people to know about that...because it looks good. So they would play it up as much as they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

As long as they don't have to acknowledge that the donations are being bundled, like sub-prime mortgages.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:32 PM

Yeah, exactly.

Look, they will say anything that looks good for their cause. So will the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:33 PM

I'm not being tight-lipped, Swaz, I just don't have any data, and all I can offer is a suspicion, based on general patterns in the past, that what is being flung about is probably distorted in the usual ways--altered context, altered importance, false data, mangled sequences, innuendo and miscellaneous inaccurate associating and identifying of things properly kept distinct.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:07 AM

McAuliffe on June 3

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:46 AM

Obamamania grips Europe - the Economist

"Mr Obama's view of the world is no sunnier than George Bush's: it is equally menaced by terrorists and weapons of mass destruction and genocide and more so by global warming. But Mr Obama promises—in fact demands—a more co-operative approach to solving such problems. New walls threaten to divide religions, tribes and classes. The answer, he said, attempting to sound like Kennedy and Reagan rolled into one, is to tear them down."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:35 AM

If you're trying to roll Kennedy and Reagan into one, you've got your work cut out for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:37 AM

From a foreign policy point of view, the only real difference was that Kennedy was more bold.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:23 AM

Washington Post:

Obama the Unknown
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, July 29, 2008; Page A17

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position -- virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once that position or person becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)

All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their minds. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: pandering. McCain knows how it's done.

But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. The comparison makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.

The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:25 AM

and

Obama's Files and McCain's Smiles
Dear Stumped:

Why is the media unwilling to vet Obama as they would any other candidate? Isn't it bizarre that Obama gets almost no legitimate criticism from the major news sources (including The Post)? I'm a devoted Democrat who will certainly vote for Obama, and even I wonder what happened to the media's backbone.

Liz

Dear Liz,

I disagree with you. Barack Obama's candidacy took a big hit when the media zeroed in on his church and its controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's supporters felt the focus on Wright, and the guilt by association, was overblown. It wasn't -- it was part of the proper vetting of a lesser-known presidential candidate that you suggest has been missing.

Plenty of news articles and editorials, including some in this newspaper, have also raised legitimate questions about Obama's approach to Iraq, especially whether the candidate is willing to adjust his preconceived campaign-trail assessment of the war (and time horizons for an exit) to the realities on the ground over there.

And even with all its excessive hype, the media coverage of Obama's recent globe-trotting amounted to needed vetting. Obama touched down in seven countries without a faux pas, so the coverage was largely positive. It must be said that the potential downsides of the trip were always a bit overstated by the media and Obama's own clever spin masters. But you can be sure all those reporters traveling with him were hoping for a "gotcha" moment that would reveal the young senator's supposed naivete. It didn't happen. Obama didn't confuse Shiites with Sunnis in Iraq (as John McCain sometimes does), nor was he lectured by foreign leaders about his failure to understand the complexities of the world. On the contrary, every foreign leader -- including Iraq's -- appeared willing and eager to work with the man in coming years, which is what made the trip such a glaring success.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:43 AM

"Basically, since John McCain has been alive a lot longer than Obama, if you focus only on the positive actions of both men but refuse to count any of Obama's positive actions then McCain comes off looking much better than Obama. Consequently, to Cohen Obama is a bit of a sketchy unknown figure:

I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.
Now in an ideal world candidates for office might release statements, speeches, documents, etc. about their policy ideas. People could scrutinize these ideas. Most people, of course, might be too busy to plow into detail. But a professional newspaper columnist, at least, would be able to sit down and really dig into what Obama is proposing to do on taxes versus what McCain is proposing to do. You could look into their plans for health care and for the environment. All sorts of things like that. And then even a guy with a relatively brief record in federal office wouldn't appear to be such a blank slate. So it's really too bad nobody does that. You would think that with the dawn of the internet candidates could at least put something up on their website under an "issues" tab or something.

Oh well...."

Comments on this column from others:

"
So, if Cohen doesn't know anything, it means there's nothing there?

Funny, I just thought that would mean that dumbass would lose his job. I mean, if he doesn't know anything, what the fuck good can he be?

On Scarborough this morning, Cohen said Obama had been in the Senate "one year."
.


Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM



In any sane nation Cohen would be torn limb from limb by an angry mob. The fact that that animal can safely walk the streets without fear of just retribution for his many crimes is one of the saddest facts about our current desperate situation.


Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 10:16 AM



Heck, Cohen could look at Obama's Wikipedia entry.

But of course Cohen is just being a di*k.


Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 10:18 AM



Maybe Cohen's been hanging out with Fred Hiatt again. Maybe Hiatt awards bonuses based on number of pro-McCain, anti-Obama columns, with bonus points for arguing in the dumbest possible way.


Posted by bob | July 29, 2008 10:20 AM
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:04 PM

"From a foreign policy point of view, the only real difference was that Kennedy was more bold."



                        From any point of view, the major difference was that Reagan was a lot dumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:25 PM

"then it will be camouflaged somehow. That's how the game works."

So it is not "Change and Hope" But the same political bullshit as always.

Amos: "I just don't have any data, and all I can offer is a suspicion"

Could it be that you don't really know what you are talking about but you keep telling us you know this is right and that is wrong? We are wrong but you are right based on things you know nothing about?

Come now my good man, where is your credibility?

You are indeed intelligent when you can know facts with out knowing the facts.

I guess that goes along with AJ's "summary justice" manifesto. Fuck the facts, we know he is guilty based on "suspicion, based on general patterns in the past"

Hang'em first and have the trial later.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:28 PM

Fred Hiatt quote sic
"Technically Bush never lied about the Iraq war."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:39 PM

Sawz:

Oh, eff off, you cheap-shot scatterbrain.

I was speaking about one specific thing I have insifficient data on to comment about. You are so dedicated to smear and snarking snipery of the lowest sort that you have to puff smoke about it? Get off it and speak like a man, or buzz off and don't bother speaking to me at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

Amos:

Can't you answer questions like a man?

Obama: "after eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions."

Why not include the eight years before that? And the eight years before that? In fact, the disastrous policies go back to the beloved JFK so why single out the most recent four years unless it is for typical, business as usual, political gain.

There was a temporary easing of CA relationships when Bubba smoked genuine Cubans, with various flavorings, on the oval office. It was referred to as not "supporting their economy, but as burning their crops"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 01:44 PM

Amos,

Attacking the person making a comment rather than attacking the commnet is what you usually blame the Bush Administration and/or neo-cons for. Why do you keep doing it, when your own sacred "Obama" is criticised ( and mildly, compared to the vitriol that you present against those you disagree with)?


Ease up, admit he has *some* flaws (besides being perfect), and let us see that they are just enough to make hime human- THEN you might increase the support that he gets in the election!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:49 PM

If you are seeking someone with NO flaws to run for president....it's gonna have to be...ummm...let's see...who is that perfect?

William Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:54 PM

I can answer any question you care to pose, Sawz. If iI don't know, my answer is "I don't know", and I expect you should have no problem with that. So what question is it you are ragging me for?

Because I haven't seen a coherent question posed by you.

When I do, if it is not redundant, I will answer it.

Meanwhile, try reading the label on the bottom of your boots.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

Mine say "made for walking".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:20 PM

Bruce:

I am not attacking the person; I am attacking the whinging carping illogic of his communications, and asking for clear and simple statements or questions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM

Yes, Obama seems to be losing his steam. One poll has McCain ahead for the very first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:59 PM

Ignore it Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:21 PM

I am delighted to hear you say it, Riginslinger; all the more surprise when you discover how steam is made, a secret Obama knows and won't hare with McCain, who wotteth it not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:41 PM

Why won't he hare it with McCain?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:33 PM

I don't have to prove it. Its right there in the link you posted. I'm not going to read it for you. If you had read the whole linked page, you wouldn't be asking. READ IT YOURSELF!

You are flinging all of this half baked crap at the walls hoping that someone with bite. I'm not going to bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:40 AM

Jack:

You have not proven Jack. You are flinging the crap. If I am wrong prove it. I did not see anything to negates what I quoted. If you saw something, show it and explain how it negates.

Here is more for you to task me on:

Columbia Journallisim review
The tortured reasoning behind the Times' rejection of McCain's op-ed
By Lester Feder Tue 22 Jul 2008 05:01 PM

"McCain partisans have decried the Times's decision—and, if you read the two columns side by side, Shipley's justification does seem rather thin. The similarities between Shipley's words and an unsigned July 17th Times editorial denouncing McCain for not having "matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq" suggest that the rejection is an expression of its heightening exasperation with the presumptive GOP nominee—not an adherence to general principles of newsworthiness. Failing to be straightforward about this was a mistake. Instead of making a statement about its judgment of McCain's leadership—a judgment that it could defend on principle—the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:58 AM

Amos trusts the NYT "They publish against standards of newsworthiness"

However:

"Following the revelations of Blair's deceit, The Times moved to uncover how management had allowed a young reporter with what appeared to be obvious problems to rise so quickly through the paper's ranks. The Siegal committee, after a months-long investigation, found "a series of management and operation breakdowns" and "a stunning lack of communication within the newsroom." It found that Blair's quick advancement may have become favored as part of a "star system" that advanced some reporters close to then-executive editor Howell Raines. "He was given a regular tenured reporting job despite the misgivings of his immediate boss," the report said of Blair. "He was put on high-profile national assignments with his new supervising editors receiving no notice of the serious problems that had marked periods in his previous four years at the newspaper."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

The Jason Blair story is years old, Sawz, and the newspaper stood up honestly and examined its errors. What an old hack.

Conflating one crook reporter (or evens everal, as there are other similar tales you overlooked) with a 150-year old leading news organization is a bit insane, IMHO.

And, perhaps you'd also like to explain why you are so focused on these ad hominem slurs? Have you nothing to say on the substantive issues?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:20 AM

In the NYT we trust. But:

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Judith Miller NYT reporter said:

"I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years (since 1993), and have done most of the stories about him for our paper. . . . He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:56 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:02 AM

Sorry. Do over, here.

Amos, the NY Times was front and center, leading the charge of the Dim Bulb Brigade into Iraq.

Their very own Brenda Starr was at the center of Plamegate.

And that isn't even taking into account the fact they HAD to put a public omsbud forward to silence the scathing criticism and stem the bleeding in advertising revenue, in the wake of far more dastardly deeds than just hiring fake journos like Blair. There was that little flap over an editor or two if you recall?

The NY Times has zero credibility as far as I, and many others are concerned, and for very good reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:21 AM

"Conflating one crook reporter (or evens everal, as there are other similar tales you overlooked) with a 150-year old leading news organization is a bit insane..."


                  I wouldn't argue with that, but the NYT management and ownership has changed dramatically since its beginning. The story of how it came to be lost to the original owner is particularly interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:25 AM

Here Here. In my opinion, Chalabi is at the root of this WMD disaster. I fault the Clinton and Bush administration for not finding him out sooner.

Congress actually gave the bastard $4.3 million under the Iraq Liberation Act. He should be kidnapped and rendered to Jordan where he is was convicted of embezzling $70 million in 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

Obama holds bipartisan economy talks
By Edward Luce in Washington DC

Published: July 29 2008 03:00 | Last updated: July 29 2008 03:00

Barack Obama yesterday welcomed three prominent Republicans, including two former officials in the George W. Bush administration, to an "economic summit" aimed at displaying his bipartisan credentials.

The meeting, which followed Mr Obama's week-long tour of the Middle East and Europe, coincided with worsening economic news as the administration estimated that next year's budget deficit would jump to almost $500bn (£250bn).

It also came amid growing Republican concern about the sometimes confused economic message of John McCain, Mr Obama's rival for the presidency.

Mr McCain's tax and spending proposals would add an estimated $3,400bn to the US deficit over the next decade compared with an estimated $700bn deficit reduction from Mr Obama's plans, according to the Tax Policy Center, an independent think-tank.

The Obama campaign yesterday said the widening budget deficit was a further testimony to what it said was the administration's "unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility". "The deficit is an important issue because Senator John McCain is proposing to continue the same Bush economic policies that put our economy on this dangerous path and that will drive America even deeper into debt."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties

Story Highlights
John McCain, Barack Obama both speak out against lobbyists' influence

Obama vowed to not accept money from Washington lobbyists

Obama campaign says it does get money from state, local lobbyists

Candidates can avoid lobbyists but still rake in millions from bundlers

From David Mattingly and Joe Johns
CNN
   
(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama like to portray themselves as Washington outsiders, but neither candidate is completely clean of the influence of lobbyists.

Politicians know that tough talk on lobbyists sounds good to the public, but the reality is that top level candidates can't live without them, experts say.

"They know they work with lobbyists. They have staffers who have been lobbyists. They are going to depend on lobbyists for a lot of the information on the decisions they make if they get elected. So, absolutely there's a lot of hypocrisy involved," said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia.

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times. In all, lobbyists reported contributions of $4.7 million to Democrats and $3.3 million to Republicans, the Times reported this week.

But those figures only include registered lobbyists and trade groups -- not big companies that could have lobbyist ties.

Still, both candidates maintain they are above the influence of lobbyists.

Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists, but even within that promise there are loopholes.

His campaign says it steers clear of registered federal lobbyists, but it does take money from lobbyists at state and local levels.
The senator from Illinois also has taken in $18.8 million from lawyers and law firms, according to estimates from the Center for Responsive Politics, and some of those firms employ lobbyists for special interest clients. Watch where Obama's money comes from »

"People who are not directly registered as lobbyists but perhaps working for a company, maybe working for a company in a capacity that's tangentially related to the government affairs, can give money," said Lisa Lerer, who covers lobbying for Politico.

"And just because you don't take money from lobbyists, of course, does not mean you're not taking money from big business."

This past April, McCain spoke out against lobbyists, saying "workers and entrepreneurs of America are taken for granted by their government while the lobbyists and special pleaders are seldom turned away." Watch more on McCain's interactions with lobbyists »

But McCain raised eyebrows in 2006 when he attended a fancy soiree of the little-known but well-respected International Republican Institute in Washington.

A video from the group's Web site shows the chairman of AT&T -- which had just donated $200,000 to the institute -- introducing McCain, who is still chairman of its board.

McCain at the time was fresh off a term as chairman of the Senate committee that regulates telephone companies.

AT&T said there were no strings attached to the donation, but that's not always the point.

"Access is the name of the game. It's getting in the door to see the candidate so you can make your case. Sometimes you don't even need to see the candidate, you just talk to staff members, the people who influence a candidate's decision," Sabato said.

IRI gets almost all of its money from the federal government to do things like promote democracy around the world and help governments run more efficiently -- a cause McCain believes in.

A former IRI staffer who also worked for McCain's 2000 presidential campaign said that while the IRI event may have brought McCain and lobbyists together, the event did not involve any favors or deals.

Additionally, a candidate can completely avoid lobbyists and rake in millions from so-called bundlers, deep-pocket contributors who work to get others to fork over the maximum individual contribution.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says the organization has been working to find out more about bundlers such as how much they have raised and where they work, so they can better identify the source of the money.

"We know that Barack Obama has raised at least $52.2 million from bundlers, or about 18 percent of his overall receipts," Krumholz said.

Obama's campaign figures show that 94 percent of the money going to Obama comes from people writing checks for $200 or less.

CNN obtained an e-mail in which a top-dollar fundraiser promised a private meeting with Obama for Iranian Americans if the group could raise $250,000.

The Obama campaign said the e-mailer was wrong to make such a promise and fell short of their financial goal.

A spokesman said Obama did speak to the group for about 15 minutes, pausing for handshakes and photos.

In fact, Obama's campaign is offering a chance to meet their candidate to anyone who joins their donor pool.

Obama on his Web site tells visitors anyone who donates any amount by July 31 could be selected to come to Denver, Colorado, to join him backstage at the the Democratic convention

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:12 PM

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

All I hear form Amos is a dry cough as if he is undaunted by the truth, and more of his "carpet bombing".

As the sying goes, "you are only as good as your last" whatever. Whomever was in charge of the NYT in it's heyday is dead. Trying to rest your laurels based on past performances does not cut any ice, especially when the chips are down and the stock holders are breathing down your neck for dividends.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

I am not sure you are speaking to the sam equestion. The retun on investments to stockholders is in no wise related to the editorial integrity of the various editors of the Times. By and large, I have read numerous of their self-appraising articles examining whether they were off-base on one or another issue, and my summation of these is that in general they try hard to present a fair story, check their facts and cover their stories equitably. Hell, they even hired a white-collar Republican to do a column for them regularly, and he is as biased and loopy as anyone in Hannity's camp.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:34 PM

Ludacris weighs in.

LUDACRIS - OBAMA IS HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:39 PM

Being German, I have to disagree with Susan Neiman: Change we can believe in.

Although we think that it is out of place for us to support one American candidate more than the other, for we do not have a vote, there is indeed a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama here.

We fiercely hope that with him, the trans-Atlantic relationship will evolve into a friendship again. Nevertheless, we try not to be too optimistic, because we are not entirely sure if Americans define the word ÒfriendshipÓ the same way we do.

Friendship implies equality. Ms. NeimanÕs statements that President Ronald ReaganÕs hosts in Berlin Òsaw his speech as a tiresome bit of American na•vetŽÓ for Òthey had made their peace with a structure they thought would last foreverÓ makes me think that we are still far from being equal partners.

Germans are becoming more self-confident. We do not want to build our relationship with the United States on a debt of gratitude only. In fact, we might actually take Mr. Obama at his word and use the chance to choose our Òown tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday.Ó

Katharina Thalmann
Germersheim, Germany, July 26, 2008

Letter to the NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

I suspect that the reason there is a lot of support for Barack Obama in Germany is because--and almost anybody will agree--he makes a great first impression.

                      The German public is disadvantaged in that they don't have to see Obama over, and over, and over, until the viewer finally realizes that it's like watching reruns of an old TV sit-com. Once you've heard the punch line(s), you've heard the punch line(s).

                      If you're waiting for something more, you won't get it from Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 11:39 PM

Rig:

I think your remarks are inaccurate, unfounded, and embittered by something entirely unrelated to Obama himself.

Give him some room and you will see him follow through.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 12:28 AM

Rig, here's the problem. The guys who not only made a great first impression on me, but continued on making a great impression over and over again (in terms of their content, policy, and substance) were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Obama makes a great first impression, yes, he's also a fine speechmaker son he continues making a rather good impression, but I'm not so sure about his content, policy, and substance.

But, McCain...well...he makes a poor first impression, and it just keeps getting poorer as time goes by.

So watcha gonna do? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:14 AM

I don't know, LH. Niether one of them is very attractive as a condidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:58 PM

"I think the country is so much harder on Obama than on any other candidate in recent memory. Occasionally he is lambasted for being a shrewd politician. He is skewered for being well-dressed, well-spoken, and being highly educated. He is condemned for being rational and cool-headed. These are criticisms? I guess what America is really looking for is a big, poorly-dressed, hot-headed white guy who doesn't finish his sentences and couldn't graduate from a junior college even if his Daddy owned it. See, I thought we already had that guy for President. So I'm confused. Enlighten me, America. I don't get it.

And here's the really bad part: It will be SOOOO hard for me to move to Canada this fall. I still can't sell the house I left in Indiana last year to move to Michigan, and now the house in Michigan isn't going to sell either. (Seriously, Michigan? It will be here twenty years from now with a 'For Sale' sign in the yard, ESPECIALLY if we have another Republican President). I've been to Toronto, and it's a wonderful, wonderful city, but it's damned expensive.

Bill and I will have to live in a basement efficiency apartment 45 minutes out. Where will our dog live? Where will we work? We'll be dishing up pasties at some roadside stand and living off the leftovers.

It won't be pretty.

So please, please don't let McNasty win. And if you have some compelling reason for national self-destruction, or some flash of insight into why Americans aren't leaning 90/10 toward a Democratic administration in 2008, do explain.

Like Obama, I'm all ears."

pgrundy at "Hubs".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM

"I guess what America is really looking for is a big, poorly-dressed, hot-headed white guy who doesn't finish his sentences and couldn't graduate from a junior college even if his Daddy owned it."

Well...yeah! Isn't that what America's always looking for? LOL! That's certainly what it looks like to the rest of the world. I have never seen a society more afraid of being led by an intelligent, well-dressed, calm and reasonable man who finishes his sentences than the USA seems to be. Bizarre, isn't it? It's like the triumph of the Untermensch as a social ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:34 PM

Here Here. (Shouldn't that be Hear! Hear!, Sawzall? Editor) In my opinion, Chalabi is at the root of this WMD disaster. I fault the Clinton and Bush administration for not finding him out sooner."

Here is one contemporaneous article that implies that then-President Clinton wasn't too chummy with Chalabi. Feel free to counter.


Iraqi Exiles Want Strike Aimed at Hussein


Published: February 22, 1998
When Washington steps up its threats to unleash its military might on the Government of Saddam Hussein, it might seem logical for Iraq's exiled opposition to be leading the war chants.

In fact, Iraqi opposition leaders are warning that any operation that does not explicitly aim to remove President Hussein from power could be counterproductive. And since the Clinton Administration is disavowing that goal, they say the kind of attack the White House has outlined may leave the Iraqi leader stronger.

''What we're asking for is this: that any policy to strike Saddam should be in aid of an organized opposition move against Saddam,'' said Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group.

1998

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:43 PM

Ebbie, that's a good point.

I've read both of Anthont Zinni's books. He was CENTCOM commander at the time. He was very concerned with what would happen if Saddam were suddenly removed from power. His predictions were pretty much what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

On the other hand, Ebbie, perhaps Chalabi was just doing precisely what he had been commissioned to do by certain people in the USA who were paying him off. That would be my guess. An empire that is bent on conquest in foreign lands finds and hires foreign agents like Chalabi to provide whatever false testimony or innuendo it requires in order to justify its next planned military operation.

So I'm saying...Chalabi found the American government's wish to attack Iraq convenient, just as the Bush administration found Chalabi's innacurate statements about Iraq convenient, and they both consciously deceived the public (or engaged in wishful thinking) (or both). A symbiotic relationship. These things always happen during wars. Someone is always found who says what someone else wants to hear. The Germans found cooperative people like Quisling in Norway, for example....and if the Germans had won the war, Quisling would be seen in the official histories of that war as a "freedom fighter" and a hero, not as a traitor (assuming he did not have a later falling out with the Nazis, that is, in which case he would have then become "expendable", and other Quislings would have been found...)

*******

As to the expression, "Here! Here!" It should definitely be "Hear! Hear!" It is an exhortation to others to listen to what is being said, not a statement meaning "I am present!" ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM

Obama's Remarks on the United States Economy.

Well-written.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:19 PM

Was that delivered before or after he did an about-face on off-shore oil drilling?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:28 AM

"he preliminary plan would allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to open up waters beyond 80 kilometers from shore to oil drilling. The measure would also repeal tax breaks for oil companies and devote $20 billion to converting cars and trucks to run on alternative fuels.

At a news conference in Florida Saturday, Obama said he still does not believe the United States can "drill its way" out of its energy problems, but said he is willing to compromise in order to get a comprehensive energy solution. "And if we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to," he said.

Obama welcomed the bipartisan measure, but said he remains skeptical on the drilling provisions. On Friday, Obama also proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies that would fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for millions of Americans suffering under soaring gas and energy prices."

As you can see, he did not change what he believes -- just how he was going to discuss things in order to get cooperation on the more important aspects. EMphasis added for the benefit of those blinded by buttons.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 08:45 AM

Woops! Dropped my cookie!


From the World Net Daily--

    "...while writer Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation" steadily climbed the charts to the top position, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters" actually moved downward most..."


                  They're baaaack!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 09:37 AM

As for Chalibi, the Bush administartion paid him $300,000 a month up until things started going real sour on the WMD front when he was finally cut off...

Interesting statement from McNasty on the tube this morning where McNasty said yesterday that the only thing that he knows about Obama's energy policy is that Obama has recommended that Americans inflate their tires properly??? Well, if that is all that McDummie knows then he is dumber than I thought... Or lieing... Or both...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:19 PM

Boy, I wouldn't mind getting paid $300,000 a month. ;-) I think most people would be willing to say almost anything for a salary like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Or do anything, LH...

Heck, I'd wear a dress for that kinda money... No, no... Even worse... I'd come here everyday and say just what a great president John McCain would be and...

...wear the dress...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM

To be fair the 300K a month was not his personal pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

Still, it probably came in handy for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

etting things in order before the Denver convention later this month, presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) sent a letter Sunday to the Democratic National Committee Credentials Committee urging them to give a full vote to the Michigan and Florida delegations.

This move is symbolic and having to do with party unity--Obama will be the nominee whether Michigan and Florida Obama delegates have a full vote--or the half vote they now hold. Delegates from those two states were stripped of their full vote because their states held primaries in January, violating party rules.

Democrats decided to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates after a long and sometimes stormy session on May 31, with supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) charging at the time the settlement shortchanged Clinton. Obama and Clinton appeared on the Florida ballot though neither campaigned; Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot.

Chicago Sun Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 04:23 PM

>>>Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) sent a letter Sunday to the Democratic National Committee Credentials Committee urging them to give a full vote to the Michigan and Florida delegations.

Good news! I would have preferred that he had done that sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:34 AM

Yeah, like before the primaries had ended!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:08 AM

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:They're going to try to say, "Well, you know, he's got a funny name, and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills."

This is a Straw Man Fallacy. First he tells you what they are going to say and then he attack based on something that they have not said yet.

Also the "doesn't look like the other presidents" assertion is a play on racism.

Sorry, Mr. Obama, You do not bear the marks of a Statesman. You use false logic to claim you are a victim.

We don't need a leader with a victim mentality, we need winners.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:48 AM

Sorry Mister Sawzaw. You can't see winning for losing, and probably wouldn't know one if he bit your bum.

This is not a man with a victinm mentality, as anyone who looks past the end of their ...nose can see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:52 PM

Statesman? You can't be a statesman while running against the Republicans. They eat up statesmen and spit them out like gum.

Obama is talking about attack that have already been made, in ads by the State party, right here in North Carolina, and rumor campaigns and internet attacks that have been spread by Republicans that we know. John McCain knows of these attack. John McCain condemns these attacks, but it is only theater. He has not even asked the 527's to knock off the negative ads as Obama has. He has his 527's waiting in the wings. The 527's are one degree of separation from the campaign, just as the swift boaters were. They are the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:10 PM

Yeah, the new book is out about Obama. The guy started writing it after the 2004 convention. When he saw Obama's speech he figured he'd be the nominee, and started the book. I don't know it they'll start their attacks before the convention or not.


                  I think it makes sense to keep in mind, that in 2000, McCain was a victim of the Rove attack machine and lost the race. He won't make that mistake again, I'm betting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:17 PM

Party politics has become so corrupted in the USA by those sort of underhanded attack tactics that I really can't see why or how any decent or sensible person would want to run for president and would ever manage to get elected if he (or she) did.

(no offense to Chongo...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

McCaing now has Steve Schmidt, a Rove Protege in charge of his campaign. Schmidt is behind the recent negative ads. In 2004, he worked for bush and in the war room used a slogan "Its the Hypocracy Stupid" and was responsible for the "I voted for the war before I voted against it ad. I'm waiting for the Obama people to hoist him on his own petard. I think they are waiting for an ad just nasty enough to be a perfect contrast to all of McCain's statements promising NOT to run personal attacks. The ads coming down the stretch will likely start with promises of a clean campaign followed by a digest of nasty ads. The tagline could be "Straight shooter" yeah right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:22 PM

LH,

That one of the reasons Powell gave for not running for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 02:47 PM

I think he is a straight shooter. You just don't want to get in his sights.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:02 PM

I saw the "new" book on the tables at Costco this week; it took me about fifteen seconds to see through it and throw it back. PIece o' trash, from the indications.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:04 PM

Well Rig, he did throw a curve ball or two in the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:37 PM

It would depend on how long your nose is, wouldn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM

Correction:

Why is Amos so concerned with ass biting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:20 PM

"Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate." (WaPo)

---

Keep on trucking, Sawz. There's always room for a little more foolishness.

As for my obsession with ass-biting, let me offer you an invitation to try it out on my own royal bym.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:25 PM

Amos,

I thought Sawz had been chomping your butt all along! Are you wearing stainless steel speedos?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:33 PM

That should be "bum", sorry. The last place I want to make a typo is when insulting an internet provocateur. It just gives them ammunition.

Jack: no, I just use Gardol.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 06:06 PM

To Swaz, Rig, and anyone else who thinks Obama is an empty rhetorician with no genuine plans, I urge you to listen to the planning in this speech and consider what such a change would wreak on the face of this naiton.
(The same link Jack posted earlier on another thread).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:03 PM

Havoc, is what it would wreak!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:24 PM

LOL!


Riginslinger, I believe that "Havoc" is your middle name. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 08:23 PM

Gawd, Rig, you are a deep-dyed-in-the-wool sourpuss, ya know that?

I take it you (a) did not listen to the delivery (b) did not understand it or (c) are just being your usual obstreperous self.

Or (d), all of the above.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:29 PM

And room for more arrogance. I will leave all the ass biting up to the superior, more experienced Mr Amos.

Rasmussen Poll Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But Over Half (53%) See Obama Dollar-bill Comment That Way.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

Amos: Sing us the Oh Lord It's Hard To Be Humble song.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:34 PM

Sawzaw,

You seem to be confused. Amos is not Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 10:36 PM

If he were, Chongo would probably have to withdraw the VP offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:25 PM

Sawz:

Go join a nunnery and let the peace that surpasseth all understanding heal you.

It ain't gonna happen coming around here being insulting, ya know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:40 PM

Right now it seems Amos is trying to outdo Obama in the arrogance department

The Obama speech:

First 2 1/2 minutes were spent acting like a celebrity about his birthday, a cake and kissing the union's and other politicians ass.
Then he downplays the the oil we have in America. Claims we only have 3% of the worlds oil so why drill? Kisses the global warming theorists ass. Admits that the problem has been talked about for decades. Singles out McCain's actions during the decades. Falsely claims it would take 7 years to get oil from offshore drilling so why drill?. Falsely claims T Boone is against drilling.

He is going to hand out money to the union strangled auto industry. Blah blah. He proposes turning wood into fuel. No mention that trees reduce Co2 and even biofuels produce Co2. Naturally since he was in Michigan, handouts for auto companies were promised. Looks like a government bail out and campaign rhetoric instead of a plan.

What is needed is fewer government restrictions instead of deficit spending on bailouts.

T Boone said he was for drilling, solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, every thing. Drilling in the US is merely a tide me over until the other sources are online. The mere announcement of more drilling offshore and in ANWAR will reduce the price of oil on the futures market.

Sorry Amos, All I see is finger pointing, rhetoric and government interference.

His windfall tax has been done before and what did it solve?

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Tap the National oil reserve for a week's supply? Ridiculous.

If you let the video play it says Obama is 45% and McCain is 44% in the polls even after his momentous trip to Europe and this speech.

The Democrats are going to loose this election on the energy crisis alone.

And please notice Amos that I did listen and think about what Obama said instead of firing off a bunch of arrogant, uninformed, biased rhetoric like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 02:01 AM

>>Falsely claims T Boone is against drilling.<<

Obama said that Pickens said "We can't drill our way out of this."

I head Pickins say that exact phrase in several interviews. In this one he says "You cannot drill your way out of it."

See the video on this page.

How can you say this

>>And please notice Amos that I did listen and think about what Obama said instead of firing off a bunch of arrogant, uninformed, biased rhetoric like you.<<

If you don't pay close enough attention to understand what Obama is saying?
I could point out some other examples but one proves my point.

Obviously it is you who is too arrogant and biased to inform yourself.

In case you are wondering, the larger point is that McCain is saying that not giving the oil companies the leases now is preventing the price of gas at the pump from going down now.

Obama is saying that we won't see the oil for at least seven years. That is assuming that the Oils companies were ready to explore right now. Apparently they are not. So that will not affect today's market.

Pickens is not concerned about gas prices. He is concerned with weaning off foreign oil and selling windmills.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 02:50 AM

I think most of the "falsely claims"" statements are actually true, Sawz. The estimates I have seen say seven years before a drop of oil produced by offshore drilling reaches the market. And the 3% sounds about right. Besides--if it were five years and seven per cent, offshore and ANWAR drilling would still be a crippling solution, not a healthy long term one. As a solution it is like having just one more tablespoon of coke to help you get over being addicted. It does not face the real problem.

Pickens said what he said. Obama did not say Pickens was against drilling, he said that Pickens said this is a [problem we can't drill our way out of.

Sleep tight, bedbug.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 03:28 AM

>>>What is needed is fewer government restrictions

That sure worked out in the sub-prime loan industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 10:05 AM

Washington Post:

The Unavoidable Issue
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008; Page A19

Last week's dust-up over race between John McCain and Barack Obama was entirely disappointing. Obama spoke first about how his opponents would try to "make you scared of me," noting that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents" on our currency. What Obama said was true, but he made the tactical mistake of suggesting that McCain was complicit in overtly racial politics.
That gave Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, the excuse to offer the preposterous charge that Obama had "played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck."

Davis's use of a dreadful cliche brought to mind George Orwell's observation that there exists "a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves."

Nonetheless, the Obama camp was caught short, and the candidate backed off a critique of McCain on race. McCain largely left the matter to his surrogates. Both candidates are wary of racial politics. Obama knows that whites and Latinos will constitute the vast majority of November's electorate, and McCain knows that many swing voters will be turned off by explicit racism. But the episode was a good example of how indirect and misleading political talk can be. Like it or not, Obama's race is an issue, just as John F. Kennedy's religion was an issue in 1960 -- and racism runs deeper in our history than anti-Catholicism.

There is no doubt that two keys to this election are: How many white and Latino votes will Obama lose because of his race that a white Democrat would have won? And how much will African American turnout grow, given the opportunity to elect our nation's first black president?


Let's dispose of the canard that there is something wrong with black people voting in overwhelming numbers for a black candidate. Minorities in the United States always turn out in a big way for the candidate who is breaking barriers on their behalf.

The most obvious example is Kennedy, who won roughly 80 percent of the Catholic vote in 1960, about 30 percentage points greater than the Catholic share won four years earlier by Democrat Adlai Stevenson. Proportionately, Kennedy's gain among Catholics was far greater than Obama's likely pickup over John Kerry's 2004 vote among African Americans, judging by the current polls.

More broadly, the race issue is used less overtly now than it used to be. When Democrats were the party of Jim Crow in the post-Civil War period, many in their ranks ran ugly, blatantly racist campaigns. Beginning in 1968 with Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, Republicans have been far more subtle in playing to white reaction on race.

Often, the appeal to white unease over race is overlaid with a populist rhetoric against "liberal elitists" who side with blacks while not understanding the struggles of the white working class.

William Connolly, a left-of-center political theorist, wrote an essay in 1981 that brilliantly captured why so many white working-class voters came to reject liberal programs.

Connolly argued that such voters saw the welfare state as turning on them, undermining the values they espoused and denigrating their efforts at self-reliance. They saw mandatory school busing as robbing them of their chance to secure a better education for their children by moving into better school districts. Especially among working-class white men, affirmative action seemed to treat "everyone else . . . either as meritorious or as unjustly closed out from the ranks of the meritorious."

When liberals dismissed such concerns as purely racist, Connolly noted, "These vulnerable constituencies did not need too much political coaxing to bite the hand that had slapped them in the face."

The great opportunity this year for less scrupulous Republican strategists is that Obama is both black and a Columbia-and-Harvard-educated former professor who lived in the intellectually rarified precincts of Hyde Park in Chicago, Manhattan's Upper West Side and Cambridge, Mass. They can go after him subtly on race and overtly on elitism. They can turn the facts of Obama's life into mutually reinforcing liabilities.

Is this unfair? Yes, it is. But if our nation is to cast off the shackles of race this year, Obama will have to grapple more than he'd like with the burdens that our history and the past travails of liberalism have forced him to bear.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 10:09 AM

Why Isn't Obama Further Ahead?
Dear Stumped:

Why isn't Barack Obama breaking away from John McCain in the polls, considering the strength of Obama's campaign, his inspiring message and the negative brand equity of Republicans and the Bush administration?

Dutch


Over the weekend, I was riveted by the story of the dodgy character the New York Post amusingly called "Mockefeller," a con artist who'd long pretended to be a Rockefeller and who kidnapped his daughter in Boston last week. (He's been apprehended, she's ok, so all's well). But I couldn't get anyone around me to focus on this drama; all anyone wanted to talk about was the point you raise: Why isn't Barack Obama further ahead in the polls?

I agree with your premise; it shouldn't be so close. The Republicans' brand equity, as you put it, has been greatly devalued, and Obama has been running a polished campaign predicated on delivering change and resurrecting hope to a country weary of George Bush & Co.

One problem for Democrats is that they have yet to convince centrist voters that a McCain administration would indeed represent a third Bush term. McCain's maverick reputation, fairly or not, is his strongest asset. He's the ideal GOP nominee, insofar as he is able to avoid being victimized by the party's awful brand equity. It's up to the Democrats to convince the electorate that whatever he might have been in the past, McCain today - on Iraq, tax policy, energy policy, you name it - is a pretty standard GOP standard-bearer.

The contest to define Obama is of even greater consequence, likely to determine who wins the presidency, and whether it's by a large margin. He is new on the national stage, and inspiringly/shockingly "new" as a black candidate with a foreign father and Hussein for a middle name. Voters may go to the polls in November with generally positive feelings towards McCain (as they did towards Bob Dole in 1996), but he'll still be trounced if Obama manages to reassure them that he is ready to become commander in chief, and is patriotic enough, and independent enough (at times he does seems a tad beholden to his party's special interests) to do what's right for the country in that position.

It is sad, of course, that this is the test before him (the patriotism/identity part of it). And it will be distasteful to watch the lengths to which Republicans will go to make sure he flunks in the eyes of those heartland voters who still insist that he must be a Muslim, even as they decry the rants of his longtime Christian minister.

It would be unfair, however, for Obama's campaign to cry "racism" every time Republicans try to define the Democrat in unflattering terms. It would also be a mistake, likely to backfire with voters who won't take kindly to a relative newcomer trying to exempt himself from the ordinary, if unfortunate, rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

"I urge you to listen to the planning in this speech and consider..."



                   Okay, I listened to about 2/3 of the speech. It was so boring I couldn't stand it anymore. Getting tired of being talked to like a third grader, I finally turned it off...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 10:36 AM

That's soooo relevant, Rig. He wasn't talking to you, obviously; he was making a cam[paign speech in Lansing. As for boring, I guess it depends on what you care about.   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:52 AM

I guess that begs the question--who in the world was he talking to? And if one cares about solving problems, one needs to offer solutions, failing to do that turn the dialogue to boredom.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:56 AM

But Rig...that's exactly the thing you are missing. He was laying out a program of solutions.
Read the bloody speech and rethink.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 03:22 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Forget the war for the White House for a moment. Among young people, Barack Obama appears to be beating John McCain in the battle for "cool."

"Obama is a tad cooler than McCain on probably 57 fronts," said Emily Goulding, 25, of Los Angeles. "Obama's better looking than McCain, Obama's more stylish than McCain, Obama's more fit than McCain. He refers to better music than McCain."

"Obama's big with the kids, everyone knows that," said Tom Johnson, 21, of Norfolk, Va. "McCain — that guy's not cool. I just can't call McCain cool."

"It's got to be Obama," said David Munn, 20, of Keene, N.H. "He's younger, I think he has more of a connection with my generation. I just think he communicates better to my generation, especially with issues in Iraq. (McCain) is all right, but not as cool as Obama."

According to these members of Generation Y, Obama, 47, has the "cool" thing down. He's an avid basketball player, listens to Jay-Z on his iPod and was on the cover of this month's issue of Rolling Stone magazine.

McCain, on the other hand, has admitted he's a big fan of the '70s-era Swedish disco band ABBA and an "illiterate" when it comes to using a computer. He turns 72 next month, and if elected, he'd be the oldest president in American history to begin his first term.

Obama has a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18-to-34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week. The same poll gave Obama an 8 percentage point lead among registered voters nationwide. In an AP-Yahoo News poll in July, the two were virtually tied among voters overall.

..." (AP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

McCain may not be a hep cat with generation next but he's totally rad with other demograpics.

He will be speaking here this weekend.

Sturgis Bike rally.

There will be lots to do!

Schedule
Buffalo chip beauty pageant
Girls of Sturgis bike week
Larry the Cable GuyQ
There is even a fake orgasm contest!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 04:01 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds Barack Obama is leading John McCain nationally by 6 percentage points thanks to big leads he is enjoying among women, minorities and younger voters.

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows that Obama is leading his Republican rival 47 percent to 41 percent. McCain has a 10-point lead among whites and is tied with the Democrat among men, but Obama is leading by 13 points among women and has huge leads with minorities and the young.

The poll was released Tuesday following a week in which the two camps accused each other of bringing race into a campaign in which Obama is seeking to become the country's first African-American president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 05:35 PM

11 point lead for Obama among women

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 05:37 PM

McCain is about as boring as oatmeal on a Saturday night. I find it hard to believe he could win the election, because Obama ain't boring...but Obama's "Black". Bit of a conundrum for the middle American voter, ain't it?

I felt a bit worried by that Obama energy speech. Sounds to me more like doing the usual vote-buying than a genuine statement of future policy intention. But why should I be surprised? An election is usually just a massive exercise in vote buying and the speeches will be honed to fit the audience every time, so they will hopefully go out and rubber stamp the candidate into office on election day.

Once there, he does something quite different.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:29 AM

MSNBC pointed out that FOX news reported that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

It is true that his dad was born there.


For a lie to stick to the wall, it must first be thrown

dream em up churn em out and THROW
Do to an over supply, lies abput Obama are being bought by the McCain campaign at 6 cents a pound.
bizarre religious education regarding Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

Beneath the poll 'headlines'

A poll conducted by Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway of WomenTrend and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research showed that neither Obama nor McCain has secured support from a majority of women voters

49 percent of women prefer Obama and 38 percent prefer McCain.
Six percent of those women said they were only leaning toward a candidate.
Ten percent were undecided

Nearly 90 percent of black women and 62 percent of Hispanic women polled prefer Obama, while nearly half of white women prefer McCain. More Hispanic women remain undecided (14 percent), compared to black women at four percent and white women at 11 percent.

In the poll, 55% of women say that Obama's selection of a female running mate would make no difference to their voting choice.

The poll's results were based on interviews with 500 women across the country with an additional 100 black women and 100 Hispanic women. The margin of error for the main sample is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points, while the margins of error for the subgroups is higher.

However other polls, while in agreement with these results for younger women, have also indicated that Barack Obama has a problem among women over 40 and a big problem among women over 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 10:19 AM

Does that make McCain the post-menopausal candidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:30 AM

McCain is more popular with people over 50, as was Bush. Does Obama have a "problem"?
Obama's biggest problem is the media constantly framing neutral information in a negative way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:38 AM

This poll disturbs me. I hope it is not a valid weathervane of greater America.

Are We Tired of Hearing about Him?



From the link that JtS posted, verbatim: "Barack Obama appears to becoming the 8th Wonder of the World in discerning people are wondering how this Obama nation he is attempting as messiah to unite one planet nation under god, that Mr. Obama is setting the stage for an international disaster."

Wunnerful how edjicated we is.

Another View of Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

Polls are stupid. They are an attempt to manipulate the vote. They should not be publicized at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

Ebbie

I didn't post that. I think its too lame.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:50 AM

Yes, we are tired of hearing about him. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Personally, I'm tired of hearing him, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:53 AM

That has become quite evident. ;-) Just think how tired of it you will get if he gets elected!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

LH - I think I'll quite talking about it and rest up in case that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:35 PM

From the Washington Post:

This brings us to Exhibit B, which is, you may have guessed, Obama. He got the good-policy merit badge for resisting peer pressure (McCain plus Hillary Clinton) for a gas tax holiday. He would spend $150 billion over 10 years, far more than McCain would, to promote alternative sources of energy. So far, so good.

But the Obama campaign has taken a decided turn toward the less responsible in the past week. I'm not talking about his evolution on drilling. However poll-driven, this is eminently sensible: He's not itching for more but willing to consider it in certain areas as part of a broader, bipartisan compromise.

The same can't be said for his deja-vu-all-over-again proposal to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (see Al Gore 2000, John Kerry 2004), or for his $1,000-per-family "energy rebate," a whopping $65 billion cost to be paid for with a windfall-profits tax. Just a month ago, Obama was saying that there was no need to tap the reserve and that such a move should be saved for a "genuine emergency." Oil was more than $140 a barrel then. It's less than $120 a barrel now. What's changed, except for the better? Still, as gimmicks go, tapping the reserve is a more effective one than a gas tax holiday.

As for a windfall-profits tax, if you want to produce more energy, it hardly makes sense to give oil companies less incentive to make investments. Nor does it make sense to tax companies because market conditions boost their profits -- any more than homeowners and shareholders should be penalized for selling during a boom.

Obama, too, has descended to misleading. He accuses McCain of wanting to give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies -- without mentioning that this is no special oil-only deal, just part of McCain's proposal for an overall reduction in the corporate tax rate, something Obama has said he'd consider. Does that put him in the pocket of Big Oil, too?

And another question: If this is the state of the discussion in August, what will October bring?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

>>>From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:50 AM

Yes, we are tired of hearing about him. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Personally, I'm tired of hearing him, period.<<<

I'm not going to call you a liar. But I feel compelled to point out some cognitive dissonance on your part. Perhaps I should just offer a little loving advice. If you personally and actually are tired of the subject of Obama, I would advise a very simple thing. Avoid threads on the Mudcat with his name in them. I estimate that alone will cut your Obama news consumption by at least twenty percent.

Its not a cure mind you, but it might get you through until November.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

Well, I can sympathize. THis is a trying time, and to be honest, I am not only tired of hearing about McCain, Obama, Hillary, and several others, I am also tired of hearing about Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and several others..

Not because I am disinterested in the state and progress of the Union, but because all the easily available information out there is so skewed, colored, misrepresented, and punched out of shape by the carriers thereof. Just think what it woudl be like if there were a free and independent press dedicated tot he Jeffersonian ideal of a well-informed populace. Why, it would be truly awe-inspiring.

BTW that Lame Cherry Blog has got to be one of the most wildly illiterate and ignorant screeds ever to waste an electron or two.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 02:36 PM

I note, however, Amos, that you are not tired of hearing about Chongo.

Eh? How about that, eh?

THAT, my friend, is why he's going to win.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:03 PM

Not so fast Little Hawk!

Its true that Chongo has not had the exposure of some others, he also doesn't seem to bear up to it as well. I think that the more we see of Chongo, the more the "tiredness" gap will grow.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 03:14 PM

That's possible, Jack, I'll grant you that. What really concerns me is Paris Hilton's entry into the race. That's serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:49 PM

Actually, I didn't mention being tired of hearing about Chongo because it is an aching, cursed constant; I have been tired of hearing of him ever since we had to rescue Chinga from that B-class bar on the Grand Canary waterfront where he had abandoned her to go jump a freighter to America.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:56 PM

LOL! Poke the sleeping badger and the result is guaranteed...

Very well, Amos. Very well.

But what about that Paris Hilton, eh? Now there's a fresh new face on the political scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:20 PM

She'd have to lie about her age, but if Bush can have documents forged to justify Iraq, the precedent has been set.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:10 PM

I saw someone ask Boone if he was against drilling. he said "Oh no, we need to do all of it"

His statement about "can't drill our way out" means drilling alone will not get us out of this crisis.

Wolf Blitzer: "What about drilling offshore? There's a debate, as you know, McCain says, 'yes, go ahead and drill off the coast of Florida and California.' Obama says, 'No.' You're an oil man. What do you say?"

T. Boone Pickens: "OK. McCain says, 'OK off the east and west coast.' I say east, west coast and ANWR—get it all! To get off of foreign oil, that is the enemy...You're drilling and whatever you are able to find and put into the domestic system will help us."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:56 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html

"He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids."

The first bill that's cited is the 1997 law that created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program in Illinois. The ad claims Obama "passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent." That's going too far. First, the law in question wasn't dreamed up out of thin air by its sponsors. It was the follow-up to the welfare reform act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, that President Clinton signed on Aug. 26, 1996. That law gave states the ability to design their own welfare programs as long as they met certain federal requirements, including limits on how long recipients could get benefits. The bill that Obama cosponsored was Illinois' version.

And far from having "passed" the bill single-handedly, Obama was among five Senate sponsors of the measure, as we said previously. It was passed by both chambers of the Illinois Legislature and signed into law by the governor.

Welfare reform was successful in moving people off public assistance. There was about a 78 percent drop in the number of families receiving public assistance in Illinois between 1998 and 2006. But we don't think Obama alone, or even Obama and the four other sponsors of the Illinois law, can take credit for all of this. It was the federal law, hammered out by Clinton and the Republican Congress, that set the wheels in motion and forced states to act. Nationwide, the number of families on welfare declined quite a bit as well, going from 3,146,870 in '98 to 1,805,900 in '06, a decrease of almost 43 percent.

Also, our friends at PolitiFact talked to an expert who said part of the steep drop in Illinois' numbers was due to other factors, such as a state bureaucracy that took an aggressive approach to ejecting people from the rolls, sometimes erroneously.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:17 PM

'Its true that Chongo has not had the exposure of some others, he also doesn't seem to bare up to it as well. I think that the more we see of Chongo.......'

well I kinda think this is more 'exposure' tham we need :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:20 PM

Sawzaw,

He said that we can't drill our way out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:42 PM

Why not just drill everywhere? After all, they haven't tried drilling for oil yet in the White House lawn, have they? And why NOT, I ask you???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:50 PM

It would violate Homeland Security to drill everywhere, obviously. Haven't you read the Patriot Act? Or do you hate freedom, too?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 06:05 PM

In a mood for grilling people, are we?

No, I just hate other people's expressions of freedom when it interferes directly with my own preferred agenda. ;-) I think this is a universal human (and animal) problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 06:30 PM

Carol had her teeth drilled yesterday. They didn't find any oil, so we'll just have to keep inflating our tires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

That is very true JTS I never said he did not say that. He did not say he we should not drill or that he was against drilling. My interpretaion was that drilling alone will not solve the crisis and it won't.

He did say "You're drilling and whatever you are able to find and put into the domestic system will help us." which indicates to me that he is for drilling.

The skeleton in Obama's money closet
By Judi McLeod Thursday, July 24, 2008
Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, who has bundled more than $370,850 for Barack Obama so far this year, is one of the most embarrassing skeletons in BO's money closet, now that the financial institution Wolf heads up in America has been outed in The Nation's Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4088

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:34 PM

My condolences to the lady. I am sure she would have rather suffered the inconvenience of bringing in a gusher!! Don't keep up inflating too long. You could bust a tire out altogether doing that. Ask that nice wrinkled man for one of them tire auges he's handing out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:02 PM

>>>That is very true JTS I never said he did not say that. He did not say he we should not drill or that he was against drilling. My interpretaion was that drilling alone will not solve the crisis and it won't.

He did say "You're drilling and whatever you are able to find and put into the domestic system will help us." which indicates to me that he is for drilling.<<<

Therfore, ergo, ipso facto, presto, viola and to wit!

Obama was correct.

Keep in mind that Obama was not making the case against drilling. He was countering McCain's assertion that drilling would help lower gas prices today, and maybe also that other gem from the same commercial implying that Obama was solely and totally responsible for the high price of gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:24 PM

From the Washington Post

"...for McCain the energy issue has been a gift. There is perhaps no other topic in American politics today on which the public is angry, seeks action and agrees strongly with Republicans. McCain's approach is to do it all: drilling, nuclear, alternatives and conservation. Obama's approach has been reactive and irrelevant. What would his redistributed windfall profits tax do to produce energy or reduce the need for it? And Obama is hamstrung by a coalition that insists we will not drill our way out of this problem -- which is true but beside the point. No single approach will solve the problem in the short or medium term. And a nation in an energy crisis has every justification to extract its oil and natural gas while it pursues alternatives to oil and natural gas.

Second, Obama's tactics are undermining the unifying theory of his campaign. During the primaries, Obama presented himself as someone different, better and special. He would not only improve the economy and the health-care system, he would transcend old divisions and heal a broken land. Supporters embraced him as inspirational; detractors criticized him as messianic. Few doubt that he set the highest rhetorical goals since the New Frontier.

Since the primaries, Obama has made a tactical decision: He refuses to be painted as a liberal. America may be a discontented country, but it remains a center-right country. Democrats who understand this fact -- such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- become president. Democrats who don't lose elections.

But since Obama's short public career has been conventionally -- in some cases, extremely -- liberal, his tactical shift to the center has been startlingly obvious, on issues from guns to terror surveillance to Iraq, and now (reluctantly) to oil drilling. Says Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center: "Obama's political calculation may be correct, but it still involves a price. It has shattered his claim to be different. It calls into question his political character and leaves the impression he is consumed and defined by ambition."

At least temporarily, Obama's tactics have raised a damning political question: Who is this man? And the McCain campaign has begun to cleverly exploit these concerns, not with a frontal attack on his liberalism or his flip-flops but with a humorous attack on his "celebrity" -- really a proxy for shallowness. The argument is powerful: McCain has roots and convictions. Obama has fans and paparazzi. And Obama's European trip -- more Princess Diana than John Kennedy -- served only to confirm these impressions. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 03:56 PM

WHat journalistic "snidity".

Obama has been examined, cross-examined, researched and messed with to a huge degree. It is disingenuous to drum up such an issue. All the article tells me is that underhanded manipulation is still the order of the day in McCain's camp, and that a segment of the population is dull-witted enough to be manipulated thereby. But the latter is no news at all, since W's cronies and harpies proved that 4 years back and again 8 years back, breaking the peace, defecating on the tablecloths, and lying their way into the hearts and minds of Muricans evywhar.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 04:03 PM

In other words, everything posted is true, and you just object to the fact that someone dares to state it, since you have no comment on the specific statements.


"Obama's political calculation may be correct, but it still involves a price. It has shattered his claim to be different. It calls into question his political character and leaves the impression he is consumed and defined by ambition."


Anything here that is NOT true?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 04:03 PM

The Media response, especially the at the Washington Post, is the gift. McCain has not been called to task for changing his mind. Obama is called a flip-flopper on nearly every article and broadcast dealing with the issue. Its the same thing they did to Kerry. the question is can his grassroots supports overcome media bias?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 07:59 PM

"Obama's political calculation may be correct, but it still involves a price. It has shattered his claim to be different. It calls into question his political character and leaves the impression he is consumed and defined by ambition."


Anything here that is NOT true?

Yes.

1. It has not shattered his claim to be different that he is willing to meet people half-way. In fact, that has always been one of the things that was different aboput him -- he ahas continually argued against the "two camps divided" style of politics and the hard polarization made so poul;ar by the Bush Administration.

2. Furthermore, his character is demonstrated by the fact that he said he was willing to "not let perfection be the enemy of progres" and include what he did NOT like -- offshore drilling -- in a package which included much that he did like.

3. The impression of "consumed with ambition" is clearly a projection and not an attribute of the person being discussed, as (1) and (2) above simply disprove the claim.

He has a healthy ambition, but he is continuing to stand for the things he has always stood for while seeking to do some effective meeting of minds across the party divide. Tell me what is so wrong with that?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:18 AM

It's a good thing he didn't pick Edwards as a running mate before the woman with the baby popped up. But it does seem funny that Hillary's people didn't know about that, and Reverend Wright too. The fact that she just wasn't ruthless enough is probably how we got stuck with the Democratic candidate we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:49 AM

Oh, I think she's ruthless enough, but she didn't really need to go after Edwards, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:41 PM

No, but she needed to go after Obama and her reconnaissance wasn't good enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 07:10 PM

"drilling would help lower gas prices today"

The announcement of drilling will bring down the price of crude due to the anticipation of more oil available in the future.

"In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
 Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won't decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 07:22 PM

You seemed to overlook the ancient revered etiquette of citing where you steal you r lines from, Sawz.

In this case, it was a two-bit opinion in an anonymous letter sent in tot he Saint Louis Post-Despatch, in mid-July.

And just so the stupidity of the post you chose tyo quote from (without attribution) does embarrassment to all St Louisians everywhere, you might also mention it was answered shortly after by this one:

"Tango, I can not believe how incredibly blind you are. According to you all the good economic news over the past 8 years was because of Bush. All the bad new is a result of the democrats.

You never can conceive of an idea that Bush was build a pyramid scheme. In all such situations eventually it has to collapse. The housing mortgages that are fueling the economic troubles were taken out during the Bush Administration under normally 3 year adjustments. The mistake Bush made was not leaving office sooner so that he could sit on the sidelines and blame it all on his successor.

It is simple economics, but then I cannot expect you to understand anything beyond simple math.

Ñ Bob
6:53 pm July 17th, 2008        
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

Its hard to believe that there was a drop because of Bush's announcement. Bush has been for dropping that executive since before he was elected. Congress, both Republican and democratically lead has been his opposition. Is it credible that and announcement of something which is a mere formality and still requires an action by Congress, which Congress will not even bring to a vote, caused a steep price in the wholesale cost of oil.

Your problem Sawzaw is in ignoring news and in only listening to opinions with which you agree. That is a sure path to the perpetuation of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:57 AM

Well well well Amos, If you didn't know where it came from, how come you found the response. And it was no more anonymous than the two-bit you posting you copied. It was signed Tango Golf Sierra.

Perhaps I should quote the Onion or maybe an imaginary comment between Ozzy and Harriet. That has much more weight.

And I did not indicate it was mine and put it in quotation marks indication someone else said it so how is that stealing?

You sure have to resort to trivial things to disprove facts while you cannot produce any your self.

Here is a simple test that does not require any of the rhetoric, hair splitting and ad hominem logical fallacies that you must employ to support your lack of credibility.

The announcement of drilling in ANWAR and more offshore drilling will bring down the price of crude in the oil trading market.

______True

______False

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:24 AM

Hurry Amos, find out where I stoled this so you can try to use that to discredit the fact and logic and claim it is false.

Or maybe you should research the claims made here and try to determine for your self how true they may be. That would seem the more logical thing to do. Then if you believe parts of it to be untrue you could say this particular part is untrue because__________ instead of your knee jerk condemnation of anything you see that didn't come from one of your left wing talking points sources.

But I have the feeling that as soon as you read something that does not jive with what Obama said, you feel an obligation to disagree immediately without even trying to figure out if it could be true.

"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They're talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There's also a "gang of 10" in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it's possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:03 AM

The announcement of drilling in ANWAR and more offshore drilling will bring down the price of crude in the oil trading market.

______True

______False

--------------------

Don't be an idiot. If it happens, it won't make any sustained difference. The speculators can read the economic reports as well as anyone can. Apparently they can read better than you.

It certainly won't make enough difference to justify McCain's ads.

If the price of gas at the pump drops 40 cents or more between now and September 11 will you give credit to the Democratic Congress for not drilling?

______True

______False

--------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:27 AM

Most of the wrangling on this thread recently has been an amazing waste of time--especially the drivel about polls. A poll is worse than a snapshot, since so many factors like phrasing of the questions, whether people without land lines are queried, etc,. enter into the result.


The ony important question is turnout on election day. At this point, even people in McCain's `'base' show limited enthusiasm for him. The same is not true for Obama.

We'll see if this changes as we approach election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 07:51 AM

Yes, it seems to be changing. Obama's base seems to be losing enthusiasm. He had to go to Hawaii on vacation because people were complaining about seeing too much of him in the news.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 08:16 AM

''had to go to Hawaii...."   As usual, blissfully free from any evidence.   Nice to know some things don't change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:11 AM

Going to Hawaii makes someone invisible? His trip to Hawaii, where his grandmother lives, where he also used to live WAS IN THE NEWS. What makes you think people being in Hawaii suddenly takes them out of the sphere of world news?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:00 AM

WHat a crock. You and Sawz are just the pair of jokers, Rig; inserting illogics and distortions faster than a water-cooled Gatling.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:19 AM

"a water-cooled Gatling."


I did not know there were water cooled Gatling Guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:19 AM

Very rare.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:31 AM

Must be!

I've worked on a watercooled IBM 360/45, but never heard of a gatling gun with cooling- I thought the Maxim was the first to use water cooling, due to the ingle barral.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 11:48 AM

Well, I have done a little more homework and find you are right; I misspoke. I should have written "water-cooled Maxim" or some other brand. It's a good thing the metaphorical image was not my main point, huh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:07 PM

Should he not go to Hawaii?
What's that about???

"Obama's base seems to be losing enthusiasm"

I don't see it but do tell us about this, from your viewpoint.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

'..."had to go to Hawaii...."   As usual, blissfully free from any evidence.'


                No, really, that's where he went. I read it in the National Inquirer.


                         ******



                      "Obama's base seems to be losing enthusiasm"


             Yeah, when he changed his mind on guns, abortion, campaign finance ethics, off shore oil drilling, and etc. etc., many of his former supporters whent to Nader and Cynthia McKinney.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

You are spouting propoop-ganda, Rig. Aren't you ashamed of being so obdurate and insensitive?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:52 PM

Amos,

I think the reference is to:


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama - Yahoo! News
Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_el_pr/poll_obama_overexposure
More pages from news.yahoo.com


Politics News - Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama. Find this and other news at Comcast.net. ... Politics News - Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama News ...
www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080806/Poll.Obama.Overexposure
More pages from comcast.net


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
Article:Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama:/n/a/2008/08/06/politics/p074439D67.DTL ... Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama. Wednesday, ...
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/06/politics/p074439D67.DTL
More pages from sfgate.com


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama. August 6, 2008 - 10:47am ... of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of ...
www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=213&sid=1454733
More pages from wtop.com


Too Much Obama - Political Machine
Are you getting a little too much Obama and wanting to hear more ... Just 26% in the poll said they had heard too much about McCain, while a larger number ...
news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/06/too-much-obama
More pages from news.aol.com


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.
www.news-journal.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/Presidential...l_Obama_Overexposure.html
More pages from news-journal.com


General News - Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama. Find this and other news at Comcast.net. ... General News - Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama News ...
www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080806/Poll.Obama.Overexposure
More pages from comcast.net


www.kansascity.com | 08/06/2008 | Poll: Nearly half hearing too much ...
Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says. extra description
www.kansascity.com/445/story/736328.html
More pages from kansascity.com


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama - Boston.com
Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.
www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/08/06/poll...ring_too_much_about_obama
More pages from boston.com


Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama
Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama. Associated Press ... of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of ...
www.politicalbase.com/news/poll-nearly-half-hearing-too-much-about-obama/112416
More pages from politicalbase.com






Now, aren't YOU ashamed of being so obdurate and insensitive?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

"The effort reflects one of the most remarkable aspects of the 2008 campaign: Obama has turned himself into the central figure in American politics. That is an extraordinary achievement, but it comes at a price.

One cost was measured by a Pew Research Center study released last week that found that 48 percent of all those surveyed -- and 51 percent of the political independents -- said they had heard "too much" about Obama. Only 26 percent (and 28 percent of independents) said that about McCain.

This is understandable: From mid- to late-February until only the past week or so, Obama had received far more media attention than McCain, according to the Campaign Coverage Index produced by Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Obama's centrality has created an odd dynamic. The most important influences on the campaign are President Bush's unpopularity and the collapse of public sympathy for the Republican Party, meaning that a majority is inclined to vote for the Democratic nominee unless he is rendered unacceptable.


But with Bush fading into the background, McCain's campaign has been more about Obama than about himself. In recent weeks, McCain's advertising tossed one charge after another at the man painted serially as "the biggest celebrity in the world," "Dr. No" and "The One." McCain's attacks, which helped build Obama fatigue, continued over the weekend.

Yet Obama has absorbed the assaults and headed to his holiday in Hawaii holding an advantage of four to six percentage points -- roughly the same margin he has enjoyed all summer. This led political strategists in both parties with whom I spoke in recent days to challenge the conventional wisdom of an Obama campaign that is "underperforming." "


from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001867.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:20 PM

Of all the polls I have read about, it strikes me that one that asks "Aren't you tired of hearing about ____" is probably the most self-fulfilling, and it is pretty riidiculous as a data point in any case, IMHO. Really!! I am sure by the end of the Vietbname War a lot of people were very tired of hearing about Viet Nam, and by the time Tricky Dick retired, a lot of folks were tiored of hearing about Watergate, and I am sure there are billions who were tired of hearing about Monica's Blue Dress or Terry Schaivo's predicament.

So what?

This sort of noise-transfer just muddies the waters and makes the issues less real, which is a disservice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:24 PM

>>Yes, it seems to be changing. Obama's base seems to be losing enthusiasm. He had to go to Hawaii on vacation because people were complaining about seeing too much of him in the news.

I think he went to Hawaii because he was seeing himself too much in the news. It is a vacation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:14 PM

BB - We're hearing too much about your whole damned presidential campaign, period! No wonder people in the USA are getting sick of it. ;-)

Here's your problem. You have a national campaign that lasts over a year. That's insane. Do you know how long national election campaigns last in Canada? 6 weeks.

No one would be getting sick of hearing about Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton or anyone else if your society had had the sense to limit their election campaigns to a reasonable length of time.

Really, man, you are living in a country that is to a certain extent (politically speaking, I mean) out of its mind. You just don't realize it, because you take the way it is for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM

"Aren't you ashamed of being so obdurate and insensitive?"


                I ain't neither one of them things!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

That's exactly what Chongo always says! Have you considered joining the APP, Rig?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:05 PM

The APP? Can't say that I have. Does that stand for Apes Phor Pobama?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:08 PM

American Primate Party...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:41 PM

Does the Smirking Chimp belong to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:59 PM

Belong to it? He's the party leader! He's the APP's candidate for President of the United States. What rock have you been hiding under that you don't know that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:53 PM

I guess I just thought there was no way he could run for another term!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 08:25 PM

Different smirk, different chimp.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:43 PM

I couldn't agree more LH, I've been sick of this long term campain for the onset. It's taken away from the business at hand & kept the nation's eye focused far from where it should be & the negativity, spin, hype & flip flopping is enough to one want to dump the whole process. They should say what they've got to say, debate it & get on with the elections. What pain & suffering, why would a human put themselves through all that for a yr. Well, MaCain must miss the mistreatment but what's Obama's reason, he's at least got a head on his shoulders & no peach stuck in his cheek.
Did I just say that?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:55 PM

The only reason Obama or any other candidate would put up with it is because they have no choice. That's how it's been set up. I would think that any normal human being who ran for president would be totally heartsick, disgusted, and disillusioned with the entire process by the time the primaries ended, let alone by election day.

Rig - You are confusing George W. Bush with Chongo Chimp! I think you should know what Chongo's campaign slogan is:

"This time let's put a REAL chimp in the White House!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM

Barry:

Why, I believe you did!! Fancy that!!!

:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:07 AM

''Aren't you tired of hearing about John Mccain?".   Gee, I wonder what the answer would be to that.

As I said, it's nice to know that some things, like the totally evidence- and logic-free postings of the CEO of Smears R Us, can be relied on.

And please, don't bother to cite another poll.

Any thinking person should know how much credence to give them--for the reasons I cited, among many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:28 AM

The campaigns are too long? What about poor Hillary? She's been campaigning for President since 1998 at least! She didn't help Gore or Kerry much. Will she help Obama? Not wholeheartedly I don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:26 AM

"Will she help Obama?"


                   Not if she's smart. Her campaign is now making noises to the effect that she would have won Iowa if Edwards would have fessed up earlier, and that Obama, then, would not have won the election.
                   At the same time, she is telling her supporters what they need to do to enter her name for consideration in the convention, so it doesn't look like she did it herself.
                   She wasn't ruthless enough during the primaries, but maybe she'll make up for it now. Maybe the Democrats will still have an opportunity to win this thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:46 PM

The announcement of drilling in ANWAR and more offshore drilling would bring down the price of crude in the oil trading market.

______True

______False

Any body got the guts to answer?

If the price of gas at the pump drops 40 cents or more between now and September 11 will you give credit to the Democratic Congress for not drilling?

______True

______False

This is yes or no question which is calculated to give credit to a bunch of assholes for not doing anything.

My answer is no because it has already started dropping beginning with Bush's action. If the democratic congress does nothing it will probably continue to drop.
If the democratic congress shows renewed opposition to offshore drilling and/or drilling in ANWAR, it will probably reverse or elimante the trend.

Some how you want to give credit to Congress for GWB's actions.

Maybe you want to say "thank you congress for not counteracting what GWB did".

Now maybe you have the courage stop sidestepping my much simpler and straightforward question.

It is designed to explain why the price of gas will start dropping upon the decision to drill even if the new oil will not come online years from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM

If she doesn't get to run this time (and she still might, you never know)...watch for Hillary in 2012! ;-)

I'm bettin' that she and Chongo will be facing off for the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:22 PM

You can't have Hill without Bill's big nose gettin' into everything. ;D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:47 PM

Sawz:

I think you are misattributing the recent lowering of price. If it has anything to do with drilling in ANWAR it is because the world is overly populated with people like yourself who are not very good at math.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:18 PM

From Fox:

"Barack Obama's campaign is rolling out a number of centrist Republicans who are endorsing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee over Republican rival John McCain — in a show of his ability to win cross-over votes.

A conference call Tuesday featured former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach, former White House intelligence adviser Rita Hauser and former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who represented his state as a Republican, but switched to become a Democrat so he could vote for Obama in the primary.

"I'm convinced that the national interest demands a new approach to our interaction with the world," said Leach, adding that Obama offers the leadership to do that.

Leach lost his bid for another term in office in 2006. He was a foreign service officer before being elected to Congress and served as head of both the International Relations and Banking committees.

Leach predicted that a lot of Republicans and independents are going to be attracted by Obama's campaign.

The Obama camp also pointed journalists to reports that Fairbanks, Alaska, Mayor Jim Whitaker, a Republican, also has announced his support for Obama.

Obama's GOP supporters' criticisms of McCain are familiar ones — that he'd represent four more years of Bush-Cheney policies, particularly in foreign affairs. Hauser complained that McCain's statement on Georgia was "bellicose" in threatening to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, and that Obama's statement was much more appropriately internationalist.

They also reversed a line McCain has used against Obama. While McCain has said Obama wants to put party before country, Hauser and Leach said that in supporting Obama, they were putting country before party.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:41 PM

Sawzaw,

The price at the pump always goes down in August and September. But if if you are going to give anyone credit, it has to be Obama. After all, he's the one responsible for the rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:43 PM

"...former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who represented his state as a Republican, but switched to become a Democrat so he could vote for Obama in the primary."



                   And we all remember when George W. Bush smirked when he talked about "Linc Chafee," when he wanted Chafee to do something for the administration, and now, after having been driven from office by the Right-Wing-Religious-Wackos, Chafee is finally striking back.

                   Who can blame him?

                   But there are still Republicans out there who remember President Eisenhower, and it's not very propable that they will be voting for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:50 PM

Not without a good dose of your best props.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:23 PM

Amos: "people like yourself who are not very good at math"

You do the math and let me know what the results are. Otherwise I will be forced to assume that you are the one who is not very good at math.

"If it has anything to do with drilling in ANWAR" Who said it had anything to do with ANWAR? Would tha announcement of allowing drilling in ANwar lower the price of crude on the trading market or not?

Do you have the courage to answer the simple true or false question I posed or would you prefer to sit on the sidelines, claim superior knowledge and question the questioner?

Thought so.

Jack: To be fair you are correct about the seasonal price of gas in the past but gas usage usually peaks in July. This year gas usage has gone down all year yet crude oil prices kept climbing and started dropping when Bush announced the end of the ban on offshore drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:38 PM

The answer, you antagonistic supercilious meretricious snipe-bucket is that if "We are drilling in ANWAR" were announced, it might enthuse the markets temporarily, shifting the price down on an imaginary basis. But it would do nothing to correct the fundamental supply and demand equation.

But, I tell ya what, buddy. I have had enough of your sneering passive-aggressive illogic. Go practice your dark arts on someone else. I neither want nor need them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:59 PM

Explain to us mathematically challenged underlings how increasing the supply of oil does "nothing to correct the fundamental supply and demand equation"

Explain to us the fundamentals of the oil futures market. Explain why the anticipation of the severity of shortages causes prices to increase.

That is unless your are "too good" to back up your rhetoric, pompous verbiage and rock solid judgment with some knowledge of what the hell you are talking about.

Here is the question for you to sidestep again:

Would the announcement of allowing drilling in ANWAR lower the price of crude oil on the trading market or not?

______YES

______NO

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:46 AM

I'm gonna hedge and say "maybe". ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:38 AM

Amos,


"you antagonistic supercilious meretricious snipe-bucket"


"But, I tell ya what, buddy. I have had enough of your sneering passive-aggressive illogic. Go practice your dark arts on someone else. I neither want nor need them."




Actually, from your recent attacks on those who disagree with you ( rather than the facts that they present,) you DO need SOMETHING.

You are begining to act a lot like Martin Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:51 AM

Washington Post:


"The Great Energy Confusion
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A15

Forget about a candid national conversation on energy. As John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned last week, that much seemed clear. To lower oil prices (which were already dropping), Obama proposed releasing 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is an atrocious idea. The SPR was intended as insurance against a catastrophic loss of oil from wars, embargoes, terrorism or natural disasters. It should not be manipulated cynically for political advantage. Earlier, McCain suggested suspending the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax; that was another bad and expedient idea.

No doubt Obama and McCain want to relieve Americans' discomfort at the pump. The trouble is that Americans should feel discomforted. We want a return to cheap, secure oil; we want painless pathways to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. These are fantasies; they should not be indulged. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:53 AM

Washington Post:

"Erasing The Race Factor
Obama's Best Hope Is To Face the Issue Directly

By Peter Beinart
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A15

Barack Obama has a problem. He really, really doesn't want this campaign to be about race. He wants it to be about change, President Bush, the economy, gas prices, Iraq, Afghanistan -- almost anything else. But it is going to be about race, at least in part. That's the lesson of recent weeks, when the McCain campaign brought up race (on the pretext that Obama had brought it up first). The Obama campaign tried desperately to change the subject but couldn't. Once the chum was in the water, the media sharks went wild.

Obama should take that as a warning. Race will be central to this campaign because McCain needs it to be. He simply doesn't have many other cards to play. And it will be central because every time Republicans light the match, the press will create a forest fire. Race is just too titillating to ignore. The history of post-Vietnam presidential elections is littered with Democratic nominees who thought they could run on policy and ignore symbolism. This year, the symbolism will be largely racial. Obama can't avoid that. He needs to control the race debate instead.

Already, there is reason to believe that race is weighing Obama down. A survey this year by CBS and the New York Times found that 94 percent of respondents would vote for a black presidential candidate. But when asked if "most people" would, the number dropped to 71 percent. Notre Dame political scientist David Leege estimates that 17 to 19 percent of white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents will resist voting for Obama because he is black. That's far more than the percentage of Republicans who may vote for Obama because he is black. And it's a major reason that this election -- despite Obama's myriad advantages -- remains close. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

You can announce today, twerp, and you won't see a drop of oil for seven to ten years. If you don't see the differencve between announcing and producing, it explains a lot.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:39 PM

Amos:

More news from the real world:

"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium."

Here is the question for you to sidestep again:

Would the announcement of allowing drilling in ANWAR lower the price of crude oil on the trading market or not?

______YES

______NO

Amos is ignoring news and in only listening to opinions, via anti-Bush RSS feeds. That is a sure path to the perpetuation of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:46 PM

What the hell is ANWAR? I thought it was a Muslim name for men, but I've never seen it all written in caps before.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:04 PM

>>>"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium."

A report from the real world would include whether or not California would have a say in the matter, it very unlikely that they would jeopardize their number one industry for a few more barrels of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 06:58 PM

Jack - Frankly I don't think off shore oil drilling would have any affect on the cultivation of marijuana.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 07:29 PM

Excellent point, Rig! ;-)

Meanwhile, what do people named Anwar feel about all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 08:30 PM

Don't encourage him Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:05 PM

It's a typo. It should be spelled ANWR: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


Sawz, you just bllunder on in defiant ignorance of the point that I was making.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:58 AM

I concede I made a mistake in the spelling of ANWR.

Now are you going to continue to bllunder on to avoid answering a simple question?

"you won't see a drop of oil for seven to ten years" Read and listen very carefully. The question was will it cause the price of crude to drop, not when the oil will be available.

Would the announcement of allowing drilling in ANWR lower the price of crude oil on the trading market?

______YES

______NO

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:48 AM

It might. It could cause speculators to look for another scam to put their money into. But by the time you finally get the oil, people will be on to other things, hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:14 AM

If there is ever an announcement on releasing ANWR for drilling the price of oil for that day, for delivery in three months from that day, will do one of three things. Rise, fall or stay the same. There will almost certainly be other news that day which will undoubtedly have more effect. For instance, if John McCain has got us in a shooting war with Russia by then, I doubt even you would notice the oil market.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:51 AM

Wall Street Journal opinion:

"The Obama Tax Plan
By JASON FURMAN and AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
August 14, 2008; Page A13

Even as Barack Obama proposes fiscally responsible tax reform to strengthen our economy and restore the balance that has been lost in recent years, we hear the familiar protests and distortions from the guardians of the broken status quo.

Many of these very same critics made many of these same overheated predictions in previous elections. They said President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan would wreck the economy. Eight years and 23 million new jobs later, the economy proved them wrong. Now they are making the same claims about Sen. Obama's tax plan, which has even lower taxes than prevailed in the 1990s -- including lower taxes on middle-class families, lower taxes for capital gains, and lower taxes for dividends.


Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan.

Both candidates for president have proposed tax plans. But they are starkly different in their approaches and their economic impact. Sen. Obama is focused on cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses, and investing in key areas like health, innovation and education. He would do this while cutting unnecessary spending, paying for his proposals and bringing down the budget deficit.

In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:05 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:09 PM

Yes, whoever's running Barack Obama is probably right about tax cuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:31 PM

Just can't talk straight, hey, Rig? Gotta be smarmy or snarky or snide.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:55 PM

This is a political discussion in America in 2008. The only guy still in the ball game who is talking straight is Ralph Nader, and look where it's gotten him.

             I would think acknowledging that the guy who has his hand in Obama's back is right on taxes would be a plus for his side.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:50 PM

"They said President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan would wreck Amos steadfastly refuses to allow any historical precedents to enter into the discussion unless he thinks it will help him prove his assertions.

"They said President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan would wreck the economy. Eight years and 23 million new jobs later, the economy proved them wrong."

Ahhhh, Maybe I am one of those people that is poor at math but 1993 plus 8 add up to 2001 so it must have been in 2001 that the economy proved somebody was wrong. The economy was in recession and proved that Clinton was wrong.

Clinton's plan did wreck the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:20 PM

Yes. As has been shown on this forum many times, and no doubt will be shown many times again. You are very poor at math.

The Clinton Left office in January 2001, the recession occurred after September 2001. The Bush people blamed it on Clinton. But they blamed everything on Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:27 PM

"He was countering McCain's assertion that drilling would help lower gas prices today,"

The mere announcement of drilling lowers the price of crude oil on the trading market and therefore gas prices. This has been proven recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:43 PM

OK smart guy, show the proof. I don't even remember any recent announcements of drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:15 PM

David Letterman: Top Ten Signs Barack Obama Is Overconfident.

"10. Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to 'Oklabama.'

9. Offered Bush 20 bucks for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner.

8. Asked guy at Staples, 'Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?'

7. The affair with Barbara Walters.

6. Having head measured for Mount Rushmore.

5. Guy sits around eating soup all day.

4. He's voting for Nader.

3. Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library.

2. Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick.

1. Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:39 PM

Uhurus are correct about Obama – here's the truth

By Glen Ford | Guest Commentary

"What about the Black community, Obama?" read the banner held by Uhuru Movement members two weeks ago at what was supposed to be the usual Barack Obama pep rally in St. Petersburg. In Orlando the next day, National Urban League President Marc Morial vowed that the candidate would be asked, "What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?"

Obama has hard-wired himself to avoid answering such questions. Obama's catechism is always some variation of his "There is no Black America, there is no White America..." speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. He seldom acknowledges, and then only grudgingly, that African Americans continue to be subjected to institutionalized harms that are qualitatively different than those endured by Whites of any social strata.

In St. Pete, Obama mischaracterized his positions on predatory lending, the Jena Six, Sean Bell's death, and Hurricane Katrina. Here's the truth:

• Obama's April 2007 legislation against "fraudulent and predatory lending practices," the Stop Fraud Act, makes no mention of racial patterns in lending abuse. Nine months later, Obama's response was the weakest of the three 'top tier' Democratic primary candidates. "Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze...he has remained silent on further financial regulations," wrote Max Fraser in the January 24 issue of The Nation.

• ABC News reported on September 20, 2007 that Obama expressed indignation over the plight of the six Black teenagers in Jena, La. just 24 hours after reports surfaced that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had said Obama was 'acting like he's White' for not doing more to publicize the situation in Jena. Two weeks earlier, Obama appeared "visibly uncomfortable" by the question and said the teens 'appear to have been railroaded into a very difficult situation," but he would not say
what remedy he hoped to see in the case, according to ABC.

• Following the acquittal of New York City cops in the Sean Bell killing, Obama issued a statement: "We're a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down. Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and is counterproductive." In contrast, Hillary Clinton was empathetic: "My thoughts are with (Bell's fiancé) Nicole and her children and the rest of Sean's family during this diffi- cult time. The court has given its verdict, and now we await the conclusion of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation. We must also...take steps in our communities, in our law enforcement agencies, and in our government, to make sure this does not happen again."

• In 2005, Obama absolved FEMA of what the vast majority of Blacks saw as racist behavior: "...I do not subscribe to the notion that the painfully slow response of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security was racially-based. The ineptitude was colorblind." Obama has gone to extreme lengths to deny the significance of race in the Katrina catastrophe, and pointedly refuses to attribute even the historical, past ills of New Orleans to race.

• As a state senator from a majority Black Chicago district, Obama did work against racial profiling, But his remarks on the death penalty give the impression that Obama opposes capital punishment. He doesn't.

As usual, Obama presented the Urban League convention with a reprise of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech: "Our march is a march for America. Not Black America or White America. Not rich America or poor America, rural America or urban America. But all America... An America where hard work is still a ticket to the middle class - and you can make it if you try."

Barack Obama's America is a place where nobody calls racism by its name, where Black grievances are made illegitimate through the logic of race neutrality, the truth be damned."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:50 PM

Odd - despite all the efforts of folks like Sawxbog, and others even more rabid, and despite the fact he hasn't been around at all, Obama's ratings are still ahead of McCain's nation wide. All those millions of dollars of distortion and hatred just kinda went into the landfill, I guess. Kinda frustrating for the hatemongers, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:35 PM

The landfills are, of course, where campaigns have been run in America, since the advent of Ronald Reagan.
                        Maybe if Obama would spend some time standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona his fortunes would rise. He could loosen his load and dump MoveOn.org. Or he could make a deal with Tony Soprano, or...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:26 AM

...or he could bow out and advise his backers to all vote for Chongo in November.

I personally think that if he ever does get elected president, it will ruin his life. Chongo on the other hand...Chongo has a thick enough skin to survive anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 04:26 AM

This just came across:

Could be a possibility....... Maybe that's why Denver, worried about demonstrators and riots, has erected chain link fences with barb wire inside a large warehouse as holding pens......

It Ain't Over 'Til the Fat Lady Sings and She Just Hired New Songwriters

August 11, 2008

The Washington and New York news phones lines were buzzing last night and again this morning. The news is considered so volatile two national news producers were telephoned after 11:30 last night for their input. The story? Hillary Clinton is removing her support (such as it was) from Barack Obama and plans for a knock-down floor fight for the nomination at the Democrat Convention in Denver.

The reason for this is simple, she thinks she can win the nomination, and only she can win the General, and so do many top old line Democrats.

Support for Obama from the Washington Democrat power elite has been all but absent in the last month. The Super Senators, Kennedy, Biden, Dodd, Schumer and others have not been making headlines for Obama. Terry McAuliffe has been all but silent, and "Screaming Dean"; who pressed his mute button? The two co chairs of the national "Our Great-Great-Great Grandfathers were oppressed… so give us money" crusade, Jackson and Sharpton must be on tour in Mongolia, because they haven't been making headlines for Obama here.

One overriding argument pervades all their thinking, Obama can't win the National, and Hillary can. The poll results after Obama's "We Is The World" tour have been a disaster. It provided a dip, rather than a bump for Barack! Pollsters expected him to be at least 12 to 14 points ahead now, and he is even at best. Obama always gets results about 4% less than he polls, so if the election were held today, it would be McCain in monstrous win.

The Obama decline is clearly indicated in one supposed battleground state, Florida. Obama was up until recently. Now Obama is now down 6 among all voters and one reliable unreleased poll has McCain up 8 among the likely voters. On top of it all, Obama is still sinking, and what possible new message to attract voters does he have? When he shouts "We Must Change", the crowd is thinking, "Oh, he's changing his position again."

I was with him in Lakeland last week (on assignment.) The small crowd was not pumped at all.

With that in mind, Hillary is warming up the crowds, and the hormones. She has had the Summer off. She is rested. There was plenty of time for charm lessons.

She can go to Denver not officially supporting, but certainly not discouraging, a floor vote movement. Her mantra? "Count Every Vote!"

The upstart's message would be very clear; "We Want Hillary For President, and She Wants It Too!"

Hillary would never attack Obama publicly, but loudly decry, "Those Republicans for Barack's disastrous slide in the polls."

Remember, she is only a few votes behind him in the Democrat delegate count, has never released her delegates, and the delegates, especially the Super delegates, can vote for whomever they wish. There is no legal mandate to support the candidate they promised to support back when they were elected in the primaries."

Who would support Hillary? The list is extensive.

First, old line Democrat Labor. They have votes, a "volunteering" machine and money . . . and are far from wild about Obama.

Secondly, the Gay vote. They rarely declare why they are for a candidate, but they have huge amounts of money, and are madly in love with Hillary (in more ways than one, perhaps?)

The Democrat political machine, all the way down to county level. They want coattails.

The Hispanic vote. Hispanics don't like Obama (or Blacks in general) very much. Hispanics love Hillary.

The Women. Down deep, the Rev. Wright may be acceptable to the far left wing of the Democrat party but he scares the hell out of middle of the road women. Democrats can expect the Republican 527s to pound that Rev. Wright Obama connection again and again in the General.

Hard core Feminists. Do we need an explanation here?

Finally, the Black vote! Of course there would be a revolt in the ranks . . . for about 10 days. But, then Jackson and Sharpton would explain that it was necessary because of the all the damage Republicans had done to Obama . . . and a Clinton Obama ticket is orgasmic for Democrats.

Why would Jackson and Sharpton be onboard? Because they have to be, and because they hate Obama. He didn't "pay his dues in blood in the streets of Selma." He didn't "March with Martin".

Worst of all for them, an Obama in the White House takes away all the "Poor Oppressed Black People Need Government Help… (and our help, personally) rap that has empowered Jackson and Sharpton for decades. Also, Obama is an ACORN man, not Rainbow/PUSH or National Action Network.

Obama would be told, "You cannot win. That's your fault. Take the VP slot and smile . . . and be President in eight years, or leave quietly now."

Bottom line, Hillary reassembles the entire classic Democrat Liberal coalitions Democrats need to win. High level Democrats are not dumb, at least not stupid, at least in the world of down and dirty electoral politics. They will do what they need to do to win.

In the end, the media would love the fight and the Obama supporters would hate it . . . for a few weeks, then fall in line behind Hillary. They are pragmatists, not racial ideologues. They would do anything to defeat McCain.

Will this happen? Time will tell. But, Hillary is certainly, and quietly, pushing it very hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:40 AM

Well, I think that would be the best thing for the Democats, Sanity, but I can't see it happening. They've already spent a lot of money on "Obama" bumper stickers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:45 AM

Sweet old Amos has appointed himself the judge and jury of who is guilty of hate mongering.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 11:07 AM

Amos the sage:

"The highly intelligent Maureen Dowd"
"That Dowd gal is hotter than a Saturday night special."
"Maureen Dowd, the bright light lady warrior of the New York Times"
"I really am POd at the New York Times for putting Maureen Dowd behind the Subscription Curtain, especially when she comes up with sharp analyses"
"More from my favorite chile roja, Maureen Dowd"
"I am pleased to report that Maureen Dowd, the spicy red-headed NY Times columnist"
"I _am_ goiung through withdrawal symptoms and I miss her keen wit, her sharp ability to cut through Republican bullshit with the grace of a samurai sword, and her sharp tongue."
"Maureen Dowd rides again with a shap-edged piece"
"Maureen is her usual sharp and articulate self "


Is 'The One' Cocky or Commander in Chiefy?
By MAUREEN DOWD July 23, 2008

"..............Obama finally found a Muslim with whom he's willing to be photographed.

At moments, Obama was acting as though he were already "on a coin," as Jon Stewart would say. But cocky or not, he needs to swoop up to conquer so Americans can picture him in the role.

The One left them swooning in Jordan.........."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:09 PM

Jesus, Sawz!!! Get a LIFE!!! You seem to have developed an obsession about trying to nullify me some way, anyway you can dream up. I have to tell you honestly, amigo, it is not working!!

I praised Maureen for her penetrating wit and you find one remark she made less than perfectly complimentary about Obama....and this demonstrates what, exactly?

Have you looked up the many positive things Maureen has said about Obama?

I thought not.

Otherwise your granfaloon of bitter sarcasm would have evaporated _before_ you posted it, instead of shortly thereafter.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 01:16 PM

Hmmm. Could these be the first tremors of "Dowd-Gate"? Will I be seeing this stuff at the grocery checkout next week? Will Amos be forced to publicly admit his secret dalliances with Maureen Dowd in that little resort in the Catskills? Or is it just an irresponsible rumor being spread by Republican hatchetmen in the employ of Karl Rove?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM

In my dreams, Little Hawk. I am afraid the "irresponsible hatchetmen" is the more probable explanation, although, well, hey, ya never know....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:17 AM

I got a life and it is not gushing over Bush Bashers.

Did your inspiration, Dowd, turn out to be a traitor?

Have you ever heard the saying that if you give someone enough rope..........?

That is what extremists do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:41 AM

So they had the big debate on buffoonery last night, and the funny thing to me was, the panel on CNN thought McCain did better, and the panel on Fox seemed to think Obama did better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:55 AM

Sawz:

The fact that I admire Maureen Dowd for her columns is scarecely grounds for calling her my inspiration. Nor did I ever think she was a traitor.

So your construct is flim-flam and buffonery at its worst, creating artificial, meaningless points in order to dramatize your dripping sarcasm.

Go eat soap, pal. You are so far off the mark it is hard to even figure out what you were aiming at.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:55 PM

GtINS, are you sure you are not a politician? You seem to have learned the art of half-truths, i.e.:

"The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

"That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention. "

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092


The Hillary Clinton expository (sic) was lifted straight from Free Republic, hardly a model for accuracy.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2057973/posts?q=1&;page=143

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:08 PM

Statement from T. Boone Pickens:

"I enjoyed the opportunity to meet Senator Obama and discuss an issue that is America's top priority, which is ending our dependence on foreign oil that today is approaching 70 percent of our imports and is costing us $700 billion a year.
"I assured Senator Obama that this is a non-partisan campaign and that I will do everything in my power to work together with leaders who are willing to solve our immense energy problems which are ruining our economy and threatening our national security.
"As I did with Senator McCain on Friday, I stressed the urgency of the situation and the need to end the largest transfer of wealth in human history. I told him that any credible domestic energy policy must reduce our dependence on foreign oil by at least 30% in the next 10 years, in addition to conservation measures and that must utilize proven and available technologies and be 100 percent comprised of American resources.
"We discussed my plan and the opportunities to create jobs, grow our economy and revitalize America's heartland by using private capital to invest in renewable energy including wind and solar power that are among our most abundant and untapped natural resources. I shared my feeling of encouragement at the Senator's willingness to speak out on energy issues recently in the campaign, but told him that there is still much more that needs to be done.
"We also discussed the Pickens Plan's success and our efforts to get more than one million supporters. These are people who share an immense concern about our dependence on foreign oil and are actively pushing our solution to this issue with the goal of getting legislation passed in the first 100 days of the next administration.
"It would be inappropriate for me to speak for Senator Obama. I have a real sense, however, that he was very engaged. He understands the issues and is interested and excited by the work we are doing to educate and involve the people of this great nation. As with any leader, he knows that developing real energy policy that will transform America for the better requires change and that change happens not just from the top down, but from the bottom up and that's what we are doing with the Pickens Plan."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:12 PM

"Former Rep. Jim Leach's endorsement last week of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama prompted anger and amazement in some quarters. But why? It's as though amnesia has struck.

Yes, Leach is a longtime Iowa Republican, and yes, it is understandable that Republicans not too well acquainted with him might feel a sense of betrayal. Democrats would react the same way if former Rep. Neal Smith were to suddenly endorse presumptive Republican nominee John McCain." (Des Moines Register)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Barack Obama is ahead of Republican John McCain in the United States, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive. 43 per cent of respondents would vote for the Illinois senator in this year's presidential ballot, while 40 per cent would back Republican Arizona senator John McCain.

Libertarian nominee Bob Barr is third with six per cent, followed by independent candidate Ralph Nader with two per cent. Nine per cent of respondents are undecided, or would vote for other contenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

Famous Peruvian writer applauds Obama's candidacy
17 hours ago
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Peruvian novelist and politician Mario Vargas Llosa says Barack Obama would make a "magnificent" U.S. president.
The prize-winning writer says Obama "represents the American dream," though he also respects rival candidate John McCain.
One of Latin America's best known writers, Vargas Llosa ran for Peru's presidency in 1990, but lost to Alberto Fujimori.
He spoke to reporters on Saturday in Venezuela, where one of his plays is being performed.
Asked about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Vargas Llosa said his government "believes in a type of authoritarian democracy" and "restricts liberties."
Vargas Llosa has written more than 30 novels, plays and essays, including "Conversation in the Cathedral," and "The Green House."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 04:10 PM

The Obama campaign said yesterday that it received more than $51 million in July - including contributions from 65,000 new donors - slightly less than the previous month.

The report on donations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, followed by one day figures made public by the McCain campaign, which took in a more modest $27 million last month.

Still, July was the best fund-raising month ever for John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and the fifth month in a row that donations to his campaign exceeded those of the previous month.

The Obama campaign said it had $65.8 million on hand, compared with McCain's $21.4 million at the end of July.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 04:51 PM

'"The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire...'"


                     Probably because it's around the Democratic Convention, and all they'll have to fence out are chickens...




    '"Former Rep. Jim Leach's endorsement last week of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama prompted anger and amazement in some quarters. But why?""


                     Why indeed, after all, Leach is from Iowa and McCain had the guts to tell the people there the truth about corn based ethanal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:07 AM

SAN FRANCISCO--Sen. Barack Obama raised $7.8 million at a fundraiser here Sunday night, his largest-ever haul at a single event. He repaid the 1,300-plus donors with fighting words about the campaign he intends to wage against his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

The Democratic candidate addressed three separate groups and posed for hundreds of photos at the event, held at the ritzy Fairmont Hotel.

"They've got a whole machinery that they're cranking out. They've got a book about me, that just kind of sprung full bore out of this guy's head," Obama told the crowd at the main reception, priced at $2,300 a ticket. It was his first public reference to the widely discredited Jerome Corsi bestseller, "The Obama Nation."

The Republicans are using an old playbook, Obama said. But this year, he continued, "Not only do you have a candidate who doesn't take any guff. Not only do you have a candidate who will hit back swiftly and forcefully and truthfully. But you've also got American people who are rising up all over the country and saying, enough is enough."

He told a small reception hosted by supporters of South Asian heritage, "It's going to be difficult. Change is always tough. And electing me is change. It means that people are going to hesitate a little bit. Ba-rack O-bama. They're still getting past that name. But it's a testament to the American spirit that I'm even standing before you as the Democratic nominee."

About 350 people paid $28,500 for a VIP dinner, and were urged to stay cool for the next 79 days. "Democrats, because we've burned in the last few elections, get nervous and skittish right around this time," Obama said. "They say, 'oh no, here the Republicans come - they're so mean and they're going to be doing all these things. Obama is a funny name and who knows what they're going to do.' " The audience laughed nervously.

"So keep your stress to a minimum," he instructed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:09 AM

U.S. soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous campaigns in which military donations tended to favor GOP White House hopefuls, a nonpartisan group reported Thursday.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:11 AM

"... I will always love Hillary, but the policy positions that I shared with her—on the rule of law, health care, education, the environment and, of course, the Supreme Court—are the same positions that Obama will work to bring about in his presidency. So if I care about those issues, how could I not put on my "Yes we can" pin and roll up my sleeves for Obama? How could I do nothing when I woke up each morning to read the latest press accounts of the Gitmo trials being conducted by military commissions of such questionable legality that the Bush administration can only defend them by saying that Guantanamo Bay isn't in the United States? And how could I do nothing after reading the latest report of the inspector general on the politicization of the hiring of career lawyers at the Justice Department, when I myself had joined the department through the honors program that now has been tragically corrupted?

There is not a hair's breadth of difference between Hillary's position on the issues I care about most deeply and Obama's. No doubt Obama will approach some of these issues differently than Hillary. That is OK. His candidacy is just as historic as was Hillary's, and I want to be part of that historic moment.

I've heard that Howard Dean said it took his supporters about four months of emotional recharging to switch their allegiance to another candidate. But we don't have the luxury of four months this time around. The 2008 election is less than three months away. There isn't any more time to grieve; it's time for action."



Kathryn A. Oberly is vice chair and general counsel of Ernst & Young. She was a co-chair of Lawyers for Hillary and is now a co-chair of the Obama Lawyers Unity Effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:52 AM

Amos is reluctant to respond to the fact that a reporter he has praised has portrayed Obama as somewhat infatuated with himself.

Rather than say if she is right or wrong and why, he makes personal attacks on the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:46 AM

Amos, you always loved Hillary?? That's about as tasteless as Billy getting a blow job from Monica!..while eating a pizza, and talking on the phone, about a foreign policy decision!!! Be healed!!
here, you want some taste?? Try this, I think you'll like it!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6p8WE6ZemY

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:52 AM

....or this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64QHbB-11fc

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

Barack responded to the religious question of when does life begin
her responded "that question is above my pay grade"

I would have said
"Simply forgo the chicken and egg arguement and realize that life derives from life and that all life is contiguous and not subject to arguments of life begining with each zygote of each animal.

If anyone asks when life began...the most truthful answer is = a minimum of 4 billion years."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:29 PM

Donuel,

The question was "When do civil rights begin."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:45 PM

Sawz:

You continue to duck, sneer and slime. My argument with your exceeding illogical posts is concernign thier illogic, not with the issues you raise. As to whether Obama's self-esteem is "too high", "too low", or "just right", Goldilocks, it is purely his own business and a matter, in any case, of complete opinion by any armchair psychobabbler who has insifficient problems. A class I do not belong to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:56 PM

"Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said."


                   I've seen this on other venues. I even saw it on Fox-News. I would think John McCain would be very concerned about this development.

                  This is something that should make a lot of voters wonder about voting for McCain, in my humble opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:37 PM

My humble opinion aligns with yours, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:12 AM

Rick Warren: OK, now, um, let's deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe V. Wade, you know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time. All of the pain, and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very com... complex issue. 40 million... uh, abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

    Obama: Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.

Sounds like an Amos answer.

"You continue to duck, sneer and slime. My argument with your exceeding illogical posts is concernign thier illogic, not with the issues you raise. As to whether Obama's self-esteem is "too high", "too low", or "just right", Goldilocks, it is purely his own business and a matter, in any case, of complete opinion by any armchair psychobabbler who has insifficient problems. A class I do not belong to."

And this is logic?

Cut the ducking, sneering and sliming and just answer the question yes or no. It is not that hard.

---

Sawzaw, you're getting too personal in your disagreements. Back off, and keep the discussion civil.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:35 AM

What are you saying to Amos Sawzaw? I am and so are you?

Grow up why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:39 AM

The Telegraph

Barack Obama admits to 'fundamental selfishness'
Senator Barack Obama admitted at the weekend that he had been guilty of "fundamental selfishness" at times during his life.

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Barack Obama fails to shine alongside John McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:46 AM

Two Against The One

By MAUREEN DOWD New York Times
Published: August 19, 2008

In the dead of night in a small hideaway office in the deserted Capitol, a clandestine meeting takes place between two senators with one goal.

They grin at each other as they lift their celebratory shots of brutally cold Stolichnaya.

‘Our toast to The One,’ they say in unison, ‘is that he’s toast.’

‘Obama should have picked you, Hillary,’ John McCain tells her. ‘It isn’t fair, my friend. But it just makes it easier for me to whup him.’

‘Don’t worry, John, I’ve put it behind me,’ Hillary replies. ‘I’m looking toward the future now, a future that looks very bright, once we send Twig Legs back to the back bench.’

They chortle with delight.

‘He’s a bright young man, but he got ahead of himself,’ McCain says. ‘He needs to be taught a lesson, and we’re the ones to do it. Have you seen the new Bloomberg poll? Obama’s dropped and we’re even again. The Bullet’s getting all the credit, but you and I know, Hillary, that it’s these top-secret counseling sessions we’re having. And thanks again for BlackBerrying me the Rick Warren questions while I was in the so-called cone of silence.’

‘Oh, John, you know I love you and I’m happy to help,’ Hillary says. ‘The themes you took from me are working great ‘ painting Obama as an elitist and out-of-touch celebrity, when we’re rich celebrities, too. Turning his big rallies and pretty words into character flaws, charging him with playing the race card ‘ that one always cracks me up. And accusing the media, especially NBC, of playing favorites. It’s easy to get the stupid press to navel-gaze; they’re so insecure.’........

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:54 AM

Dissecting Maureen Dowd's Obama hit piece

by Eric Boehlert Media Matters

As a campaigner, Sen. Barack Obama is angry and overwhelmed.

That was the unflattering takeaway from Maureen Dowd's catty column (subscription required) last week about the Illinois senator's foray onto the presidential campaign trail, as Dowd traipsed out to the heartland to watch the Democratic sensation up close. But as is her custom, Dowd fixated on personality and stagecraft, not substance, as the poison-penned, Wednesday/Saturday columnist for The New York Times painted a relentlessly unflattering portrait of the senator.

In the eyes of Dowd, Obama was out of his element on the national stage: "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted." .................

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:23 AM

I watched that entire debate streamed over the Internet. I my opinion Dowd was wrong. And since reviews don't win votes, who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:42 AM

Something has gone terribly wrong in American politics that some buffoon like Rick Warren would have anything to say about things. The whole side-show just simply embarrassed me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:57 AM

Warren is OK. He's like Dr. Phil with 20,000 patients.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 08:23 AM

As far as buffoons go, I'll take him over anyone i've heard of at Fox "News" any day. Or Chris Matthews, Or Falwell, or Robertson or Larry King or Anderson Cooper, Or Gibson and Strepthacaucaus at ABC

He's not high on my list.

I think he made a mistake though, promising a "cone of silence" and not having a minder sent with McCain to enforce it. As Reagan said. "Trust, but verify."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:00 PM

Jack - We shouldn't have the presidential candidates discussing points of superstition when we have major policy decisions to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:06 PM

You obviously did not watch the event and are ignorant of what was said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:00 AM

Barack Obama's brother lives on $1 per day

Democratic US Presidential candidate Barrack Obama has a forgotten brother in Africa, whose family is at the edge of existence, earning less than $1 per day.

George Husein Owango Obama, who lives outside the media spotlight, recently decided to speak about his relationship with Barack Obama. In his interview for "Vanity Fair" he spoke about his life, however avoided giving responses to direct questions to describe his brother.

"We live here with less than a dollar per day" said George, who lives in the periphery of Nairobi (Kenya). Up until now the US Press managed to track down seven of Obama's brothers, the only one missing was George.

"I met Barack briefly, two years ago. We talked, but he was somehow strange, as if I didn't speak to a brother." added George Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:15 AM

It has been a mixed week for Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.
By R. EMMETT TYRRELL Jr. | August 21, 2008

....a Reuters/Zogby poll announced that the junior senator's 7-point lead over John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, has dissolved into a 5-point deficit.

Senator McCain now leads him 46% to 41%. On the other hand, the press has discovered Senator Obama's long-lost half brother, George Hussein Onyango (also spelled Owango) living quietly in Kenya. Among the rustics who compose the Democratic base, this discovery can only help Senator Obama.

According to the Reuters/Zogby poll, the Democratic frontrunner has slipped with almost every category of Democratic voters: Catholics, Evangelicals, vegetarians, nudists, flagpole sitters — you name it. Yet the slippage has been greatest among the senator's core supporters, the liberals.

Among them he has dropped 12%. Part of the reason for this drop, Zogby speculates, is owing to the candidate's efforts to sidle toward the political mainstream. Zogby mentions Mr. Obama's switch from opposing all offshore oil drilling to accepting limited drilling.

Brother George will assuage the concerns of many of these liberals. According to the Italian edition of Vanity Fair, George lives in a hut in bucolic Hurma, Kenya, a few miles outside Nairobi. His residence is the epitome of "green," using no electricity, cooled solely by gentle breezes, and with no plumbing to pollute nearby waters, if there are nearby waters.

George leaves almost no carbon footprint. He does not drive an automobile. In fact, he lives a very spartan existence, spending only "a dollar a month," as he apprised VF in an exclusive interview; though other sources report an expenditure of a dollar a day. At any rate, his consumption of the world's resources is minimal............

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:20 AM

Reuters/Zogby poll: McCain leads by 5 percent

August 20, 2008

BY SUN-TIMES STAFF

Reuters.com is reporting that a new poll shows John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Barack Obama in the race for President. The poll, conducted by Reuters/Zogby Thursday through Saturday, shows McCain leads 46 to 41 percent.

That would mark a sharp turnaround for McCain, who trailed Obama by seven points in last month's Reuters/Zogby poll.

On the question of which candidate would be the best manager of the country's economy, Reuters reports that McCain leads Obama 49 to 40 percent.

"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

The poll results were announced as speculation heats up about who the candidates will choose as their running mates.

The Obama campaign has said it will announce its vice presidential nominee any day, and will announce the choice via text message to supporters.

Sun-Times Washington Bureau Chief Lynn Sweet first reported in her blog Tuesday that Obama will appear with his choice of running mate in front of the old state capitol building in Springfield Saturday.

McCain plans to announce his running mate Aug. 29.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:42 AM

Keep digging, Sawz. Dig up all the distortions you can, and make sure to ignore any positives like intelligence, statesmanship, insight, articulateness, leadership. Naw, jes' keep digging.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 02:29 AM

Here in the UK a significant cause for the change in fortunes is being reported to be the "angels with broken wings" - embittered female Clinton supporters who are now opposing Obama and supporting McCain - despite McCain's apparent wish to return to female enslavement by males. I watched with growing incredulity. A prime case of turkeys threatening to vote for Christmas.

I did however warn early on that Obama was not giving specifics on policies and that he was likely to be a middle-of-the-road man who would not truly fight for the working classes - or the environment. That is starting to look right.

Well done America. You ignored Kucinich who might have created a better world for you, and you kicked out Clinton who at least had some concrete pro-worker policies. Change my arse. Welcome to more of the same old same old.

And if you actually suffer teh election of McWar the no-brainer, you'd better pray for another grassy knoll to free you fromthe oligopoly. At least that way your "free and armed militia" might actually do something more useful than kill wildlife and each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 02:56 AM

>>You ignored Kucinich who might have created a better world for you.

Kucinich was too far out of the main stream and Clinton was too far in it.

Obama is going to win. His pole numbers will come up once his VP starts attacking McCain's leadership ability and flip flopping every day.

Obama is running the best campaign I have ever seen. That will be apparent in October.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 02:59 AM

I would love to use the statistic that more US servicemen are contributing to the Obama campaign. But is it verifiable? And is there a reason given? I throw that out there I'll be laughed at whether it's true or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 09:04 AM

"You obviously did not watch the event and are ignorant of what was said."


                         Jack - I saw a fat bearded buffoon, incapable of rational thought, putting irrelevant questions to the two major candidates for president, both of whom should have had something more important to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 11:08 AM

Well, I think that's bull in the first degree. Without staff, he accomplished a great deal long before he ran for President.

You can nullify and majke nothing of his talents and his obviosu uintelligence all youw ant but (1) it won't make you any more right and (2) it won't make Obama any more wrong.

Your complaint that I disagree with those with whom I do not agree appears tautological and semantically nul.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 01:55 PM

I have noted for some years now, Amos, that you always disagree with those with whom you do not agree, and that you persist in doing so in a totally consistent and invariable manner. In so doing you are running with the crowd, my good man, cleaving to the dull mainstream, conforming to the norm, behaving in a shockingly generic and predictable fashion...like the people who shop at WalMart! This does not befit a man who can casually drop terms like frisson into a conversation without even making it seem like he's straining his credibility. This tendency you have to disagree with those with whom you do not agree is disturbing. It suggests that you may not be as brilliant as I had thought...that you may, in fact, be little more than a rank poseur! When can I expect you to break out of the straitjacket of predictable knee-jerk reactionism and instead strike a bold new stance of independent thought and political analysis?

Hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 01:46 AM

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American. He has served in the senate for only 143 weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 06:11 AM

'The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama,'...

is a cut and paste job appearing in emails and on message boards all over in the last few days.

It is attributed to Dr Jack Wheeler - (guest you 'forgot' to mention this) the self-proclaimed 'Conservative Voice' who brought such insights into American politics as

'Can Democrats Celebrate Thanksgiving?'

'The Dems and Libs will on this day mouth pious platitudes about our blessings, making sure to riddle them with let's-not-forget buts: Thank you, O (substitute whatever they put in place of God) for America's blessings but lets not forget the victims of Katrina and the homeless and the starving Banglesdeshis and every ailment on the planet because they are all Americas and George Bush's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 06:54 AM

Viral e-mails attack Obama's life story

'What began as a demonstrably false attempt to cast Obama as a Muslim has now metastasized into something far more threatening to the likely Democratic nominee. The spurious claims about his faith have spiraled into a broader assault that questions his patriotism and citizenship and generally portrays him as a threat to mainstream, white America.'

Politico May5 '08

To be fair similar attempts have been made to discredit the Republican candidate by (amongst other things) accusing him of collaboration with the North Vietnamese in exchange for being provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes.
I think this came from the poison pen of Dr Jack too!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 07:03 AM

and.....to complete the picture

Hillary Clinton sleeps with women!

'One reason is that it's too blindingly obvious that Mr. Clinton's book should have been titled "My Lie." All of that stuff about Hillary being mad, making him sleep on the couch, going to marriage counselors for a year, yada yada, is all made up. They have had a pact for decades: He gets to fool around with women, and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man like Vince Foster). Yes, she's bisexual — I disclosed that in an infamous Strategic Investment column in January 1993, and Dick Morris publicly revealed it a few years ago. You knew that, right?'
courtesy of Dr Jack - who else?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 08:08 AM

Wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 10:11 AM

Verifiable?    In politics one need only say that something is verifiable (which is potentially true for anything until disproved and then it is too late)
That is of course unless you are a honorable investigative reporter.


Regarding McCan't not remembering how many homes...

3 of those homes are investment properties one of which is a parking lot. T
hat leaves two homes that may be rented. WHO LIVES THERE?

A good reporter would find out what kind of landlord the McCan'ts really are....unless the renter has already been bought off.
Are they renting to the Saudi Royal family or Keating andhow much is the rent????????????


Potential future attacks on Obama:

SEX...
His wife had abortions.
Barack had sex with women other than his wife (especially before marriage)
Barack paid for abortion
Barack has obscene pictures in his email folder
Barack helped cover up Edward's affair
Claims by women requiring DNA samples from Barack

MONEY
private investigator fees
list of contributors who have commited a crime or are suspected of a crime
missing money
Oprah contriuted from a corporate account above the legal maximum

RACIAL
"Half White" takes on new deraugatory meaning
Kenyan father's ancestry is shown to include Arab bloo
Favors blacks over whites
usual ethnic purity racist attacks

REMOVE HIS ISSUES
Bush administration neutralizes Barack's call for timeline by makeing a timeline of troop withdrawl.

Barack suggested 12,000 more troops to Afghanistan then Bush did so 3 months later.

Barack suggests covert action in Iran, then Bush actually did one.

Barack suggests that McCain has shot himself in the foot.
McCain arranges quale hunting trip with Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 10:15 AM

JAnet:

You really should be ashamed of yourself passing just foul gas in public places.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 06:56 PM

Obama is a flawed candidate but much better than the alternative McCain and his beer queen. Obama sold out on the telecomms and his faith-based initiatives are against the first Amendment of the Constitution. He has no control how the religious organizations that will receive our tax dollars will spend them. They have no accountability. It's a cave-in on Obama's part.

Obama has excluded much of his activist base through these actions.

He also has not decided to eliminate Blackwater and other mercenaries from their warlike aspirations. He also would defend the "Green Zone" making him a part of the American exceptionalism and imperial ambitions. He has mentioned going into Pakistan and Afghanistan which means that he might also call for a draft.

Obama's good points are that he is intelligent (unlike McCain) and it would be nice
to have a president who knew how to put a sentence together. His speech on race relations was admirable.

Can he really effect change? It is questionable because today the country is run by
private corporations who control the news media and the defense industry. He would have to be a Teddy Roosevelt "trust buster" and he doesn't show signs of doing that.

I voted against Goldwater who threatened to bomb Cuba only to mistakenly support
Johnson who perpetrated the Vietnam war fraud.

I will vote for Obama but I still don't trust him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:48 PM

"Barack helped cover up Edward's affair..."


             Now if you could prove that one, it should be deadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 10:37 PM

If 'Bama can't handle "a fat bearded buffoon, incapable of rational thought, putting irrelevant questions' he does not have the cajones to be president.


Take away his staff of 400 to 500 and he is just a little girlie man being picked on by big mean people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 11:21 PM

But he does have the huge staff, and the money to pay them. MoveOn.org is about to pull of a political coup. It would be helpful to know who they're working for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 11:32 PM

"It would be helpful to know who they're [MoveOn.org] working for."


First, last and always, they're working for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 11:57 PM

Joe Biden it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 01:31 AM

Take away any candidates' staff, or any senator's and you'll soon see an overloaded human. Big so what.

IF you weren't so bitter and dedicated to nastiness, you'd have noticed that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 01:47 AM

STOP!! You are ALL right!!...They both suck!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 08:02 AM

This is the full text of Obama's "answer":

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."

What candidate or Senator has or needs a staff of 400 to 500 people?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 08:23 AM

While McCain's answer, having heard Obama's on the radio of his "motorcade" vehicle was "At the "moment of conception." McCain says that saying such a thing is leadership. But I say "do we need to be lead over the cliff of self imposed ignorance?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 08:54 AM

Obama campaing staff member:

Policy Development: Cassandra Q. Butts

Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy at The Center for American Progress. A senior advisor to Rep. Richard A. Gephardt; worked for Gephardt for seven years during his tenure as House Democratic Leader and volunteered as the policy director on his 2004 presidential campaign. An Assistant Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

CAP's Liberal Leadership:

Former Clinton Chief Of Staff John Podesta Launched "Liberal Policy Institute" Center For American Progress (CAP) "To Drive The Message For Democrats." (Julia Malone, "Activists Race To Fill 'Soft Money' Gap," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/21/03)

The Nation: "It's Not Completely Wrong To See [CAP] As A Shadow Government, A Kind Of Clinton White-House-In-Exile – Or A White House Staff In Readiness For President Hillary Clinton." (Robert Dreyfuss, "An Idea Factory For The Democrats," The Nation, 3/1/04)
·       "It Is The Official Hillary Clinton Think Tank." (Christian Bourge, "Analysis: Liberal Think Tank Debuts," United Press International, 7/7/03)

CAP's Extreme Left Wing Funding:
George Soros Reportedly Pledged $3 Million To CAP. (Amy Westfeldt, "Billionaire Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is – Toward Ousting Bush," The Associated Press, 6/10/04)
    * Soros Has Been Called The "Daddy Warbucks" Of Drug Legalization. Joseph A. Califano Jr., Op-Ed, "Devious Efforts To Legalize Drugs," The Washington Post, 12/4/96)

Major Democrat 527 Donors Peter Lewis And Marion Sandler Sit On CAP's Board. "For example, in 2003, Peter B. Lewis and Marion Sandler sat on the board of the Center for American Progress, a 501c3 non-profit. They are also major donors to Section 527 organizations involved in this year's political discussions. Peter Lewis is ranked #2 in donations to 527s this cycle after giving $23.1 million. Marion Sandler and her husband are ranked #4 after giving $13 million." (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 11/17/04)

·       Peter Lewis, George Soros And John Sperling Have "Bankrolled The Pro-Pot Movement." (Joel Stein, "The New Politics Of Pot; Can It Go Legit?" Time, 11/4/02)


But Sawzaw, PNAC is the shadow Govermint, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

PNAC is not the shadow goverment as much as one of its steering commitees. Such as the Rand Corporation is one of its steering commitees.
When you say shadow goverment it is not one thing but rather a collection of MIComplex entities with certain designated drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 10:17 AM

Soros is trying to countermand the billions of dollars that so called conservatives have poured into propaganda. This money has caused baseless fairy tails to be repeated as accepted fact. Nonsense like "Tax cuts provide economic stimulus" and "Democrats are weak on national security" and "Offshore drilling with drop oil prices today.

People like Sawzaw are proof that promoting this claptrap works.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 12:27 PM

Robotii non consequiet habeunt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

Taxes are at the core of each candidate's economic agenda. Mr. McCain's proposed tax cuts are directed mostly at the wealthy; Mr. Obama's are aimed at lower- and middle-income Americans and paired with tax increases for the wealthy. This page has long decried the high-end tax cuts of the Bush years. And Mr. McCain's plan to continue them, while piling on more, will neither grow the economy nor raise revenue. The mega-deficits they would create would be a drag on any growth.

NYT Editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 09:16 PM

"First, last and always, they're [MoveOn.ogr] working for themselves."



                      Too bad they're not working for the good of the country!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 09:19 PM

The people who most need more money are those below the tax threshold.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Aug 08 - 11:10 PM

That's a good point, Richard. And getting money into the hands of those people would do the most to stimulate the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 01:41 PM

Give the wealthy more money and they will only invest in Asia.

The rich might need to trade in their yacht or plane and buy some mansions on the cheap but for the most part they have already bought everything they want.
Giving the rich more money now is a bit like the Monty Python fat man at the fancy Restaurant having one more thin mint.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 02:44 PM

Actually, they are working for the good of the cou8ntry. Too bad it isn't more widely acknowledged.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 03:32 PM

You won't ever see a poll on this but if share holders were given the choice of making a greater profit or investing outside the USA to the further destruction of the American economy....

I think America would be a distant 2nd.


Speaking of polls today the talking points are that polls indicate that McCain and Obama are now dead even

however when you look at each of the seven different polls today NONE of them show a tie or McCain in the lead.

Other polls being hawked today say that 57% of America are worried that Obama is inexperienced.

Yes polls will do what ever your tone and shaping of the question dictates but they are effective propoganda tools for elections.
I wonder if people would be worried that a former prisoner and torture victim is claiming that being a prisoner is the best qualification for one to be president.

"Is being a tortured prisoner the best qualification to be president?"
If this were a poll question I predict 80% would say no
Rove counted on this last time.

Of America's 10 million prisoners, not all are felons unable to vote.
Hmmm lets poll the prisons

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 09:41 PM

"Soros is trying to countermand the billions of dollars that so called conservatives have poured into propaganda."

Ya got that one backwards Jack.

How about the propaganda that Obama does not use lobbyists in his campaign?

Jun 4, 2008 ... Senator Obama has promised not to use lobbyists in paid positions on his staff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 10:02 PM

"Actually, they are working for the good of the cou8ntry. Too bad it isn't more widely acknowledged."


                         Amos - I think they [MoveOn.org] think they are working for the good of the country, but in reality, I think they see themselves as citizens of the world first. I further think that this is why Obama appeals to them.
                         Frankly, I think being a citizen of the world is a very important thing. The problem is, some parts of the world are not ready to make this transition. I think you need another Teddy Roosevelt or two, before you can surrender you sovereignty completely.
                         I think Obama would do it now. I would wait until third world nations and places under the control of religious zealots brought their population growth under contol first.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 10:49 PM

Obama would be like a second term for Carter.

Then when he proves unable to execute his hope and change platform. whatever that is, it will be wide open for Billary in '12.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM

sawzaw,

You are so marinated in that propaganda that you don't even notice the top one percent picking the meat off your bones.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:17 PM

"Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh! Bunch of F-in losers! You suck! Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh!"

You just heard the delightful sound of partisan politics in the USA. Total disrespect fueled by mutual contempt and hatred. A pretty sad spectacle it is too. If you ever get an even half-decent government through this meanspirited process you call "an American election", I think it will rival even Moses' reputed parting of the Red Sea in the annals of miracles.

You know what I think? Americans are probably going to get the government they collectively deserve once again, given their present state of mind. That could be quite dangerous for the world in general, and not too good for Americans either.

Deja vu.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:51 PM

Perhaps JTS can offer something more than childish personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:51 PM

They got a good start tonight. Show off the family, and homage to Teddy.

I don't believe I've ever visited this thread. Who is this "GUEST, Sawzaw" person? Never saw them before, but then a search shows that he/she is only here for political BS. Not a single music posting in over 200 so far. Means a larger grain of salt is called for.

Oh, well. Back to the rest of the forum.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 08:36 AM

Jack, that top 1% is carrying part of your dead weight, in case you didn't notice.

Take them out of the picture and suddenly you would be paying more taxes to make up for what they pay for you.

The Canuckians need to learn a little respect themselves. How is Canada's trade surplus doing?

Aaaahhhhh, Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. is $6.13 billion while the trade deficit with countries other than the United States is $3.8 billion.

Looks like Canada sells stuff to the US, uses that to buy cheap stuff from other countries like China and still has money left over to pay for it's socialist form of government.

Take the US out of the picture and what happens? Socialism collapses once again because it is a non-viable form of government unless it has rich capitalist countries to feed off of while decrying how evil they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:27 AM

Looks like Sawz' Bile is on the fly once again. Never seen such a bitter polemic. Canada, old sourpuss, does not feed on the United States. They sell goods and services and hand-carved mounties and folk music here.

If the United STates were taken out of the picture, as you suggest,t here would be much more to worry about than which form the government takes.
Your implication that there is something parasitic about the relationship is off the mark, offered without substantiation, devoid of any thought, and strikes me as just your personal well of hatred overflowing once again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 10:10 AM

"Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope …. Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be …. We are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

Barack Obama, Iowa

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:44 AM

Sawzaw is taking bile from right wing blogs and polemic sites and presenting it as his/her own thoughts. That explains the lack of logic and the flitting from one tangent to another. Seems like someone shows up to do that every election.

He/she is obviously not interested in any of the reasons social or musical reasons the forum exists and just wants to pretend to be intelligent by cribbing other people's nonsense.

The fiction that the top one percent of income earners is creating wealth and paying my taxes rather than siphoning it off and making my taxes higher is part of that fiction. We don't spend trillions on the military to defend my little house. The big government money is spent taking care of those people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM

I'm with you GUEST,Sawsaz


Go getem tiger. Bring it on.
You sound like a Man with a job of great respondsibility.
You know how to command and get the job done.


The democrat party will never get the job done.   
I don't think that the demoncrats are fooling anyone with their new found love of GOD. Their fake faith is blasphemey. ITs worse than taking the Lord's name in vain.

These low rent tree huggers and song singing troop haters don't repect authority and have never invested millions of dollars in America like us.
America is for the share holders who own a share of the ultimate sacrifice and repondsibilty for our freedom, our economy, our homes and our children.

We gotta show these uppity radicals and McCain bashers that its our way or the highway.

We need a Surge Splurge around the world and especially here at home, to show these animals once and for all who is boss.

Sawsaz If you don't tell them, they will never know.
One suggestion however, facts and figures will never bring these lefty socialists around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

Six of the Seven Barack half brothers have been found in a Pakistani 'training camp'



My name is donuel and I onion that message.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 01:20 PM

Talk about thread drift! What in the least has the sniping got to do with "Popular Views on Obama?" I was hoping for some serious commentary here, seriously.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

The spiral works like this. A serious discussion gets interrupted by a half-baked head-in-lower-GI remark by an ill-informed sniper. A reaction sets in in which said sniper is excoriated, chastised, corrected, calumnified or roundly dismissed with humor or without. The serious discussion is by this time so derailed it takes several posts to get it started again.

I heard Michele give her talk at the DNC. It was quite excellent--simple, passionate, straightforward and very well-delivered.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

There is one thing since a quarter of the country seems willing to swallow every bit of trip Fox News spews, isn't that a popular view of Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:26 PM

"Popular Views on Obama"


               He seems to be dropping in the polls, even while the convention is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:32 PM

LOL!

Sawzaw, Canada is not a "socialist" country. Canada is a capitalist country with a profit-based economic system very similar to that of America, we just happen to have a couple of specific socialist institutions you don't, such as a national radio program (CBC) and universal health coverage. If a member of my family has a medical emergency...I don't have to go broke over it.

That hardly quailifies us as a "socialist" country, though, since 98% of what happens here is capitalist. I think you may have us confused with Cuba or something...

And, hey, we've been doing a lot better lately than the USA economically speaking. Maybe it's because we aren't spending a trillion dollars a year on a war in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 03:43 PM

"He seems to be dropping in the polls, even while the convention is going on."

Of course! It's the Riginslinger Effect that's responsible for that. All your negative talk about Obama is wearing his campaign down, man. Nothing spreads faster than bad news and negative gossip, right? I predict that your incessant dissing of Obama on this forum will eventually reduce his support nationwide to the point where he will be lucky to carry even a single state. Why he might even retire from politics before voting day and vanish into a monastery just to get away from it all. ;-) Then we'll get 4 more years of the Republicans and most Mudcatters will hate you for the rest of their lives.

"Being that that is a .44 Magnut, the most powerful opinion in the world, and can blow your head clean off, you gotta ask yourself one question, Rig..."

"Do I feel lucky?"

"Well? Do ya...punk?"

(Note to moderators: the above is a joke)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 06:02 PM

Gallup Daily: No Bounce for Obama in Post-Biden Tracking

McCain creeps ahead, 46% to 44%
USA Election 2008 Gallup Daily Americas Northern America

PRINCETON, NJ -- It's official: Barack Obama has received no bounce in voter support out of his selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109834/Gallup-Daily-Bounce-Obama-Post-Biden-Tracking.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM

Composite polls, not filtered to make an electrifying news story, show Obama 1.7% ahead:

RCP National Average         45.7                 44.0               Obama +1.7
Favorable Ratings               +19.0        +16.4        Obama +2.6
Intrade Market Odds                 61.1                 37.1        -      Obama +24

INdividual news agency stories are always gonna be slanted whichevver way will make the most heebie-jeebies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 07:45 PM

Ya know, Amos / Saul /Little hawk , This is my favorite part of the political year. Its just like when you have just begun dating and you expert her to lie to you and kiss your butt.

And that is serious commentary. Its worth $ if you are writing for Bill Mahre.

Seriously, the butt kissing begins tonight with Hillary's concession/promotion speech. How well she does will determine what rewards she could expect in the future and how well insulated she will be from accusations of being a spoiler.

If Barack is swift boated or Diebolded...

She could certainly run again, assuming we haven't engaged in a nuclear exchange under McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 07:56 PM

"Why he might even retire from politics before voting day and vanish into a monastery just to get away from it all..."


                Does Reverend Wright run a monastery?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 08:49 PM

"and presenting it as his/her own thoughts."

From whence? It is my conclusion, especially so because Canucks think Socialist Cuba is so great and long to live there.

I heard a first hand story from someone that just visited Cuba, Seems they hired a driver and one day the driver did not show up. He said his daughter was sick and he needed to take her to the hospital, then he could show up. Later he did show up and his wife contacted him. She told him he needed to bring some cleaning supplies to her at the hospital because her daughter's hospital bed was dirty and had blood on it.

The Libs only weapon when confronted with facts is to whine "Propaganda", unfair, unfair. They think everyone uses propaganda like they do. Everything that does not fit into their goody goody little idealistic socialist conception of how things should be is labeled propaganda. They are the only ones who know anything. It's sort of like a religion. "We have the only true religion and all others are false"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:17 PM

You tell em, Guest,sawzz

Its typical plug and play liberal rhetoric all right, one size fits all the faithful.

They say that crazy people sometimes claim to have great powers.

When someone like Obama actually gets great powers, he is likely to go a little crazy.

juslike u

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

Reverend Wright:

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

"God damn America"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 11:13 PM

Now wait a minute there my friend,

Even at the NIH there is a 50-50 division between viral bio chemists as to a human enginered origin of HIV and the Belgium TB vaccine African monkey HIV infection theory regarding human HIV infection from that monkey vaccine and the subsequent epidemic.

No matter who said it, there is still a arguable point about AIDs genisis in the scientific community.


As for race specific infection research that has only been in the works for about a dozen years. Of course an African AIDs epidemic is only a bit higher as it is in the black population in Washigton DC which is close to 1 in 10 in NE DC neighborhoods. To call it a race specific virus is stretching the truth but naturally it will effect more blacks in Africa.

At any rate when a preacher tires to discuss the controversy in 7 words, he is bound to be out of bounds, but not entirely wrong either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 12:00 AM

Your talent for distorting the truth by sliding it out of all context and twisting it has grown larger with each passing fit, Sawz.

If you keep it up you'll be too insane to even write a sentence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 12:06 AM

Relax Amos. He's just going to spew sites and picking out random tidbits. He's probably got a picture of Limbaugh on the ceiling over his bed. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 12:25 AM

"He's probably got a picture of Limbaugh on the ceiling over his bed."
                  Boy, that would be the kryptonite of sexual arousal!


    "...when a preacher tires to discuss the controversy in 7 words, he is bound to be out of bounds, but not entirely wrong either."

                   No, he's entirely wrong, no matter how many words!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 01:10 AM

I just told you, Sawza, Canada is 98% capitalist. Maybe 99%. And we're good at it too. If that doesn't fit your insane mythological notions about us, too bad. You may be under the impression we live in igloos here too for all I know... ;-)

I admire the Cubans because they've successfully resisted you Mafia bastards in Greater Imperial Amerika for 50 years now and they've kept you at bay. Plus they're more friendly, more polite, more mature, and more likeable than you are on an individual basis and they're lively and confident enough to do stuff for themselves rather than just sit on their couch like a stuffed potatoe and watch someone else do it for them on the TV screen. That's good enough for me.

They put you totally to shame as human beings, and so do a lot of other Third World people, but you'll never know it because you live inside a bubble of blind cultural ignorance, safe behind your embargo, your mountain of possessions, and your ill-founded fear of the fictional bogeymen that your politicians invented so they could keep successfully enslaving YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 03:09 PM

Washington Post:

posted at 2:35 PM ET, 08/27/2008
Russia Makes Trouble for the Democrats' Narrative

I wouldn't say that the words "Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" are on every delegate's lips out here, but Russia's aggression has spotlighted some interesting divisions within the Democratic Party -- and even the Obama team itself -- on foreign policy.

Barack Obama issued a very tough statement yesterday, after Russia recognized as independent countries two provinces of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He said "the U.S. should lead within the UN and other international forums... to further isolate Russia internationally because of its actions." Around the same time, as Bloomberg reported, two of Obama's senior advisers, former defense secretary Bill Perry and former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, were counseling against isolation and for engagement. I haven't seen any surveys on this, but it's clear that a lot of Democrats here feel more comfortable with the softer view.

Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio told a group of us Post reporters and editors that "if Russians were to try to do, over in our sphere of influence, what we've been doing in theirs, the reaction would be rather severe." The governor emphasized that he wasn't speaking for Obama, but when I expressed surprise -- and wondered how Polish-Americans and Ukrainian-Americans in Ohio would react to his apparent inclusion of independent nations into a Russian "sphere of influence" -- he didn't back off. "It seems to me we have taken action that was almost designed to be provocative, and that just doesn't seem wise to me."

The problem for Obama is that this crisis, and his response to it, doesn't comport with the narrative many Democrats here treasure, which could be summed up as: McCain is a warmonger like Bush, Obama will bring back diplomacy, and America, by invading Iraq and condoning torture, has forfeited any right to complain about Russia.

Listen to Joe Biden tonight, and Obama tomorrow, as they seek to weave their uncompromising response to Russia and their critique of Bush-McCain overall belligerence into a narrative that comforts the faithful and makes sense to the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

Bruce,

International diplomacy is tough. There are no easy answers. Bush and McCain think that there are easy answers and have thus put us in our current pickle. Its time to try something new.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:08 PM

"out of all context"

Amos, you are the master of posting out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:16 PM

Us American Mafia Bastards eh?

You could get rubbed out for that but I don't think you are worth the cost of an Anti-Little Hawk Cruise Missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:20 PM

One can create context or follow context or get out of the way.

Obama folks are still angry with the Clinton camp for The Mark Penn smears on Obama that continued long after it was impossible for Hillary to win.

The story that Hillary fans are going Republican is 99.9% fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:10 PM

In a switch, McCain to Obama: "Well done"

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago



DENVER - In a brief break from a fierce advertising war, Republican presidential candidate John McCain will air a one-evening-only ad with a simple message for Barack Obama: "Job well done."

The ad will air before, during and after Obama's nomination acceptance speech on national cable television.

In the ad, McCain addresses Obama directly, congratulating him for becoming the Democratic Party's nominee. McCain also recognizes the symbolism of a black man accepting the nomination on the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

McCain says: "Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done."

While the ad represents a moment of comity, it also casts McCain as a generous and gracious rival on the final day of the Democratic National Convention where McCain was regularly portrayed in a negative light.

As McCain concedes, this won't last.

Both candidates have been running a series of ads criticizing each other, vastly outnumbering any positive ads about themselves. But this is the first positive ad of the election by one candidate about the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:22 PM

I hope McCain does that. It should be noted that the Clintons and Biden and several others praised Biden the man before going on to the serious matter of pointing out the weakness of his platform.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 05:22 PM

I hope McCain does that. It should be noted that the Clintons and Biden and several others praised MCCAIN the man before going on to the serious matter of pointing out the weakness of his platform.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

HEy-- finally, the man shows that he has some class. I often suspected he had it in there somewhere.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 06:42 PM

From "The Progressive":

MLK's Dream 45 Years Later


Forty-five years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous "I Have A Dream" speech to over 200,000 people from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. African-Americans were "still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination" one hundred years after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, King said. He invoked "the fierce urgency of now" and declared that America must "live out the true meaning of its creed" that "all men are created equal." Forty-five years later, though still incomplete, America has moved gradually towards realizing King's dream. One year after King delivered his speech, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which formally outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. In 1966, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke became the first African-American to be elected to the Senate by popular vote. In 1989, L. Douglas Wilder became the first African-American elected governor of a state. In Denver today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will become the first African-American to accept the presidential nomination of a major party. Rev. Joseph Lowery, who was a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with King, says that while Obama's nomination is a significant step for the civil rights movement, it is not the final step. "I think that, while it doesn't mean we've gotten to heaven... we are on our way as the old song goes," Lowery told Politico.

DISPARITIES STILL EXIST: In 2004, the National Urban League released it's first Equality Index, which sought to statistically measure the disparities between blacks and whites in areas such as economics, education and civic engagement. The index found that the status of African-Americans had improved since the Civil Rights era, with significant increases in "overall income, home ownership, business development and educational achievement" but that "there are still notable gaps between African Americans and whites." In total, the status of African Americans in 2004 was "73 percent when compared to the conditions of their white counterparts." In the 2007 Equality Index, the status of African-Americans had shown a slight improvement, rising to 73.3 percent.

'A LONELY ISLAND OF POVERTY': In his 1963 speech, King described black Americans as living "on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity." Forty-five years later, the economic disparities between African Americans and white Americans are still stark. In 2007, based on annual median income, black men "earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned" while "black women made 87 percent of what white women made." According to new census numbers, "inflation-adjusted median incomes of black and Hispanic households rose last year for the first time since 1999," but African-Americans still "had the lowest median household income in the country" at $33,916. In 2007, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 8.3 percent, which is "more than twice the white unemployment rate." In census numbers released earlier this week, African-Americans once again had the highest poverty rate in America 24.5 percent.

'THE PROMISES OF DEMOCRACY': In calling for America to heed "the fierce urgency of now," King declared that "now is the time to make real the promises of democracy." Since then, African-Americans have been one of the most active and engaged voting communities in America. According to the 2006 census, blacks had the second highest registration rate at 61 percent and the second highest level of voter turnout at 41 percent. Despite this high level of civic engagement, barriers for democratic involvement by the African American community still exist. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's restrictive voter ID law, ruling that "states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights." Though many Americans have a variety of proofs of identity, studies have shown that black and Latino Americans are far less likely than whites to have government-issued IDs. For instance, in a detailed study in Milwaukee, fewer than half of African-American and Latino adults had identification.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:34 AM

From Atlantic.com:

It was a deeply substantive speech, full of policy detail, full of people other than the candidate, centered overwhelmingly on domestic economic anxiety. It was a liberal speech, more unabashedly, unashamedly liberal than any Democratic acceptance speech since the great era of American liberalism. But it made the case for that liberalism - in the context of the decline of the American dream, and the rise of cynicism and the collapse of cultural unity. His ability to portray that liberalism as a patriotic, unifying, ennobling tradition makes him the most lethal and remarkable Democratic figure since John F Kennedy.
What he didn't do was give an airy, abstract, dreamy confection of rhetoric. The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.
He took every assault on him and turned them around. He showed not just that he understood the experience of many middle class Americans, but that he understood how the Republicans have succeeded in smearing him. And he didn't shrink from the personal charges; he rebutted them. Whoever else this was, it was not Adlai Stevenson. It was not Jimmy Carter. And it was less afraid and less calculating than Bill Clinton.
Above all, he took on national security - face on, full-throttle, enraged, as we should all be, at how disastrously American power has been handled these past eight years. He owned this issue in a way that no Democrat has owned it since Kennedy. That's a transformative event. To my mind, it is vital that both parties get to own the war on Jihadist terror and that we escape this awful Rove-Morris trap that poisons the discourse into narrow and petty partisan abuse of patriotism. Obama did this tonight. We are in his debt.
Look: I'm biased at this point. I'm one of those people, deeply distressed at what has happened to America, deeply ashamed of my own misjudgments, who has shifted out of my ideological comfort zone because this man seems different to me, and this moment in history seems different to me. I'm not sure we have many more chances to get off the addiction to foreign oil, to prevent a calamitous terrorist attack, to restore constitutional balance in the hurricane of a terror war.
I've said it before - months and months ago. I should say it again tonight. This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.
Know hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:39 AM

CNN.com:

I imagine that lots of you out there remain fierce critics of Barack Obama. Next week Republicans will legitimately debate and challenge many of his ideas, especially about his call for a more activist government. It will be fascinating now when John McCain and Obama meet in debates.

But for this moment and for this purpose, I saw Obama's speech tonight as a political masterpiece. As I had a chance to say on CNN a few moments ago, it was in many ways less a speech than a symphony. I also sensed that we saw tonight an Obama who is growing into a new, more mature leader — stronger, tougher, harder-hitting than he had appeared only a few weeks ago.

Whether Obama will win this Novemember or not is still very unclear, but if he does, I imagine we may look back and say this was a major turning point.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:33 AM

I can't wait to see the debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

"It was a remarkable scene last night. The mood of the crowd, the stagecraft, the pageantry and the sheer enormity of the stadium made the evening feel like a cross between Lollapalooza, The Oscars, and the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics.

Obama's speech was brilliant: well crafted and well delivered, touching on all the right notes. All that was expected, of course, and Obama delivered in spades. He got somewhat specific at times, deftly portrayed McCain as out of touch on the economy, put up his dukes on national security, and finished with an emotional flourish that drew on the history of the moment.

He made one mistake, though. His line knocking McCain for not following Osama bin Laden to his cave struck me as flippant and unnecessary. Though the crowd got a kick out of it, my sense is that that line that opened the door for Republicans and it will come back to haunt the Junior Senator from Illinois.

Whether the speech connected with the voters he needs to connect with around the country, we'll have to wait and see. This much is for certain: Obama is the muse of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. He moves them in a way no candidate has in two generations.

Yet, as the massive crowd inside the stadium testified, Obama's appeal reaches well beyond hardcore Democrats. It was no small feat to get inside Invesco field yesterday: a mile trek on foot, an hour or more wait in line in the hot afternoon sun. Yet people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and ages made the pilgrimage and filled the seats for the chance to see Obama accept the Democratic party's nomination for President - and he did not disappoint."

(From http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/obamas_night.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

Obama's lead is getting clearer:


RCP Average 08/18 - 08/28 -- 47.7 43.8             Obama +3.9
Gallup Tracking 08/26 - 08/28 2727 RV 49 41       Obama +8
Rasmussen Tracking 08/26 - 08/28 3000 LV 49 45    Obama +4
CNN 08/23 - 08/24 909 RV 47 47 Tie
USA Today/Gallup 08/21 - 08/23 765 LV 48 45       Obama +3
Hotline/FD 08/18 - 08/24 1022 RV 44 40                Obama +4
ABC News/Wash Post 08/19 - 08/22 LV 49 45          Obama +4

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 03:15 PM

The last 8 years of the ownership policy, which is nothing more than taking a low cost goverment function and outsourcing it to special friends of the administration for 10 times the cost, it costs YOU 10 times more to pay for it. When they are payed with borrowed money with interest you are paying 20 times more than the cost of goverment doing it in the first place.

I know this all too well.

Outsourcing and contracting out has become the biggest rip off in history and most people think it is the goverment.

Its not the goverment, it is the Republican plan to make money off what the goverment was originally designed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 04:33 PM

How about a specific example D.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 07:02 PM

Posted August 30, 2008 2:15 PM

Barack Obama also holds an 8-point advantage over John McCain.

by Mark Silva

"ST. PAUL, Minn. - Barack Obama is getting high ratings for his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, with 58 percent of those surveyed giving it a positive review and 43 percent saying it could make them more likely to vote for the junior senator from Illinois seeking the White House.

Obama also has maintained an eight-point advantage over rival John McCain in Gallup's daily tracking poll, which includes the last two days of the convention and the day afterward - the day that McCain named his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The Democrat leads the Republican by 49-41 percent in the daily track, a measure of Obama's "convention "bounce,'' Gallup says.

"The Friday interviewing was conducted in an unusual political environment -- the first conducted fully after Obama's well-regarded acceptance speech,'' Gallup notes.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans give Obama's speech a positive review, including 35 percent calling it "excellent."

Both ratings surpass those for the 2000 and 2004 presidential candidates - with Obama's excellent rating "higher than any other other recent candidate has received.,'' Gallup reports.(...)"    Swamp Politics.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:26 AM

Since Sarah Palin stepped into the limelight, Oh Bummer has been running around demeaning small towns again. This won't win votes for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 11:36 AM

Rig:

Play nice, and stop the slander.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 09:53 PM

Regarding concerns that Clintonite Democrats may support Republican presidential hopeful John McCain (your report, 28 August), I would suggest such acts of Mugwumpery will not be indulged by the party membership.
Having seen Democrat hopes dashed by the most Neocon US government in history, Democrats realise the price that would be paid not only by the US but by the world at large if they failed to elect Barack Obama as president.

The world desired new leadership and Obama is that leader.

GREGOR MURRAY

Grampian Gardens

Dundee

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:30 PM

Amos is the only one with a license to slander.

He alone makes the rules on what people can post, what ie slander and what is not. He metes out "Summary Justice"

Il Duce, Der Führer, The Ayatollah of Mudcat

From: Amos

X-Ed, shut the fuck up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:36 PM

We conservatives here really have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Some here, like Amos and Bobert, have become such students of Bush that it is impossible to tell any difference between the tactics he is accused of and the ones that they have chosen to advance their own side.

I guess imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:51 PM

IF either of you garbage-mouthed grumps would like to post specifics, I would be interested in reading them.

You ad hominem slanders, Sawz, are unimaginative, inaccurate, unkind and uncharitable, lacking grace, precision, accuracy and smacking of a deep lack of integrity.

I have no authority or any desire to prevent people from posting. I reserve my own right as an individual to call BS when I see it, as I do here.,

When you fill these threads with innuendo and gaseous generalizations of ugliness, you cast a very poor reflection of your own capabilities, mental or spiritual.

Apparently you have been poring over all my posts looking for the least charitable things I have ever said, with the idea in mind of taking them out of their context and offering them up as examples of my posting history.

That's a pretty vacuuous and pathetic impulse on your part, just because you don't like my political views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM

"garbage-mouthed grumps"?


You are saying that any disagreement with you is invalid???



Please go insert your head back into it's orifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM

sorry- cookie.

"garbage-mouthed grumps"?


You are saying that any disagreement with you is invalid???



Please go insert your head back into it's orifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:13 PM

>>How about a specific example D

How about two

BlackWater USA
Halliburton

Lets make it three

KBR

They are all doing jobs soldiers used to do and charging ten times as much as a soldier is paid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:39 PM

No, Bruce, and you know full well that is NOT what I am saying, and you know full well what it is I AM saying. If you find the current disarray of your chosen party so depressing that it makes you go all green at the gills and foamy at the mouth like Sawz, go do it in the dark streets at night. I don't want it, nor do I deserve it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:13 PM

Amos,

Actually, your recent comments have been a lot like the ones Martin Gibson was putting up here. Perhaps you need to relax and stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil- THAT is what you claimed Bush was doing, and you ARE doing it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:21 PM

Bruce

M-G said a lot of things but if you are implying that Amos' behavior in any way compares to the worst of M-G's attacks, I am willing to call that an unwarranted personal attack, with no basis in reality, on Amos.

I think you woe Amos and apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:23 PM

SO I am to believe the Amos's ad hominem slanders are imaginative, accurate, kind and charitable, graceful, precise, accurate and reflecting deep integrity?

"Shut the fuck up" Yeah, it is all of those things.

Heil.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

I did not say the worst- but Amos has been getting more insulting, for less reason. I expect he will be as bad as the worst of M-G by about the election.

I owe him ( and Bobert) only the truth, and my honest opinion. If he acts in an obnoxious manner, it is my duty to let him know that his behaviour is negatively affectiing the viewpoint he is promoting- I point him out as an example of what we can expect if Obama were to win, and that gives independents more than enough reason to consider McCain, for all his faults.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:42 PM

Bruce,

If you think you are independent you are kidding yourself. In the six or seven years I have seen you on this form you have always toed the Republican Party line.

It was obviously not your honest opinion.
Please note, that you can't call Amos as bad a M-G just because you think at some point he might get that bad. You still owe him an apology. But if at some point, in the very unlikely event he does get that bad, having predicted it, you might be able to say "I told you so."

For now, it is an unwarranted personal attack, one that is not up to your usual standard of behavior. I am sure that the moderators are giving you some leeway because of your past civility. But for me, comparing someone who does not agree with you and occaisionally critiques your style of argument to the most disruptive, insulting vulgar troll ever to pollute this forum is a step too far.

Please note that Sawzaw, earns some criticism. He is constantly chasing Amos all over this forum hurling half baked insults at him. It is understandable that Amos responds once in a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:52 PM

IMHO, Amos is now just about as bad as M-G was about 1 year before he was kicked off. But he has gotten there in a short time- at this rate I expect he will reach the extreme that M-G reached in two months.


Just my opinion, milage may vary. It is Amos' reaction to ANY disagreement with his fixed viewpoint, regardless of how carefully or politely phrased that brings M-G to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:56 PM

Bruce:


We've been at this game, and each other, too longmy friend. Perhaps you know my buttons too well! Your compatriot Sawzall has accused me of being a fascist, a Muslim religious leader, and a number of other things. Yet I have not gone trawling through the history of the Cat looking for dumb things he has said to throw back in his face. And when I corrected him on one such erroneous extraction from history, he dropped it and went and found another, without bothering to reveal where he found it. He has consistently demonstrated an underhanded, snide, passive-aggressive style which insinuates and plays innuendoes, smears and vilifies without detail or context.

Your own recent snide remarks about "Obama's supporters" and the imitation of our most despised and furless leader Bush are similarly indirect and unworethy as arguments. Why you would paint me with the same brush as those who post salacious and scurrilous slanders with no basis in fact escapes me. The salacious slanders i have posted all have a firm basis in fact.

Mebbe we could both lighten up some and give ole Sawz a better example to learn from.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:05 PM

"The salacious slanders i have posted "


I do not agree that you have established a basis for these slanders- YOU are defining what you say as factual, when that is arguable (IMHO).


You have gotten more personal in your insults, and I do not see that you have some special priviledge to do so. Ubermensch are NOT appreciated.

I have the utmost respect for your musical ability and judgement ( as I do Bobert's) but your pushing your own political viewpoint down other's throats in the manner you have been trying to is ... worthy of M-G. Try persuasion instead of browbeating.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:05 PM

Main Entry:
sa·la·cious
Pronunciation:
\sə-ˈlā-shəs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin salac-, salax, from salire to move spasmodically, leap — more at sally
Date:
circa 1645
1 : arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination : lascivious
2 : lecherous, lustful
— sa·la·cious·ly adverb
— sa·la·cious·ness noun



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 06:12 PM

Mister Sawzall, Knowzall, Esquire has seen fit to indirectly and covertly take me to task for telling a fellow-poster to shut the fuck up. It seems out character for me to get quite that blunt. But it is only fair to say to anyone who gives a fish's fart that I did indeed say those very words on a thread once. Mea Culp[a.

However, I plead extenuating circumstances. Circumstance, I hasten to add, which Mister Sawzal saw fit to leave out of his wily accusations in the interest of making his accusation seem as egregious as possible.

I do not know why he took it on himself to go trawling through ancient discussions to catch me off base, or why he felt it necessary to so alter the context of my statement while trumpeting the literal truth of it. Perhaps nuance and context are anathema to his cranial circuitry, I don't know.

But in the interest of total honesty, here is what I said, and when:

---

Subject: RE: World Trade Center-Unreal Disaster
From: GUEST,X-Ed - PM
Date: 11 Sep 01 - 11:55 AM

Main squeeze of guinnesschik! You sad excuses of America need to go join the the holy war for the ragheads! There is a time for vengence. Now. Think of the brave firemen of NY, swepted up in middleeast bullshit. Think those fuckers care about them. NUK'EM TO THE STONE AGE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

---

Subject: RE: World Trade Center-Unreal Disaster
From: Amos - PM
Date: 11 Sep 01 - 11:57 AM

X-Ed, shut the fuck up.
Posters -- Please go to Part Two for new posts.

A.

---

Please note the date and time.

And the emotional expression from Ed which I was being rude about.

Perhaps Mister Sawzall would like to offer a reasoned defense for the strategy that Mister Ed was recommending?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 08:34 PM

Maybe Sawz should just shut the fuck up? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 10:39 PM

Well, yeah, but, ya know, that's not for me to say! ;>)...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 02:37 AM

Hell, Sawz, I'm not trying to control what you say. I'm just arguin' agin it.

Say what you like.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 03:59 AM

Sawz, A real fascist would be able to shoot you and bury you in a mass grave if you crossed him.

The worst Amos can do it tell you to shut the fuck up. And even then you don't have to listen.

You need to chill out bro.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 09:05 AM

"Looks like Sawz' Bile is on the fly once again"

"just your personal well of hatred overflowing once again."

A very scholarly Ad Hominem attack.

And if GWB is a fascist as Amos claims, Amos would have been shot and buried in a mass grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:20 AM

Well, maybe we have a problem in conflicting metaphors or something, Sawz. If you post something that looks hateful to me and I say so, you argue I am being a controlling a-hole. Maybe it is the case that (a) you didn't mean to sound hateful and thought you sounded normal, or funny, or something or (b) you want unilateral priveleges of being hateful.

It makes sense to me you would not see yourself as hateful so I can also understand why it might upset you if someone else says you are. I can see that, and I did not take it into account in our earlier little contretemps.

At the same time, you would be well served to ask why your posts seem to others more hateful than you mean them to be, if that is the case. If you are trying to communicate a point of view, there is a question of how to do it so you get understood instead of misunderestimated.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:07 AM

Posted on a sign just outside a Baptist church near my house:

"Abortion is an Obama nation"

I'm wondering if that should mess up their tax free status.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

Amos - I think they [MoveOn.org] think they are working for the good of the country, but in reality, I think they see themselves as citizens of the world first. I further think that this is why Obama appeals to them.
                         Frankly, I think being a citizen of the world is a very important thing. The problem is, some parts of the world are not ready to make this transition. I think you need another Teddy Roosevelt or two, before you can surrender you sovereignty completely.
                         I think Obama would do it now. I would wait until third world nations and places under the control of religious zealots brought their population growth under contol first.

Rig:

My apologies. I got distracted by a shitstorm and failed to notice your interesting and original remarks here. I appreciate their thoughtfulness.

I assume by "another Teddy Roosevelt" you mean a strong-hearted all-American leader who embodies the democratic and traditional American ideals and virtues, and not someone who will attack Cuba.

Your estimation of the necessary sequence--that nations free themselves of zealotry before becoming family to other nations -- is a good argument, one I agree with. Globalism is a good ideal, but we have to be very smart about what Friedman calls the flattening process, so that the reduction of inefficiencies in markets does not become an excuse for swamping local virtue.

However, although Obama believes in dialogue before the resort to force, and does not embrace the lone cowboy hero image so dramatized by his predecessor, I believe President Obama's convictions call for dialogue from strength, compassion from strength, and intelligent use of systems toward an improved scene within the nation and between the US and other nations. None of this smacks of giving away the store, which seems to sum up your apprehensions.

I am curious to know what specifics, if any, have lead you to this perspective about him, because my own take on his character is quite different.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM

Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention pulled in a bigger US TV audience than the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, this year's American Idol final and Oscars coverage.

Latest Nielsen ratings figures show that Thursday night's speech, in which Obama accepted the Democrat presidential nomination, pulled in a total of 38.4 million viewers in the key 10pm hour across various channels that covered the event live.

Cable network CNN was the best performing of any of the channels covering it, beating the main broadcast networks.

By comparison, last month's Olympics opening ceremony attracted 34.2 million, the American Idol final in May pulled in 21.7 million and the February Oscars broadcast to 31.6 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:25 PM

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The latest national poll from CBS News shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 48% to 40%.

* The latest national poll from USA Today/Gallup shows Obama leading McCain by seven, 50% to 43%.

* The latest national poll from Diageo/Hotline shows Obama leading McCain by nine, 48% to 39%.

* Giuliani is out as McCain's keynote speaker; Lieberman and Fred Thompson will replace him tonight. Giuliani will speak tomorrow or Thursday instead.

* Obama delivered an unusually good speech last night in Milwaukee on Hurricane Gustav and the "quiet storms" families face nationwide every day. Time's Jay Newton-Small, who's covered Obama for 19 months, said he was "as good as I've ever heard him."

* About two-thirds of the country is worried that a McCain presidency would be too similar to the last eight years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 07:42 PM

Invading Cuba isn't such a bad idea, as long as all you're going to do is charge up a hill as a publicity stunt!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:30 PM

The Conservative Case for Barack Obama

(American Conservative)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:53 PM

Obama content to stay local and low-key

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:13 PM

Ya know, you're right, Sawz. I would only say it when confronted by really loud stupidity or obnoxious hatefulness, myself.

And, actually, pal, on reflection I do not believe you, yourself are hateful, in fact I know you are not.

Some of your posts have come across that way. Maybe it's the emotion of the moment, and maybe it's different metaphors. I haven't gone back through everything you ever posted looking for out-of-context remarks to bring forward and throw in your face. In that regard, I kinda think I've done you a favor.

But hell, let's bury the hatchet and not say hateful things anymore, how about that?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 12:31 PM

"Barack Obama met the 50 percent threshold for the first time Tuesday in the Gallup daily tracking poll, a symbolic hurdle that until now had eluded the Democratic nominee.

The Gallup daily tracking poll has found that since the conclusion of the Democratic convention, Obama has risen 5 percentage points in the polls and now leads John McCain 50 percent to 42 percent. That represents a positive turn for Obama, after a couple of days in which he appeared to have peaked at the 49 percent mark while McCain was showing slight improvements.

The survey indicates that Obama's overall post-Democratic National Convention bounce now appears to be roughly at par with the norm of past conventions. Though smaller than several of the sizable bounces of recent decades, the new polling suggests that perhaps the Democratic convention bounce has yet to subside.

While an improvement from 49 percent to 50 percent is statistically insignificant, the 50 percent mark holds significance for a party seeking to win its first majority since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won with 50.1 percent.

Polling will likely remain in flux until early next week, after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention. On Saturday, Gallup reported Obama was ahead by 8 percentage points. By Monday, that lead had shrunk to 5 points. Today it returned to 8. " (9-2-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM

Obama Likes Research

By Janet RaloffWeb edition : Saturday, August 30th, 2008   (Science News)

Kudos to the Science Debate 2008 team for relentlessly dogging the candidates to weigh in with details about where they stand on issues affecting and affected by research. After roughly the gestation of a human baby, the Obama campaign — and John McCain's — agreed to answer questions, if only in writing. To date, Obama's is the only one to respond. It turned in its responses on Thursday evening, as the the Democratic Convention wrapped up in Denver. This afternoon, the Science Debate organizers shared those answers.

And those responses offer some reassuring words. They indicate Obama would make heavy use of research in decision-making. Another promising sign, the candidate brags that he has "established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration." He doesn't identify who this brain trust consists of, but I'm hoping the names emerge prior to the elections.


If he makes it to the White House, Obama plans to surround himself with appointees — senior management in his administration — that have "strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity." He vowed that these positions would be filled promptly and on a non-partisan basis.


In addition, he would strengthen the role of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). He doesn't explain what "strengthen" means — i.e. acquire advisors that are more knowledgeable or simply employ their expertise more widely to inform federal decision-making.


But in light of recent reports of muzzled scientists — and their findings — Obama's statement on restoring scientific integrity and transparency to federal decision-making is probably even more welcome. True, it should have been a given that scientists could report data and expect that it would be respected, especially by regulators. Unfortunately, it hasn't been in a number of agencies, especially EPA.


Obama now pledges he would issue an Executive Order "establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees." He also promises to strengthen protection for whistle blowers who report efforts to subvert this policy.


The Democratic candidate also has welcome words about increasing the cadre of U.S. workers who are science literate, even science experts. First step: Get good teachers.


Higher education has not been prized by the Bush Administration, at least to the extent of offering support and good incentives — carrots, if you will — to recruit and motivate science and math teachers. Sen. Barack Obama told the Science Debate team that: "My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works [emphasis added] using hands-on, IT-enhanced education."

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 02:55 PM

CHICAGO - As Barack Obama prepares to resume campaigning today, polls show that he has made inroads with former Hillary Rodham Clinton backers and hit the 50 percent support mark among registered voters for the first time.

It's a typical post-convention bounce that Obama will be looking to sustain as he travels to Ohio today and Pennsylvania tomorrow.

According to a Gallup daily tracking poll released yesterday, 81 percent of Clinton supporters say they will back Obama, up from 70 percent before the convention. Sixty-five percent of those voters are certain they will vote for the Illinois senator, up from 47 percent. And 12 percent of former Clinton voters said they planned to vote for John McCain, a 4 percent drop. Obama also saw gains in voter confidence on handling terrorism and Iraq, and being a strong and decisive leader.

The shift in support among Clinton voters comes after the junior senator from New York and her husband played key roles at the Democratic National Convention, rousing the faithful with prime-time speeches that left the Obama campaign with clips that could be used in commercials, aides said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:46 PM

ABC News reports:

"John McCain's campaign manager said that this election is not going to be about the issues, it's going to be about personalities," Obama said at a town hall meeting aimed at women and economic issues. "That's a quote. He said its not going to be about – it's not going to be about the issues, its going to be about personalities, which probably explains why last night when they were speaking, all these speakers came up – you did not hear a single word about the economy."

"Think about it," Obama continued, standing in the blazing sun at Kent State University's Tuscarawas campus. "Not once did people mention the hardships that folks are going though, not once did they mention what are we going to do about keeping jobs here in Ohio, not once did they mention what are we doing about all these retirees that are losing their pensions, not once did they mention how are we going to make sure Social Security is there for the next generation, not once did they mention how are we going to make college more affordable so that young people aren't taking out 40 or 50 thousand dollars in debt, not once did they mention how are we going to make sure people can stay in their homes."

Obama said, "I guess I don't blame them. Because if you don't have any issues to run on I guess you want it all to be on personality. And if you've got George Bush's track record and John McCain voting 90% of the time in agreement with George Bush then you probably don't want to talk about the issues either."

"I don't know what John McCain's thinking," Obama concluded, "but I'm going to be talking a whole lot about issues....John McCain's campaign manger is wrong, it's not about personality, it's about the issues that you are facing in your day to day lives." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:57 PM

"Higher education has not been prized by the Bush Administration..."


                Neither was K-12. Hopefully McCain will change that!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:58 PM

...as the Senator from Arizona, the Education State?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 04:10 PM

And from the WSJ-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries


Why Obama Can't Close the Sale
By AL HUBBARD and NOAM NEUSNER
September 3, 2008; Page A23

Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

....
But here's the thing: It's not that Mr. Obama hasn't been specific enough in his governing plans. To the contrary, he has been very specific about his tax policy, health-care and energy proposals. It's that voters are paying attention and appear not to like what Candidate Obama is saying.

Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.

Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.

About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.

....
Again, Americans are wiser than they are given credit. They know that if you restrict supply and tax production, prices go up.

....
Mr. Obama is wondering why he can't shake Mr. McCain. His problem isn't his plans for the campaign. It's his plans for governing the country. Americans just aren't buying into them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:42 PM

Well, as of today, over fifty per cent of Americans are, so the WSJ in its typical narrow-sighted way is a little behind the times.


They give good snide, though. And their dripping sardonicism is so dry and subtle!!

If you weren't paying close attention you would think they were practicing journalism.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 07:59 PM

Poll: Obama-Biden leads McCain-Palin in Minnesota, Iowa
Last update: September 3, 2008 - 4:15 PM


A new poll shows the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden with a healthy lead over John McCain and Sarah Palin in the battleground states of Minnesota and Iowa.

In Minnesota, the Democrats are ahead 53 percent to 41 percent; in Iowa, they're ahead 55 percent to 40 percent.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Tuesday for Time Magazine and CNN, is the first to include the running mates of both presidential tickets. It has a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 09:57 PM

"...as the Senator from Arizona, the Education State?"


                  No. They have too many illegal aliens there to make much progress with education.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:44 AM

"I work in a hospital and was nearing the end of my shift when I walked in a room to draw labs on a patient. The patient was an 81 year old African American woman, and as I approached her bed I could see that she was crying, and not lightly.

I asked what was wrong, but her gentle, muffled sobs made her words pretty difficult to understand. After I determined she wasn't in any medical distress she was finally able to tell me why she was crying. She pointed to the television, which had on Obama, delivering his speech from Denver.

She explained that she grew up in the South (Mississippi). She is the granddaughter of a slave, and one of her uncles was lynched. She said 45 years ago when MLK gave his historic speech, she and others were still called niggers to their faces.

She also has advanced breast cancer and has months - possibly weeks - to live. She was simply so proud that she is seeing a black man get so close to the presidency.

So there I stood, this big 6'5" white guy holding the hand of this frail, little old black lady living out her last days, tears streaming down my face like a child. For me, this will be one of those moments a person tends to remember for a long, long time.

We were both laughing by the time I regained my composure. "Honey," she said to me, "just do this old woman a favor - say a little prayer for me and vote for that man." It will be her face I see when I mark Barack Obama on my ballot in November.

Her name is Bessie Mae. If you are the praying type, please say a little prayer for her."

---

From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:46 PM

Obama has been endorsed by the Statue of Liberty http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/LadyLiberty.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 12:15 AM

Though he quickly corrected him self, I think this indicates that Obama considers himself as the President elect with the following statement:

"People ask me what are your impressions of America? What have you learned since being president? uh uh no no! Since being a candidate for president."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM

He's just looking ahead, Sawzall!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:54 PM

"...I believe that Bush and Tony Blair, Bush's main international ally with regard to the war in Iraq and against Islamic terrorism, will be redeemed by history. President Harry Truman was reviled when he left office, but is now honored for his courage and vision.

Now, once again, I have to make a decision to either endorse the Democratic ticket of Obama and Biden or support the Republican ticket of McCain and Palin. I am 83 years old. If I am lucky, I may yet vote not only in this election, but in the presidential election of 2012 and perhaps, if luckier, even in that of 2016. I believe I must vote my conscience, and that means for the presidential candidate who in my estimation will best protect the U.S. over the next four years.

I personally know two of those running: Joe Biden and John McCain. I like and admire them both. John McCain is a genuine war hero and patriot. Joe Biden is a friend well versed in foreign and domestic affairs, who had made judgment calls on domestic and foreign policy and legislation that I agree with. I do not personally really know the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, having spoken to him only once and briefly, or the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party and protector of the philosophy of that party. Protecting and defending the U.S. means more than defending us from foreign attacks. It includes defending the public with respect to their civil rights, civil liberties and other needs, e.g., national health insurance, the right of abortion, the continuation of Social Security, gay rights, other rights of privacy, fair progressive taxation and a host of other needs and rights.

If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me. Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency...."

(Ed Koch, ex Mayor of New York, writing in RCP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:48 PM

4 Minnesota business leaders endorse Obama
Acknowledging that the Democrat's election could lead to higher taxes for them, they say the money would go to help the middle class, which is essential.
By MARK BRUNSWICK, Star Tribune
Last update: September 9, 2008 - 7:40 PM

Four prominent Minnesota business leaders announced their support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday, an effort to counter criticism from Republicans that Obama's tax policies would hurt business and stifle job creation.

"We've spent so much time trying to incent those at the very top that we've forgotten about those in the very middle and that makes up the vast majority of the American population," said Robert Pohlad, chairman and chief executive officer of PepsiAmericas, Inc. and president of Pohlad Cos., at a State Capitol news conference announcing the endorsements.

Acknowledging that they might find themselves paying higher tax bills if Obama were elected, the business leaders suggested that more government spending, used prudently, would move people up the economic ladder and strengthen the middle class.

"Our family believes paying taxes is a privilege. My reality is we can afford to support the many who have too little, and we must do so," said Ed Phillips, chairman and CEO of Phillips Beverage Co.

...

Robert Ryan, a retired vice president and CFO of Medtronic, said Obama's health care proposal would benefit the uninsured and underinsured.

Lois Quam, a onetime UnitedHealth executive and now managing director of alternative investments for Piper Jaffray, said business leaders should be concerned about McCain's decisionmaking skills, pointing to his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a hasty bow to the right wing of the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:52 PM

So how many prominent business leaders are there in Minnesota?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 12:30 AM

I have no idea. Why you ask, ____?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 12:45 AM

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC04Aa01.html
"........Michelle Obama remains at the mercy of the same internal conflict that she reported in her senior thesis. She is too bitter at the hopelessness of lower-class blacks to assimilate, but too attracted to money and privilege to reject white society. She hates the white institutions that made her prosperous, not only because they cannot solve the problems of the black lower class, but even more so because they made her feel guilty about her own success.

These internal conflicts help explain Michelle Obama's erratic behavior. Despite her own financial success, Michelle Obama continues to preach austerity and self-sacrifice to others. Speaking before a working-class audience in Ohio on February 29, she urged her listeners to eschew corporate law or hedge-fund management, which was odd, because most of them did not have a high-school diploma, let alone a university degree:

    We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond ... many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management [quoted by Byron York in The National Review Online].

But she did not leave corporate America. She did leave the corporate law firm that hired her out of Harvard Law School, but there is no reason to believe that idealism drove that decision. The major law firms make partners out of a fifth of their new hires, who slave for years for the opportunity. Michelle Obama was not partner material for a top firm. She took more than a year to pass the Illinois Bar Examination, a substandard result, and - as her thesis makes clear - lacked the command of written English required for legal success. Her skills were better suited to the hospital position she eventually filled. Not only did she sell out, but she sold out for mediocre results.

Michelle Obama remains at the mercy of the same internal conflict that she reported in her senior thesis. She is too bitter at the hopelessness of lower-class blacks to assimilate, but too attracted to money and privilege to reject white society. She hates the white institutions that made her prosperous, not only because they cannot solve the problems of the black lower class, but even more so because they made her feel guilty about her own success.

These internal conflicts help explain Michelle Obama's erratic behavior. Despite her own financial success, Michelle Obama continues to preach austerity and self-sacrifice to others. Speaking before a working-class audience in Ohio on February 29, she urged her listeners to eschew corporate law or hedge-fund management, which was odd, because most of them did not have a high-school diploma, let alone a university degree:

    We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond ... many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management [quoted by Byron York in The National Review Online].

But she did not leave corporate America. She did leave the corporate law firm that hired her out of Harvard Law School, but there is no reason to believe that idealism drove that decision. The major law firms make partners out of a fifth of their new hires, who slave for years for the opportunity. Michelle Obama was not partner material for a top firm. She took more than a year to pass the Illinois Bar Examination, a substandard result, and - as her thesis makes clear - lacked the command of written English required for legal success. Her skills were better suited to the hospital position she eventually filled. Not only did she sell out, but she sold out for mediocre results.

Bitterness over the meager price that the white power structure offered for her soul nags at Michelle Obama. At the Ohio speech cited by NRO's York, she complained, "The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off [student loans], so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids ... Barack and I were in that position. The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books ... It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids."

But it was not only Senator Obama's writing income, it was Michelle's $200,000 salary increase and corporate directorships following his election to the US Senate that made the family prosperous. And it wasn't just piano lessons and summer camp, but a mansion in the Chicago suburb that represented an adequate price for Michelle's soul. that the white power structure offered for her soul nags at Michelle Obama. At the Ohio speech cited by NRO's York, she complained, "The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off [student loans], so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids ... Barack and I were in that position. The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books ... It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids."

But it was not only Senator Obama's writing income, it was Michelle's $200,000 salary increase and corporate directorships following his election to the US Senate that made the family prosperous. And it wasn't just piano lessons and summer camp, but a mansion in the Chicago suburb that represented an adequate price for Michelle's soul..........."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:16 AM

In his typical timely manner, Sawz has presented an article from the Asia Times from last April.

Thanks. We certainly needed it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:15 PM

So Amos has provided us with a list of prominent business leaders in Minnesota who have endorsed Obama but he has not provided us a list of those that have not.

Could this be construed as Cherry Picking Data?

Have any of the facts about Michelle Obama changed since last April?

What is your statute of limitations for facts Amos?

Have your "facts" about GWB expired yet?

Gavel: Bang, Bang. Order in the court.

All Rise.

His Honor, Amos Jessup presiding.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Hear Ye. All facts prior to March 5th 2007 are hereby judged as irrelevant, unless they are negative to George W. Bush or positive to president elect, Barack Hussein Obama.

Gavel: Bang, Bang.

Court dismissed. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:24 PM

You really are an a-hole, Sawz. I am sorry, but you are. I did not write the article, and I have no idea how many people in Minnesota you would like to refer to as major business leaders, or not. I reported what I learned as I heard it and all you can think to do with it is twist it, make it different, and try to turn it into something bad. This is really a low, low form of thought and communication on your part. I think you ought to reform your evil ways.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:32 PM

No, no, Sawzaw,


First the hanging, THEN the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:30 PM

Obama doesn't seem to make a very good counter puncher. He should have taken lessons from Archie Moore.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:30 AM

Or Archie Bunker?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:14 AM

A long and interesting conversation betwen Barack Obama and Dave Letterman.

SOmebody make this Obama guy President, wouldja? I like his style.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM

In Michigan Obama is being viewed as a lurid pedophile in McCain ads.

There are no depths too deep...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 02:45 PM

Who are they saying he philed?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:16 PM

At a private lunch with Barack Obama on Thursday, former president Bill Clinton made a prediction about the outcome of the closely fought race for the White House.

"I predict that Sen. Obama will win and will pretty handily," he said as he stood with Obama in his Harlem office.

In response, Obama, who is scheduled to visit Ground Zero Thursday, Obama said this:

"There you go. You can take it from the president of the United States. He knows a little something about politics."


The lunch meeting, which lasted about 90 minutes, came at Clinton's request and is the first time the two have had a one-on-one during the campaign. Clinton said he expects to hit the trail near the end of the month.

"President Clinton and Senator Obama had a great conversation in Harlem today," a joint statement released by the former president and Democratic presidential nominee said. "They discussed the campaign briefly, but mostly talked about how the world has changed since September 11, 2001."

"Sen. Obama praised the work of the Clinton Foundation around the world and President Clinton applauded Sen. Obama's historic campaign which has inspired millions around the country," the statement said.

"They also spoke about what the next president can do to help make the economy work for all Americans, as it did under President Clinton, and ensure safety and prosperity far beyond the coming the election. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:19 PM

Analysis of Obama's POsition on Issues

So I don't want to hear anymore about "no specifics" or other insidious snarks on the subject.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:49 PM

I just can't help making fun of your hooting about 4 out of probably thousands of "prominent business leaders" endorsing Obama.

So what is my sentence your honor? An I banished to Canuckistan or something?

"You can take it from the president of the United States"

Obama must be cornfused. Is He or Bush or Clinton the President?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:13 AM

PROMINENT DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS JOIN "CITIZENS FOR MCCAIN"

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson (Arizona)
Former Arizona State Legislator Phil Hubbard (Arizona)
Mammoth Mayor Craig Williams (Arizona)
Former Arizona LULAC Director Ray Gans (Arizona)
Democratic 25th Precinct Chair Silverio "Silver" Salazar (Colorado)
Adviser to Democratic Presidential Candidates and Georgetown University Professor Robert Lieber (District of Columbia)
Blogger on HillaryClinton.com Renee Slater (Florida)
Former Sheriff of Highlands County Howard Godwin (Florida)
Jewish Outreach Adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton Rabbi Cheryl Jacobs
Georgia Political Director for Gore-Lieberman '00 Joseph O'Farrell Jr. (Georgia)
Former Democratic Des Moines County Chair Bruce Shulte (Illinois)
Former State Representative Brian Golden (Massachusetts)
Commander of Newport Memorial-VFW Post 1119 Francis Harding, Jr. (Maine)
Former Palmyra Budget Committee Member Herb Bates (Maine)
Former Lt. Governor and State Supreme Court Justice Alexander "Sandy" Keith (Minnesota)
Former U.S Representative and 2002 Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tim Penny (Minnesota)
Former State Representative Steve Wenzel (Minnesota)
City Clerk Judi May (Mississippi)
County Supervisor Gary Dearman (Mississippi)
Alderman Bill Mosby (Mississippi)
Former State Representative Jim Gamache (Missouri)
Presiding Commissioner in New Madrid County, Clyde Hawes (Missouri)
Former Concord Mayor Bill Veroneau (New Hampshire)
Former Democratic Mayor of Waterford Township George Fallon (New J ersey)
Former Democratic Committeeman in Warren Township Jeffrey Golkin (New Jersey)
Former State Chair of Environmentalists for Clinton-Gore 1992 Roberta Weisbrod (New York)
Former Majority Leader in the State Senate David Carlin (Rhode Island)
Former Texas Democratic Party Chairman Roy Orr (Texas)
Elected National Delegate for Senator Hillary Clinton Debra Bartoshevich (Wisconsin)
Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Philip Frye (West Virginia)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:01 AM

Hey, man, being banished to "Canuckistan" is one of the best things that can ever happen to a person. You have no idea. Amos should be so lucky...

This place has been a paradise ever since we gave your Yankee bluecoats a bloody nose back in 1812-14. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:26 AM

DO)ne, and done. Make it so. And no Internet, either.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:47 AM

Obama's Altitude Sickness

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A15

The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.


It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 08:43 AM

People second guess themselves and jump ship all the time.
Trying to jump back is hard once the ship has sunk

Ask Dennis Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:35 AM

But Your Honor, I can wear animal skins and endure a diet of whale blubber and berries but I think it is cruel and usual punishment to deny me internet access while you grant it to al-Qaeda so they can recruit more Bush Haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:47 AM

Just voicing a preference, there, Sawx.

Bruce, your man Krauthammer is a dickhead and an obstreperous lout.
He has no concern for voicing the truth, only for saying clever things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:16 AM

"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:24 AM

And although I have been obstinately and loudly derogatory about the Bush administration. I do not actually hate the man, W., although he is a sinner in the worst sense of the word. I hate like hellfire the sins, continuous, repeated, compounded and blindly pursued, the egregious and harmful sins, the man and his team have committed.

Just to clarify the point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM

In Washington, Obama has been a consistent opponent of the Bush policies that have hobbled our economy and weakened the middle class, and his proposals for the future would steer us away from that disastrous course.

He's challenged leaders of both parties by passing landmark reforms that took dead aim at the campaign contributions and favors through which corporate lobbyists have rigged the system. He worked across the aisle to pass laws reining in no-bid contracts and opening the budget process to the American people.

And Obama has lived by those principles in this campaign, refusing the contributions of Washington lobbyists and political action committees and imposing those same rules on the Democratic National Committee. Lobbyists don't run his campaign. And when he's President, they won't run his White House.

But what about John McCain?

Can we really expect change from a Senator who supported the Bush policies 90 percent of the time? Who has said the Bush policies have brought about "great progress economically" and who just three weeks ago proclaimed the economy fundamentally strong?

The fact is that while he mouths the word "change," Senator McCain's record and proposals scream "more of the same." His plans for the economy, energy, health care, education and Iraq barely stray from the Bush policies that are in place today.

And can we really expect change from a candidate whose campaign is being run by some of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington?

While Senator McCain loudly declares that he will tell the special interests in Washington that their day is "over," they are working overtime to elect him.

Seven of the top officials in his campaign are lobbyists. Between them, they have lobbied for Big Oil, the drug and insurance industries, foreign governments--even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His campaign manager routinely lobbied for corporations who had business before the Senate Commerce Committee that McCain chaired.

Corporate Lobbyists and PACs have contributed millions of dollars to his campaign and the Republican National Committee on his behalf.

Does anyone believe they are spending their time, money and energy to put themselves out of business?

That is not change. It's more of the same.

A debate about delivering change is a debate we're happy to have. Because no matter how many times McCain and Governor Palin use the word "change" or try to reinvent their own records, one thing stays the same: the fact that when it comes to the economy, education, Iraq, or the special interests' stranglehold on Washington, they both are stubborn defenders of the past eight years and they both promise more of the same.

One final note:

Senator McCain has called the news media "his base" because of the friendly treatment he has received. And he undoubtedly is counting on his "base" to overlook the gulf between his newly minted "change" message, and the realities of his record and campaign.

His lobbyist-manager said Sunday that Governor Palin would only submit to questions about her record, statements and views when they determine that the news media will treat her with due "deference" -- a startling and arrogant new standard for public officials in our democracy.

But we trust that the obvious conflicts between their rhetoric and records, their promises and their plans will not go unreported in the last 53 days of this campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM

From Amos:

"He's challenged leaders of both parties by passing landmark reforms that took dead aim at the campaign contributions and favors through which corporate lobbyists have rigged the system."

"Obama's top political strategist, David Axelrod"

From Newsweek:

"When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his campaign; Obama's aides say their candidate, as a foe of "special interests," has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison—and under Illinois's loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. "I've never lobbied anybody in my life," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. "I've never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client." (He also says "no one ever denied" that Edison was the "principal funder" of his firm's ad campaign.)

But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod's political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan. Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK's $1.1 million fee was listed as the "largest lobbying contract" of the year in the annual report of the state's lobbying commission. ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn't get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world. "There's no way with a straight face to say that's not lobbying," says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency......"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:47 AM

Not since Edward I. Koch disclosed this year that he was suffering from a serious spinal ailment has his online commentary generated the volume of e-mail messages he received in response to his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president last week.

Enlarge This Image

Librado Romero/The New York Times
Edward I. Koch said of critical e-mail responses, "There is no acceptance of dissent anymore."
Most of the 400 or so responses to the endorsement were extremely positive, he said. About three dozen were not; some of them were downright vitriolic.

"I was surprised primarily by those who criticized me with the invective they used," the former mayor said, "but I know those who praised me, had I come out the other way, would have used the same invective."

"There is no acceptance of dissent anymore," he lamented.

In his commentary, which is e-mailed periodically to roughly 4,000 subscribers, Mr. Koch, who has been a supporter of President Bush, wrote that "the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama" and that though Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, is "a plucky, exciting candidate," it "would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency." He also commented on former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's "maniacal laugh" during his speech at the Republican convention." (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 09:48 AM

I guess the obvious question to ask is: why in the world would anyone care what Edward I. Koch thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:26 AM

I don't give a shit about how scared Koch would be or what he thought of Giuliani's laugh.It is about as unanimous as the four prominent business leaders in Minnesota that Endorsed Obama.

However, Obama was making some sense in his speech at Columbia. He was talking some high ideals. As president someone can make all the proclamations they want to but it has to go through congress before it comes to be. One has to ask, will it ever pass? If it ever does will it have so many riders and earmarks on it that the original intent will be smothered with pork? Yeah, they flop down a 900 page bill on someone's desk on afternoon that has to voted on the next day.

The POTUS can give a great speech and say we are going to give $99 million dollars in aid to Zambonia to eradicate the boom boom fly but if Congress never appropriates it, it never happens but the president still gets the glory for saying it.

Speaking of pork, just how can a president eliminate it? The only way I can see it to bring back the line item veto. Clinton had that option for a while but Congress took it away. How'd that happen anyway?

I wish the American people could vote on things directly instead of having to go through their lobbyist influenced Congressman. That part of our system of government is arcane. It dates back to horse and buggy days and needs to be updated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:24 PM

CHICAGO — Senator Barack Obama raised more money in August than any presidential candidate has ever recorded in a one-month period, with his campaign disclosing Sunday that it collected $66 million and drew 500,000 first-time donors.

The record-setting figures and particularly the new supporters who can contribute again before Election Day were crucial for Mr. Obama, who was heading into the general election as the first major-party candidate to forgo public financing. The campaign amassed its millions of dollars through an aggressive Internet drive, by attracting some of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's donors and as concerns increased over a tightening contest.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said more than 2.5 million people had contributed since the race began. "The 500,000 new donors to the Obama campaign demonstrate just how strongly the American people are looking to kick the special interests out and change Washington," Mr. Plouffe said in an e-mail message on Sunday. ...

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:14 PM

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Comments: 234Read Comments Leave a Comment LONG VIEW: Barack Obama tours Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus in July, when he sought to stall any agreement for US troop withdrawal until President Bush left office.

Last updated: 4:10 am
September 15, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:15 PM

Amos: apparently your definition of hateful and mine are very different,   Tell ya what Amos. It you quit adding your snide comments to your posts I will do the same.

NY Post

".....Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:24 PM

The "Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America...." is a doctrine we've seen before, practiced by leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and General Tojo.

It's a doctrine that works very well as long as you don't arouse foreign armed forces that are too strong for your own military forces to handle.

It's also a doctrine that will get you arrested and tried for assault and first degree murder if you happen to be a private person, and not a politician. Why? Because is IS assault and first degree murder, premeditated and then carried out.

Try it on your neighbour (who you say is planning to kill you) and see what happens. You will be arrested and tried. So should Bush and Cheney be arrested and tried, in an international court.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

Petraeus won't call it a success. Bush has backed away from the terms "victory" and "win".

Obama is telling the Iraqis that a status of arms agreement negotiated by Bush won't be worth the paper it is written on if Obama wins. I don't see anything very insightful in what you two are saying. Do you think that Obama should lie and say things are rosy? That's what Bush and McCain have been doing for seven years. Look where that has gotten us.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM

New York: It seems former US President Bill Clinton enjoys sex jokes.

According to a source, Clinton couldn't stop giggling when Legally Blonde star and dyed-in- the-wool Democrat Laura Bell Bundy showed him a T-shirt made in support of presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

"The shirt read, ''Every Time Obama Speaks, an Angel Has an Orgasm," '' the New York Post quoted the insider, as saying.

"Bill loved it and even chuckled he couldn't wait to show it to Hillary," the insider added.

(India Press)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:14 PM

I don't know where to go with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:20 AM

Campaign Tee Shirts

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:58 AM

"This, of course, has a fairly significant political salience. Kissinger is a co-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign, and Powell and Baker are two of the more respected foreign policy voices in traditional Republican circles.
And all of them agree that when it comes to U.S. policy towards Iran, Barack Obama is offering the right approach, and John McCain is offering the wrong approach.
There's a mainstream when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, and McCain is clearly to the right of it.
I am, however, curious to see how this might shake out during the candidate debates. McCain will no doubt blast Obama's willingness to talk to our rivals. Here's hoping Obama is willing to say, "Colin Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, and current Pentagon chief Robert Gates all agree with me and think you're wrong." ... NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM

"and current Pentagon chief Robert Gates "

So, you are saying that McCain disagrees with the current Bush administration Sec of Def, and the past Bush Administration Sec of State- But Obama does agree?


And you claim WHO is another Bush????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:36 AM

Someone guessing right on a single issue does not cure the ills of an Administration. Furthermore, SecDef notwithstanding, the Bush Administration has sided with the McCain view of things for years, as a matter of policy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:48 PM

Washington Post:


Obama's Panic

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A19

Seldom has there been a larger contrast between the style of a candidate and the strategy of his campaign.

Barack Obama is cool, firm and permanently unruffled. It is precisely this quality of steadiness that has made him seem a credible prospective president with the thinnest of résumés.

But Obama's campaign is rootless, reactive and panicky. At every stage since securing the nomination, it has seemed fearful of missteps and unsure of its own organizing principle. So it has invariably adopted the Democratic conventional wisdom of the moment.

Obama's first major decision was his running mate. He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side. This has served to undermine Obama's message of change -- and has allowed Sarah Palin to pilfer a portion of that appeal.

Obama's second decision concerned the tone and content of his convention. Here the Democratic conventional wisdom was nearly unanimous. Obama should shelve his highfalutin rhetoric and talk like a real Democrat. Go after McCain. Talk about "bread and butter" issues -- code words for class-warfare attacks on consumers of blinis and caviar.

Obama took this advice to the letter -- at the cost of his political identity. In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed "judgment." His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn't have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden "to the cave where he lives." In obedience to the best Democratic advice, Obama managed to be conventional, bitter and graceless.

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager.

Obama feels provoked -- and he has been. There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education for kindergarteners, as a McCain ad implied. Having already accused McCain of being a cowardly corporate tool who is disconnected from reality, escalation is not an easy task for Obama. But he has managed. In one recent commercial, McCain is clearly mocked for his age -- compared to a disco ball and a 10-pound cellphone. Another ad uses the word "dishonorable" next to a photo of McCain -- an attack from a candidate who has little practical familiarity with the cost of honor.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter -- which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician -- an image now in tatters.

Even worse for Obama, all these shifts to catch the prevailing winds confirm the most serious concerns about his political character. As a senator, he has almost never opposed the ideological consensus of his party. (The ethics reform he often cites as his profile in courage eventually passed the Senate 96 to 2.) And now as a presidential candidate, Obama has run his campaign with all the constancy of a skittish sailboat on an erratic ocean.

Here is a different strategy. Obama could attempt to "beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism." He could try to build a coalition that "stretches through red states and blue states." He could reject "the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up."

The candidate who said those words the night he won the Iowa caucuses did pretty well. But whatever the outcome of this presidential election, that candidate is no longer in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:50 PM

Washington Post:

Obama's Faulty Logic

Bill Clinton beat Papa Bush in 1992 by blaming him for economic woes, even though the downturn of that year was over by the time of the election. Now Barack Obama is hoping to blame that hyphenated adversary, Bush-McCain, even though the facts don't fit his narrative.

Obama is trying to draw a link between the Wall Street blow-ups and a lack of regulation. But the blow-ups have included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the most highly regulated financial institutions in the country. They have included three out of five of the top investment banks, institutions that were also regulated. By contrast, there have been relatively few blow-ups at hedge funds, which are not regulated directly. This pattern of failure is not consistent with Obama's claim that deregulation caused the trouble.

Embarrassingly for Obama, the principal piece of financial deregulation over the past decade was the reform of Glass-Steagall, the law that separated investment banks from deposit-taking ones. This reform was sponsored by McCain's friend, former Republican Senator Phil Gramm, but ending the division between the two types of bank was a policy that the Clinton team also supported, which does not fit the Obama narrative. And during the current crisis, the Glass-Steagall reform has proved to be a boon. It has cleared the way for relatively healthy deposit-taking banks, such as JP Morgan and Bank of America, to rescue desperate investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. Without that piece of deregulation, we would all be in more trouble.

The regulation-versus-deregulation rhetoric is appealingly simple, and both parties abuse it. Republicans like to say they will get the economy going by cutting red tape. Democrats like to say that they will make the economy more stable by demanding rational oversight. Neither claim is worth much.

The Republicans fail to acknowledge that the easy economic gains from deregulation were exhausted more than two decades ago, when clearly destructive restrictions on competition in trucking, airlines and so on were scrapped by Carter and Reagan. The Democrats fail to acknowledge that there is a limit to what government oversight can do. Modern financial institutions are so complex that government inspectors are hard pressed to understand their trading strategies. That is why an outfit such as Citigroup, a deposit-taking institution theoretically overseen by multiple government bodies including the Fed, could park billions of dollars of toxic mortgage securities in off-balance-sheet vehicles, with nary a protest from regulators.

Yes, Wall Street's woes reflect greed and reckless borrowing. And yes, some regulatory reform is necessary. But you can't blame the mess on either political party -- at least not if you want to remain honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM

I would question whether the FMAE and FMAC collapses occurred in spite of sufficient regulation as your piece implies. The ethics of the industrry on top of which these two agencuies were perched was riddled with very slimy practices, not well-regulated, involving deceitful lending practices and improper precautions in lending. These unregulated opportunistic firms, driven by a continuous focus on the bottom line and nothuing else, completely distorted the field. The agencies inherited the wind of those practioces they neither regulated nor controlled the ethics of. (Pardon the syntax). To imply this weas a well regulated industry is disingenuous in the extreme.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:24 PM

"the FMAE and FMAC collapses" What collapses? This phrase is a conflation.

These institutions are GSEs. government sponsored enterprises.
Wikipedia:

GSEs are a group of financial services corporations created by the United States Congress. Their function is to enhance the flow of credit to targeted sectors of the economy and to make those segments of the capital market more efficient and transparent. The desired effect of the GSEs is to enhance the availability and reduce the cost of credit to the targeted borrowing sectors: agriculture, home finance and education. Congress created the first GSE in 1916 with the creation of the Farm Credit System; it initiated GSEs in the home finance segment of the economy with the creation of the Federal Home Loan Banks in 1932; and it targeted education when it chartered Sallie Mae in 1972 (although Congress allowed Sallie Mae to relinquish its government sponsorship and become a fully private institution via legislation in 1995). The residential mortgage borrowing segment is by far the largest of the borrowing segments in which the GSEs operate. Together, the three mortgage finance GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks) have several trillion dollars of on-balance sheet assets...."

2 USC Sec. 622 01/03/2007 TITLE 2 - THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 17A - CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS:

"...does not have the power to commit the Government financially (but it may be a recipient of a loan guarantee commitment made by the Government..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:49 PM

The "Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war was also practiced by Andrew Johnson and others.

Obama commented on McCain saying he would smash the good old boy network. He said "Old boy network?, Everytime McCain has a staff meeting its a good ol boy network."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:52 PM

Oh! What?? They did n't collapse and have to be bailed out and taken over?? All those news reports were wrong?? My god!! Where do you get your information from? I must be missing something.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:46 AM

According to the most recent polls, McCain is the popular candidate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM

September 18, 2008
Obama's Limbaugh ad causes stir
Posted: 03:49 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Limbaugh says an Obama ad is 'stoking racism.'
(CNN) — A Republican congressman and supporter of John McCain called a Spanish television ad from the Obama campaign "offensive and dishonest" Thursday, and said the Democratic nominee owes the Latino community an apology.

"It is offensive and dishonest for Barack Obama to lie about John McCain's record on immigration and years of support for the Hispanic community, when it was Barack Obama himself who voted for 'poison pill' amendments that killed the effort at immigration reform. Instead of making false ads with baseless attacks, Barack Obama should be apologizing to the Latino community," Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart said in statement released by the McCain campaign.

The Spanish-language ad, launched earlier this week, aims to connect McCain to Republicans who have staked out staunch anti-illegal immigration stances — including talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's narrator says in Spanish as an image of Limbaugh is quoted saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."

"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the narrator continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

But McCain has repeatedly disagreed with his party's base on the issue of immigration and was a chief sponsor of an immigration reform bill last year that deeply angered conservatives and nearly sunk his presidency. The Arizona senator is also no favorite of Limbaugh, particularly for seeming to take a moderate stance on illegal immigration. But critics note McCain shifted his own policy on immigration as the Republican presidential primary race heated up, advocating a "security first" approach.

Limbaugh also took issue with the ad, telling the Politico it had taken his past statements — one of which is 15 years old — out of context and was an attempt at "race baiting."

"Obama is now stoking racism in the country," Limbaugh said. "Obama is a disgrace — he wants the public to think he is Mr. Nice Guy while his thugs are in Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and he runs race-baiting ads and lies about what he has done and what McCain has done."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM

DouR:

RCP averages all the major polls:

RCP Average 09/09 - 09/17 -- 45.2 47.1 Obama +1.9
Gallup Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 2815 RV 44 48 Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 3000 LV 48 48 Tie
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/15 - 09/17 912 RV 42 46 Obama +4
Battleground Tracking* 09/10 - 09/17 800 LV 47 45 McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times 09/12 - 09/16 LV 44 49 Obama +5
Quinnipiac 09/11 - 09/16 987 LV 45 49 Obama +4
Pew Research 09/09 - 09/14 2307 LV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 09/11 - 09/13 1008 LV 45 47 Obama +2
Newsweek 09/10 - 09/11 1038 RV 46 46 Tie


So I am afraid McCain has given away his 1.8 lead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM

RCP averages all the major polls:


Fox and CNN, or just the major ones that give results you approve of?


AND, what were the margins of error? A 2% win with a 3% margin of error is still a dead heat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM

At rallies in the week following the convention, the McCain-Palin duo saw their best attendance and a newfound zeal, and the Republican ticket took the lead in national polls for the first time.

But polls show that the momentum has shifted once again.

Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating is at 30 percent, rising 8 points in a week.

The poll was conducted September 12-16 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove predicted Wednesday that Palin's star power would wear off.

"Nothing lasts for 60-some-odd days," Rove told The Associated Press. "Will she be the center of attention in the remaining 48 days? No, but she came on in a very powerful way and has given a sense of urgency to the McCain campaign that's pretty remarkable."

But this week, the Democrats recaptured the headlines, and Obama regained his lead in the national polls.

CNN's latest poll of polls, out Thursday afternoon, shows him ahead of McCain by 3 points, 47 percent to 44 percent.

The poll of polls consists of six recent surveys: CBS/NYT (September 12-16), Quinnipiac (September 11-16), IPSOS-McClatchy (September 11-15), Gallup (September 15-17), Diageo/Hotline (September 14-16) and American Research Group (September 13-15). It does not have a sampling error.

After a week in which McCain put Obama on the defensive over allegations of playing the gender card, the economic crisis has given Obama an opportunity to go on the offense. Most Americans see Obama as more capable than John McCain when it comes to handling the economy, polls show.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:23 PM

"It does not have a sampling error. "


It does not PROVIDE the sampling error- it most certainly has one!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 04:55 PM

Quite so. SOrry--in my haste I failed to attribute that excerpt. Nothing in the last few weeks has been outside a few points, which is a normal error in most quick-survey samples.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:56 PM

Oh! What?? They did n't collapse and have to be bailed out and taken over??

No, they did not collapse. They never ceased to function. They were taken over and provided with federal funds as per the laws (see above) passed by Congress and signed by the President.

"All those news reports were wrong?"

Only the ones that said they collapsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:24 PM

Donald Trump Endorses McCain:

"Real estate magnate and television personality Donald Trump endorsed Sen. John McCain Wednesday night on CNN's Larry King Live. Of the main reasons Trump, a former Hillary Clinton supporter, cited for making his endorsement of McCain over Obama was the Democratic presidential nominee's stance on taxes and his decision not to choose Sen. Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:21 AM

ANd they were taken over because...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:51 AM

They were taken over because they were beong mismanaged and in debt. The books were cooked by former Clinton officials in order to earn big bonuses.

By the way, the McCain ad assertion that they collapsed is wrong too.

Fannie and Freddie made the following campaign contributions:

Dodd, Christopher $133,900
Kerry, John $111,000
Obama, Barack $105,849


New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON NYT September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (Clinton era)

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:20 AM

Washington Post:

'Always for Less Regulation'?

John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A18

TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis," Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. "When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.' "

But the full quotation from Mr. McCain's March interview with the Journal's editorial board belies Mr. Obama's one-sided rendition. The Republican candidate went on to say, "But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight."

It's fair to say that Mr. McCain has dramatically ramped up the regulatory rhetoric in the wake of the meltdown on Wall Street. Mr. Obama made the argument about the need for increased oversight much earlier. And Mr. McCain has generally taken an anti-regulatory stance, although not in all cases -- his support for federal regulation of tobacco and boxing being prominent counter-examples. Mr. McCain backed a moratorium on all new federal regulation in 1995, saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream." On the campaign trail in 2000, he touted his record of voting "for smaller government, for less regulation."


However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."

Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."

In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time.

One element of the Obama campaign's brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. "He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Mr. Obama said yesterday. "Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the deregulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan." Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman Jim Leach, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers Lawrence H. Summers and Robert E. Rubin supported the repeal -- which was signed by President Bill Clinton?

It's a reasonable question which candidate has been more attentive to the brewing problems on Wall Street and which has a better prescription for them. But Mr. Obama's attack does not give a fair reading of the McCain record.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:40 AM

Now that's downright amazing!! Eight years since there was a Clinton administration and somehow you believe those rogues were responsible for the collapse of Freddy and Fanny?

Awesome.

Your assertion tha the takeover was just routine business operations is so disingenuous as to defy credulity.

"The U.S. government seized control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.70, +0.21, +42.86%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.51, +0.18, +54.54%) on Sunday, placing the liabilities of more than $5 trillion of mortgages onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayer.

Both companies have now been placed into a government conservatorship under the recently created Federal Housing Finance Agency, in a plan announced by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and FHFA Director Jim Lockhart.

The chief executives of the mortgage companies – Dick Syron of Freddie Mac and Daniel Mudd of Fannie Mae – have stepped down, but will continue to stay on temporarily to oversee the transition, Paulson said. Herb Allison, former chairman of TIAA-CREF, will take over as CEO of Fannie, while U.S. Bancorp (USB: 37.69, +0.92, +2.50%) Chief Executive David Moffett will become CEO of Freddie.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe," Paulson said, speaking at a press conference in Washington D.C. on Sunday morning. "A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance."

The Sunday announcement and themes of "too big to fail" brought stark reminders of the government's March intervention in the case of Bear Stearns, which came within hours of filing for bankruptcy.

It also brings both Fannie Mae, which was created by Congress during the Great Depression to help with home ownership, and Freddie Mac, created in 1970 as a competitor to Fannie Mae, back into the fold of the government after a multi-decade attempt at privatization.

As part of the plan, both Fannie's and Freddie's day-to-day operations will be under the direction of Lockhart. Officials provided no indication of when the government conservatorship will end. That will depend partially on the health of the U.S. housing economy, as well as the policy choices of the next presidential administration.

"Conservatorship will give the enterprises time to restore the balances between safety and soundness and provide affordable housing and stability and liquidity to the mortgage markets," Lockhart said.

As part of the government's plan to take over the companies, and to protect taxpayers, Paulson said the Treasury will receive $1 billion in senior preferred stock, with a yield of 10% a year, in both Fannie and Freddie, and will also receive "warrant for the purchase of common stock of each company representing 79.9% of the common stock of each company on a fully diluted basis at a nominal price."

The government's plan will all but wipe out any value that common or preferred stockholders have in the two mortgage companies. All dividends for Fannie and Freddie will be eliminated, Paulson said.

All political lobbying efforts by the government-sponsored entities will cease as well.

While under the direction of the government, the two companies will take additional mortgage-backed securities to help stabilize the mortgage markets through the end of 2009, Paulson said. Starting in 2010, when the housing market is expected to be recovering, both Fannie and Freddie will reduce the size of their mortgage portfolios at a rate of 10% a year.

The ultimate goal is to reduce the size of Fannie and Freddie's mortgage holdings -- around $1.5 trillion altogether -- to about $250 billion each.

Because the government controls the liabilities of Fannie and Freddie, this action could cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. However, Paulson emphasized that, because of the long-term value of these securities, the taxpayer would have "a large stake in the future value of these entities."

"The ultimate cost to the taxpayer will depend on the business results of (Fannie and Freddie) going forward," Paulson said."

Do you think a takeover costing billions of dollars is "normal operation"?

And your accusation against unidentified former CLinton administration people is bizarre, unsubstantiated, and ludicrous.

It is true that the Clinton administration failed to support rigorous reining in of the FMA and FMAC organizations; and motivated by a desire to expand honme-ownership at a time when less than 65% owned homes, they encouraged growth of both organizations. They dshould have had the foresight to dampen things down.

The first signs of potential blowup were in 2003 when Freddie revealed they had understated their earnings by 9 billion dollars. The history of the two makes it clear, I think, that it was the organizations themselves, who bullied, lobbied, and PRd to keep running as they had been. This occurred all through the Clinton, Bush and Bush again administrations.

"As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were trying to recover from their accounting scandals, a new and ultimately mortal threat emerged. Yet again, the warnings went unheeded for too long.

The companies had begun buying loans made to borrowers with credit problems.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been losing market share to Wall Street banks, which were doing boomtown business packaging these riskier loans. The mortgage finance giants wanted a share of the profits.

Soon, the firms' own reports were noting the growing risk of their portfolios. Dense monthly summaries of the companies' mortgage purchases were piling up at OFHEO.

An employee at one of the companies said it was already a constant discussion around the office in 2004: When would the regulators notice?

"It didn't take a lot of sophistication to notice what was happening to the quality of the loans. Anybody could have seen it," the staffer said. "But nobody on the outside was even questioning us about it."

President Bush had pledged to create an "ownership society," and the companies were helping the administration achieve its goal of putting more than 10 million Americans into their first homes.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's appetite for risky loans was growing ever more voracious. By the time OFHEO began raising red flags in January 2007, many borrowers were defaulting on loans and within months Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be running out money to cover the losses.

Finally, as the credit crisis escalated, Congress passed a bill two months ago establishing a tough, new regulator for the companies. It was too late. ..."

(From this overview).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:47 PM

Commentary: McCain's Latino ad hits target, Obama's misses

Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: New front in campaign is Spanish-language ad war

McCain ad is on target in saying Dems blocked immigration reform, he says

Navarrette: Obama ad is off base in claiming McCain agreed with Limbaugh

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
   
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here


Ruben Navarrette Jr. says Obama's Spanish language ad wrongly ties McCain to Rush Limbaugh.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The new offensive in the presidential election is a Spanish-language air war in which each party is trying to convince Latino voters that the other is no amigo to the nation's largest minority and that it did them wrong during the immigration debacle in Congress.

It started last week when the McCain-Palin campaign launched a Spanish ad that, translated, says: "[Barack] Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they? The press reports their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail. The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies: Ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead."

This week, the Obama-Biden campaign struck back with Spanish radio and TV ads in the heavily-Latino battleground states of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Translated, the TV ad says: "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance. They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that lies just to get our vote, and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

Stop the tape! The spots are hard-hitting, but only one hits the target. The McCain-Palin ad is accurate. But the Obama-Biden ad is riddled with problems.

For starters, it diverts attention away from Congress by trying to tie John McCain to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose picture appears on-screen and who stands accused of referring to "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and telling immigrants, "You shut your mouth or you get out."

Limbaugh said this week on his radio show that, with the first comment, he was defending the North American Free Trade Agreement and warning against the idea of rewarding "stupid people" with "no skills" in this country -- that is, Americans -- by keeping their jobs in the United States. He suggested letting "stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

With regard to the second comment, Limbaugh said he was simply parroting the philosophy behind Mexican immigration laws, which are notoriously harsh on migrants from Central and South America.

Limbaugh promised listeners that, on Monday's show, he is going to air Spanish translations of the offending remarks to try to set the record straight and clear the air with Latinos.

I'll be listening. But I don't suppose you could say the same for the folks who created the Obama-Biden ad. It is obvious they don't speak "dittohead." They have probably never listened to Limbaugh or any conservative talkers.

Those of us who do know McCain and his bunch aren't exactly "Republican friends." In fact, they're more like enemies. During the Republican primary, right-wing talk show hosts worked overtime to defeat McCain, preferring the more conservative if less electable alternatives Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.

As for the claim that Republicans have dos caras (two faces), welcome to politics. On the immigration issue, if they pay attention, Latinos will find plenty of that from Democrats. That party had to balance a courtship of Latino voters, who wanted immigration reform, with the edicts of organized labor, which did not. Labor won. That's the whole point of the McCain-Palin ad.

Finally, as for feeling marginalized in a country you love, I have no doubt that many Latino immigrants do love this country, and they contribute enormously to it. Yet others treat it like an ATM, flout its laws, have no interest in becoming legal or a citizen, and -- when they take to the streets -- see no irony in demanding rights from one country while waving the flag of another. Guess what? Such things have a way of making you feel marginalized.

Here's the shame of it: Both political parties have forgotten how to speak to Latino voters. Instead of explaining how their policies will improve people's lives, they try to scare the life out of them. That's unacceptable -- in any language.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:44 PM

The NYT described McCains ad as jaw-droppingly distorted. The man, or his campaign, is dedicated to lying for gain.

"Mr. McCain lied first, in a Spanish-language ad that accused Mr. Obama of helping to kill immigration reform last year, by voting for amendments that supposedly doomed a bipartisan bill. The ad lamented the result: "No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side?"

That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against.

For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.

Mr. McCain was an architect of just such a comprehensive bill. But he is also leading a party whose members rabidly oppose the path to citizenship. So, in deference to them, Mr. McCain now emphasizes border security as the utmost priority. Except when he's pandering in Spanish. ..."

(NYT Columnist)

Why promulgate such trash, Bruce? What shall it profit?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM

Why promulgate such trash, Amos?

You take an unnamed colunist of the partisan NYT as verified truth, and denigrate a California paper columnist for presenting something YOU do not agree with.

"Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist."

From now on, I expect YOU will no longer present any columnists as truth, since you have failed to allow opinions other than your own to be considered as valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 02:34 PM

Protesters interrupt Obama
Posted: 01:35 PM ET

From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson


Protesters holding posters saying Sen. Barack Obama was endorsed by the KKK are escorted from his speech

(CNN) — Barack Obama's campaign rally in Coral Gables, Florida Friday was interrupted by a group of about 10 African-American protesters holding signs that called themselves, "Blacks Against Obama."

The signs said Obama was for gay marriage and abortion, and said his candidacy was "endorsed by the KKK." Another sign said, "Jesse Jackson hates Obama."

Obama originally said the protesters could stay inside the event, but they were escorted out when they would not stop shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:39 PM

Tell ya what, Bruce. If it comes down to trusting the NYT against the San Diego Union Trib, my money goes to the Times any day of the year. This Trib is so close to yellow it scares the hepatitis clinics around here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

And I take it you do not wish to deal with Navarette's direct falsification about Obama's ACTUAL position?

"That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against.

For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here."

Given that Navarette falsifies Obama's position blatantly, while the Times describes it accurately, which would you prefer?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:54 PM

"
As for the claim that Republicans have dos caras (two faces), welcome to politics. On the immigration issue, if they pay attention, Latinos will find plenty of that from Democrats. That party had to balance a courtship of Latino voters, who wanted immigration reform, with the edicts of organized labor, which did not. Labor won. That's the whole point of the McCain-Palin ad.

Finally, as for feeling marginalized in a country you love, I have no doubt that many Latino immigrants do love this country, and they contribute enormously to it. Yet others treat it like an ATM, flout its laws, have no interest in becoming legal or a citizen, and -- when they take to the streets -- see no irony in demanding rights from one country while waving the flag of another. Guess what? Such things have a way of making you feel marginalized.

Here's the shame of it: Both political parties have forgotten how to speak to Latino voters. Instead of explaining how their policies will improve people's lives, they try to scare the life out of them. That's unacceptable -- in any language. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM

The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.

The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply.

The Pinocchio Test
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself--and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

---

Gee. ANOTHER one?

I guess Palin and McCain will be supporting warrantless wiretapping, now that their noses have grown so long from failing the Pinnochio Test so many times,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM

"But the Obama-Biden ad is riddled with problems.

For starters, it diverts attention away from Congress by trying to tie John McCain to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose picture appears on-screen and who stands accused of referring to "stupid and unskilled Mexicans" and telling immigrants, "You shut your mouth or you get out."

Limbaugh said this week on his radio show that, with the first comment, he was defending the North American Free Trade Agreement and warning against the idea of rewarding "stupid people" with "no skills" in this country -- that is, Americans -- by keeping their jobs in the United States. He suggested letting "stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

With regard to the second comment, Limbaugh said he was simply parroting the philosophy behind Mexican immigration laws, which are notoriously harsh on migrants from Central and South America.

Limbaugh promised listeners that, on Monday's show, he is going to air Spanish translations of the offending remarks to try to set the record straight and clear the air with Latinos.

I'll be listening. But I don't suppose you could say the same for the folks who created the Obama-Biden ad. It is obvious they don't speak "dittohead." They have probably never listened to Limbaugh or any conservative talkers.

Those of us who do know McCain and his bunch aren't exactly "Republican friends." In fact, they're more like enemies. During the Republican primary, right-wing talk show hosts worked overtime to defeat McCain, preferring the more conservative if less electable alternatives Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM

Obama's voting record

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:12 PM

This thread needs a new name:

Popular views on Amos vs Bearded Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:17 PM

Yes.


Between the two of us, an honest observer might even be able to determine the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:22 PM

Wouldn't it be cool if we could have alternate timelines and get to try out both Obama as President and McCain as President on two different timelines?

See how it would turn out either way.

Then you come back to the present and show everyone how it would go in a video. Everybody goes out then and votes for the one who screwed up less badly. ;-)

This would save one HECK of a lot of money, time, trouble, and hot air, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:26 PM

But if Amos doesn't come back from Obama-line, is it because he did not survive, or because he is so happy there he does not want to come back?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:28 PM

Not sure I want to risk losing him at the getaway... DoWoops would not be the dame.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:29 PM

"same"...


my keyboard must be getting a cold...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:35 PM

"DoWoops would not be the dame."

Sounds like something Chongo would say...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:37 PM

SOme dames DooWops and some dames Doo Nott.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 05:38 PM

I'll just claim poetic license...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 06:40 PM

Here's Brack Obama outlining the major aspects of his economic plan.

Here are the parts of the economic plan listed out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:47 PM

There is some merit to the proposals attributed to Obama, but I think he'd get farther with then if he just submitted them in print, instead of getting in front of crowds to people and putting them to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:20 PM

But, Rig...the job of a politician at campaign time IS to get in front of crowds of people and put them to sleep...which he certainly will if he tries to actually explain anything complicated, like economic policy or medical coverage.

So, it's hardly fair of you to expect Barack NOT to. ;-)

I think that's why the Republicans got Sarah Palin. They knew that putting a controversial "babe" who shoots moose in front of the average Joe Public would keep them awake...what the Democrats should have done is got Paris Hilton to run as their VP. If they had, the Republicans would be f*cked. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 02:59 AM

The above was by me and it is respectfully directed to Amos.

Who was against the 2003 legislation to proposed by GWB to create a New Agency to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

NYT:

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

---

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

"...But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 06:37 PM

SAN SEBASTIAN, Spain (AFP) - US filmmaker Woody Allen, best known for such comedy classics as "Annie Hall," says it will be no laughing matter if Barack Obama fails to win the race for the White House.

"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win," he told Spanish journalists at the ongoing 56th San Sebastian film festival, where his latest film "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is being screened.

"It would be a very, very terrible thing for the United States in many, many ways," he said.

Democratic hopeful Obama, Allen said, is "so much better" than Republican rival John McCain, and "represents a huge step upward from (the) incompetence and misjudgement" of the Bush administration.

"It would be a terrible thing if the American public was not moved to vote for him, that they actually preferred more of the same."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 07:36 PM

"September 19, 2008
Where The Tracking Polls Stand

The four daily tracking polls have been released, so here is a rundown of where each sees the race today:

*Gallup: Obama 49, McCain 44
*Hotline/FD: Obama 45, McCain 44
*Rasmussen: Obama 48, McCain 48
*Battleground: Obama 47, McCain 47

Obama now leads by 1.9 points in the RCP National Average" (RCP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 09:51 AM

Amos:
"Now that's downright amazing!! Eight years since there was a Clinton administration and somehow you believe those rogues were responsible for the collapse of Freddy and Fanny?

Awesome."

Fannie Mae Ex-Officers Sued by U.S.

Fannie Mae's main regulator sued the company's former chairman and chief executive, Franklin D. Raines, and two top financial officers yesterday in an effort to extract more than $215 million in bonus payouts and fines over their involvement in a huge-scale accounting scandal....

"Your assertion tha the takeover was just routine business operations is so disingenuous as to defy credulity."

Please point out this assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 11:23 AM

The Washington Post Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A18

"....Two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae......"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 11:34 AM

MEmbers of his "circle"?

Hell, I hear there are gays, commies, and gender-change characters in his "circle". Because it's a hug circle-several times larger than John McCain's.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 11:48 AM

Maureen Dowd, using a fictional President from West Wing, offers this advice to Obama:

"Call them liars, because that's what they are. Sarah Palin didn't say "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said "Thanks." You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I'd ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you're at it, I want the word "patriot" back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn't know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can't do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn't their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they've earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It's not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It's not bad enough she's forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It's not enough that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist's baby too? I don't know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she's got the qualifications of one. And you're worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"


I can't say whether Maureen's polemic is good advice or not in practice, buit is very refreshing to read.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:06 AM

Washington Post:

Closing the Whopper Gap

By Ruth Marcus
Monday, September 22, 2008; Page A15

The symmetry of sin is suddenly looking more equal. Last week, I flayed John McCain for dishonesty -- flagrant and repeated dishonesty -- about Barack Obama's proposals. Obama was by no means blameless, I argued, but his lapses were nowhere near as egregious as his opponent's. I stand by everything I wrote.

But a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air. On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh -- and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.

Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided.

"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week," Obama said Saturday as he campaigned in that retiree-heavy state. "Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves."

This is simply false -- even leaving aside the incendiary language about "privatizing" Social Security. As the invaluable FactCheck.org noted, the private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950. It would not have changed benefits by a single penny for current retirees like the nice Florida folks that Obama was trying to rile up. The sensible notion was that workers at or near retirement age should be able to rely on promised benefits and should not be subject to the vicissitudes of short-term market fluctuations.

There is a fair argument to be had about the wisdom of having workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. This year's plunge buttresses the contention that such accounts are too risky to comprise even part of what was conceived, after all, to serve as a safety net.

But Obama's cartoon version of private accounts is not what Bush suggested, and it certainly is not something being peddled by McCain now. Under Bush's plan, workers would have been able to invest less than a third of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Unless they specifically chose a riskier course, workers, beginning at age 47, would have had their investments put in "life-cycle portfolios" that shifted from high-growth funds to more secure bonds as retirement approached.


Obama's ads on Social Security are equally misleading. "Cutting benefits in half, risking Social Security on the stock market," it warns. "The Bush-McCain privatization plan. Can you really afford more of the same?"

Cutting benefits in half? As FactCheck notes, "this is a rank misrepresentation." No one at or near retirement age would have been affected. Those retiring in the future would not have received benefits as big as what they have been promised under current law -- but those promises cannot be paid for under the current system or even through the payroll tax increase on the wealthy that Obama has proposed.

The Bush plan would have limited benefits for some workers to growing at the rate of inflation rather than at the generally faster pace of wages. In other words, these workers would be getting benefits equal in real dollar value to those received by current retirees. But under the "progressive price indexing" approach endorsed by the president, lower-income workers would continue to receive all their promised benefits; medium-income workers would have their benefits reduced somewhat; and high-income workers would take the biggest hit.

The Obama campaign stretches the truth beyond recognition when it says that this would cut benefits in half. Under progressive price indexing, the average-earning worker would see a 28 percent cut in promised benefits -- in 2075. In other words, trims of that magnitude would affect workers not yet born. Today's average-earning 25-year-old would experience much smaller reductions in promised benefits upon reaching retirement age -- more like 16 percent.

And the only way the Obama campaign can inflate the supposed benefit cut to "half" is by assuming that the change in calculating benefit growth would be applied to all workers, not just the top tier. In that case, workers not yet born would get 49 percent of the benefits not yet promised to them by 2075. Doubt these numbers? They come from Jason Furman, now the Obama campaign's chief economic adviser.

To Democrats who worry about whether their nominee is willing to do whatever it takes to win: You can calm down.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:17 AM

A letter writer on the East Coast responds to a snarky renark:

"What was Obama scoring high in? Votes. Millions and millions of them. He won the primaries, remember? Sarah Palin won the mayorality with 600 votes and the governorship with about 120,000 votes.

People with open minds listened to him, read about him, and learned who he was - had a somewhat turbulent childhood, got scholarships to go to good schools and excelled at those schools. He was the first AA to named Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a prestigious position for the best and the brightest that was noted in papers and magazines nation wide. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. The man is brilliant. (Have you heard that McCain graduated 894 out of 899 at the naval academy? A school he got into only because of his family? Like George Bush?)

After Columbia, he worked as a community organizer (gasp!) in Chicago, as Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization to help the poor and disadvantaged and unemployed. While director grew their budget from $70,000 to $400,000 and the DCP staff from 1 to 13 that are still working on those poor streets of Chicago to help people.

After Harvard, he wrote a best selling memoir, worked for a civil rights law firm, and was a professor of constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago. (Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have a president that understands and upholds the constitution?) He also was a State Senator in the Illinois legislature for eight years where he passed important legislation such as better health care for children and mandatory taping of prisoner interrogations among many others. He wrote another best selling book and in 2004 was elected to the U.S. Senate.

In the Senate he sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress, 15 of which have become law, and he has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate. His record is impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
- Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
- Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
- Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
- The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
- Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
- Foreign Policy (10 bills)
- Voting and Elections (9 bills)
- Education (7 bills)
- Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
- The Environment (5 bills)
- Homeland Security (4 bills)
- Discrimination (4 bills)

Go ahead. Compare Sarah's record to that. Mayor of a town of about 6,000 (there were far more than that in the area of Chicago where Obama was working hands-on with the poor and he was doing it on a salary of $13,000, not $68,000). Governor of a state with less than 700,000 people and was fortunate to be there when there was a huge spike in oil prices globally which she had absolutely nothing to do with but certainly benefitted from. There's a reason why Obama has a huge advantage among the better educated and better informed voters and that reason is obvious when you read the posts from most right wingers on various blogs.

— sharon

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:16 PM

Obama talks economy in Wisconsin (9-22). The transcript of his remarks is well worth reading as it gives a clear notion of his positions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM

Police Group Endorses Obama-Biden Ticket
Posted by Ryan Corsaro| 8





(CBS)From CBS News' Ryan Corsaro:

(BALTIMORE) - Joe Biden and the Obama campaign received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations this morning, a group that represents over 2,000 police organizations across the United States.

NAPO president Tom Nee congratulated Biden by phone and promised the organization would support Barack Obama candidacy for president.

"It's my great honor this morning to pledge to you and to commit to you the support of 287,000 police officers from around the country," said Nee.

"Joe, I gotta tell you too, man to man, we've been very good friends and you've worked so very hard on behalf of the American people for a very long period of time. We know we can count on you," Nee added.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:20 PM

OLEMA ¯ Motorists entering the quaint, woodsy town of Olema near the sea in Marin County may notice a subtle change as they enter: it appears the burg's name has been changed to "Obama."

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supporter and bed and breakfast owner Kelly Emery created a perfect mirror of the green sign people read as they enter the town's limits.

Now people unfamiliar with the area may think they are entering the town of Obama, population: 55.

Emery's sign has created little fuss in this politically liberal area, but the county said there are laws regulating such behavior.

Marin County senior planner Curtis Havel said county code allows for political signs on one's residence or place of business not more than 45 days prior to an election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 10:15 AM

Senator Barack Obama received endorsement from the American Humane Society.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

The Obama campaign released a white paper this morning on his new government ethics and transparency proposals. Some of them he's spoken about before -- like open budgeting, televised regulatory hearings and the appointment of a government chief technology officer; what's below is new:

-- create a new agency to identify and track corporate welfare recipients, he'll give the Office of Government Ethics officers (4,000) in total more authority and the agency the ability to make binding regulations. Note: the OGE will become the clearinghouse for all public records about ethics in the executive branch.
-- eliminate "ideological performance goals
--work to increase the president's authority to change or eliminate programs entirely; he "will also experiment with giving government managers the ability to work with their teams to establish goals and to give bonuses when those goals are met."
-- reduce layers middle management in Washington
-- strengthen whistleblower protection laws
-- cut federal spending on contractors by 10 percent, which would say, in his view, $40 billion.
-- end the use of no-bid contracts and forbid the granting of federal contracts for tax delinquent companies


The white paper can be read here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 09:46 PM

"increase the president's authority to change or eliminate programs entirely" A grab for power Ala Chavez

eliminate "ideological performance goals like the goal to cut federal spending on contractors by 10 percent and ending the use of no-bid contracts.

Bubba and Co. invented those no bid contracts and whomped themselves on the back for thinking of them as part of their elimination of the deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:57 AM

Did anyone besides me watch Newshour with Jim Lehrer tonight (Tuesday)? They did a lengthy segment on Obama; Margaret Warner interviewed - singly - a number of people who have known, worked with or worked for Obama.

Obama, the man, came through with flying colors. The concensus was that he is a man of thought and principles, a man who has an innate vision of goals and the means of reaching them evem of it is step by step, a pragmatic man who studies a situation carefully with input from disparate minds and who then comes to a reasoned conclusion.

In regard to having chosen Biden as running mate, one man told Warner that Obama wants bright people around him, thathe needs bright people.

Another said that Obama appears confident that he can convince anyone of what is right in a given situation.

An early mentor of Obama's said that he has never seen Obama upset at not getting his way (I'm paraphrasing here), that he leaves emotions out of it.

What a change. He is a person I want for my president.

I should think that one could find the transcript on the net; it would be well worth rading.

Tomorrow night Judy Woodruff is to do a piece on McCain. I definitely plan to watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 12:45 PM

RCP Average 09/17 - 09/23 -- 48.1 44.9 Obama +3.2
Rasmussen Tracking 09/21 - 09/23 3000 LV 49 47 Obama +2
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/21 - 09/23 903 RV 48 42 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 09/19 - 09/22 780 LV 52 43 Obama +9
Ipsos-McClatchy 09/18 - 09/22 923 RV 44 43 Obama +1
Battleground Tracking 09/17 - 09/23 800 LV 46 48 McCain +2
Gallup Tracking 09/20 - 09/22 2740 RV 47 44 Obama +3
CNN/Opinion Research 09/19 - 09/21 697 LV 51 47 Obama +4

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 03:08 PM

Barack Obama has recaptured the lead — 45 percent to 39 percent — over John McCain in the presidential race, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday.

As majorities of each party's faithful back their party nominee, the battle stays focused on that most sought-after group of voters: independents.

These voters, evenly divided between the candidates in August, swung to McCain earlier this month, which gave him his first lead over Obama since April. In this latest poll independents give a slight edge to Obama, though many have moved back into the undecided column.

In addition, the poll shows Obama has improved his position on the most important issue to voters this year — the economy. He is seen as the best candidate to handle the nation's economy, and more voters also say he would be better at handling the current financial crisis facing the country.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from September 22 to September 23. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
...(FOX News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 03:17 PM

To Democrats fretting that Barack Obama isn't running away with the election, former President Bill Clinton has a message: Chill out, the race was always going to be close.

"I think, first of all, presidential elections, a lot of voting is cultural and identity-based," he said in an interview to air tonight on CNN's "Larry King Live." If you go back through the whole 20th century, we've only had one landslide elections, Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, where both candidates didn't get at least 39 or 40 percent of the vote. That is, the typical race was 40-40, 20 percent could go either way. Then you got to the 1968 election and all of those upheavals 40 years ago. And after that, the Republican base got to be about 45 percent, ours was about 40 percent.

"That's why it was so hard for Democrats to win the White House for a long time. Sometime in my second term it started evening up. And then we had a couple of races where the bases were about 45 and 45.
If you go into a race where you're going to get 45 percent of the vote, then those races are going to look close until the end," he added.

"But what I've always thought would happen here is that because of the condition of the economy, because of the demographics of America growing more diverse, younger, more open to the diversity of the Democratic Party, and because Senator Obama is, I think, not only charismatic, but really smart and a very disciplined candidate who has handled himself, I think, by and large remarkably well, I've always thought that in the end he would come out ahead. ..."

(Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:09 AM

"Senator Obama is, I think, not only charismatic, but really smart and a very disciplined candidate who has handled himself, I think, by and large remarkably well,..."


                      He's certainly seeing a different Obama than I see!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:22 AM

That may be because he is less biased in the seeing, Rig.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:26 AM

Depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:52 AM

"That may be because he is less biased in the seeing, Rig."


                      Or blind!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:19 AM

While that's a physiological possibility, the probability is against it--more liekly there is a deistortion filter in place in your end of the dialogue that desperately seeks to nullify and make worse anything related to President Mister Obama's intelligence and conmpetence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:25 AM

Senator Obama.


Not President, and Mr. is denying him his present office.

Just as Palin is Gov. Palin, and Biden is Sen. Biden, and McCain is Sen. McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:44 AM

QUite right, Bruce. Good to keep the important things in mind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:09 PM

I think that Barack Obama's decision to continue on the campaign trail is an asinine and ridiculous decision. This is the worst financial crisis that our country has faced since the Great Depression and while he is running for President, he needs to remember that his first (and only) job as of now is to be a senator representing the state of Illinois. Real leadership requires making an intelligent decision, and while it's great that Obama can say that he is going to do two things at once I believe this economic crisis requires a full dedication of his time. One cannot stump on the campaign trail, fly all over the country, make speeches and television appearances and also help solve this issue. There are only so many hours in a day, and seeing as this crisis could lead to a depression, it seems fitting that a senator ought to be focusing all of his energy on solving this issue before tackling presidential campaigns.

If any Americans are not aware of Obama's nomination to become President then they are out of tune, and as such, I don't believe he needs to be on the campaign trail. Actions speak louder than words, and John McCain's decision to return to Washington (while clearly partially influenced by political maneuvering) also shows true leadership. The man recognizes that his primary job is to serve the people of Arizona, and if he were campaigning he wouldn't be dedicating his everything to figuring out what to do in this crisis and thus wouldn't be serving the people of Arizona or the American people as well as he should be. It is McCain who has made a wise decision here, and the junior senator from Illinois who has made a hard-headed decision.

Real leaders work for the people - and in the last 24 hours John McCain has proven that he understands that while Obama continues to talk the talk but he fails to walk the walk. Return to DC, where your job is, Obama!

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-93736

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:39 PM

THis is complete horsepucky, Bruce. His contributions to the dialogue on the bailout were clear and incisive, and more helpful than anything I have heard from McCain. Where's the beef? Leadership does not show itself by proppping yourself up in a photo-op somewhere. John McCain's "work" so far on this issue appears to have been taking a plane ride from New York to DC.



Or maybe he rode Amtrak.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:46 PM

Y'know Bruce...the only thing that either McCain or Obama can do immediately about this is to cast a vote in the senate. McCain must have made some intelligent decisions during this campaign, just on the basis of statistics. He's endorsed just about every side of just about every issue at one time or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

Sorry, Amos.

It seems there are those that disagree with you: As you have presented some that disagree with me about both Bush and McCain, I will present some that disagree with you about Obama. You just might have to deal with the fact that just because you hold the same viewpoint as the majority of posting Mudcatters, you cannot silence those that disagree with you and claim to allow free speech.

Feel free to bring out any facts that pertain- but the opinions that I present are as valid as the opinions that you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 03:57 PM

A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.

The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.

Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan -- a Democrat who is supporting Obama's presidential bid -- is investigating "whether this charitable organization properly used its charitable assets, including the state funds it received," Cara Smith, Madigan's deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday.

In addition to the 2001 grant that Obama directed to the housing association as a "member initiative," the not-for-profit group got a separate $20,000 state grant in 2006.

Madigan's office has notified Obama's presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama's actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.

Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama's campaign against John McCain.

Obama and Kenny Smith announced the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project" at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden -- planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place -- fell outside of Obama's Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district's borders.

Obama vowed to "work tirelessly" to raise $1.1 million to help Smith's organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.

In a previous interview, Smith said the state grant money was legitimately spent, mostly on underground site preparation.

But no one ever took out construction permits required for such work, city records show. And a contractor who Smith said did most of the work told a reporter all he did was cut down trees and grade the site with a Bobcat.

Citing the garden's failure to take root, NeighborSpace -- an umbrella group for dozens of community gardens citywide -- moved Sept. 9 to return the site to the city. Its action followed a July 11 Sun-Times report on the grant.

Obama spokesman Michael Ortiz said Wednesday the senator's staff in Washington will monitor the Madigan probe and an additional review under way by Gov. Blagojevich's administration to make sure "the taxpayer funds allocated for the construction of the garden are recuperated from CBHA if the agencies determine that the funds were not properly spent." Obama's goal is to ensure the site "be used in a way that benefits the community and that any taxpayer dollars allocated are spent wisely," Ortiz said.

The relationship between Smith and Obama dates to at least 1997, when Obama wrote a letter that Smith used to help the housing association win city funding for an affordable-housing development near the garden site. Plans called for more than 50 homes; a dozen ultimately were built.

Smith also has donated $550 to Obama campaign funds.

The Sun-Times learned about Karen Smith's involvement in the project through an Aug. 12 Freedom of Information Act response from a lawyer for Blagojevich¹s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The department, according to the lawyer, had ³discovered² 52 pages of ³additional documents² ommitted from an initial response in May to a Sun-Times¹ Freedom of Information Act request about the grant.

Neither Smith nor his wife has been accused of any wrongdoing. Smith and his lawyer did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

In an interview in July, Smith said he was never able to raise the money needed for the garden. But the state grant awarded by Obama was spent properly, he said, on the underground work, with most of the work done by a contractor whose name Smith got wrong.

The Sun-Times tracked down the contractor, Rodolfo Marin, in Austin, Texas, where he now lives.

"What I was hired for was: Clean up the area and cut the trees -- that's all," Marin said. He said he rented a Bobcat -- a sort of small bulldozer -- for the project.

And how much did Smith pay him? "If he spent about $3,000 with me, that was too much."

Chris Fusco and Dave McKinney

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 05:02 PM

And now, McCain is saving the economy!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 06:03 PM

So, you believe in leadership by photo-op, then. I am sorry, but not suprised.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 07:08 PM

See these remarks by the good Senator Obama on how he is managing:

http://my.barackobama.com/latestremarks

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:35 PM

"Leadership does not show itself by proppping yourself up in a photo-op somewhere"

So why did Obama flip flop and show up after he said he wouldn't? He blinked.

I think Rove still has his fingers in the pie.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:40 PM

"So why did Obama flip flop and show up after he said he wouldn't?"


                  Flip-flopping is what he does best. Besides, somebody told him that television cameras would be there, unlike the vet hospitals in Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:15 PM

From socialistworker.org

"If Obama is elected in November, it will be easy to work with him."

"He's really populist in what he says. People are going to have to learn through practice the reality of the Democratic Party's policies."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:10 PM

You guys are so full of it it makes it hard to think straight just listening to you.

He said he didn't think it was necessary to drop the debate. He's the one who suggested, originally, that a joint statement be evolved to bridge the gap between parties in a time of crisis. He initiated the plan to have the two of them come together and possibly speak with the President.

Get real.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:26 AM

Full of what? Insight?

I forgot to quote the Socialist Workers as saying they were going to march in Obama's inaugural parade.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:09 AM

"He said he didn't think it was necessary to drop the debate."


               In view of the fact that this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, I found the whole think a little puzzling. This is where McCain should excel. If this debate is cancelled, the next one is about domestic policy, where he wouldn't do as well.

               There are a few people out there who probably think McCain is doing this for the good of the country, but not many. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

               Reports show that this is helping him in the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:14 AM

It seems to me that McCain, by stating he would not attend the debate IF there was no resolution ( given that the Dems want a debate) was giving the Dems encouragement to come to a resolution.





The Dems have shown that they want to continue Bush's policies, and the rest of the Republicans want a change from those policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:49 AM

The Dems want to continue BUSH's policies? WHat pol,icies are you thinking of? Are you nuts?

"The Congressional plan, then, looks a lot better — a lot more adult — than the Paulson plan did. That said, it's very short on detail, and the details are crucial. What prices will taxpayers pay to take over some of that toxic waste? How much equity will they get in return? Those numbers will make all the difference.

And in any case, it seems that we don't have a deal.

This has to be a bipartisan plan, and not just at the leadership level. Democrats won't pass the plan without votes from rank-and-file Republicans — and as of Thursday night, those rank-and-file Republicans were balking.

Furthermore, one non-rank-and-file Republican, Senator John McCain, is apparently playing spoiler. Earlier this week, while refusing to say whether he supported the Paulson plan, he claimed not to have had a chance to read it; the plan is all of three pages long. Then he inserted himself into the delicate negotiations over the Congressional plan, insisting on a White House meeting at which he reportedly said little — but during which consensus collapsed.

The bottom line, then, is that there do seem to be some adults in Congress, ready to do something to help us get through this crisis. But the adults are not yet in charge. " NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:52 AM

Presently, the Republicans seem to be expressing the viewpoint of the majority of the ctizens- NO BAILOUT.

Bush and the Dems are not in accord with popular opinion.   


Bodes well for the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 10:12 AM

That's not what the Republicans are presenting Bruce.

See this description.

You Manichean debbil.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 10:19 AM

"Republican lawmakers offered a plan calling for Wall Street firms to purchase insurance on mortgage-backed securities and advocating tax cuts and relaxed regulations. Treasury officials had previously rejected a plan focusing on insurance in favor of one that purchased troubled assets, Cantor said. "


"Dodd said on CNN that the Republican plan threatens to force negotiations to begin anew. He said the White House meeting ``looked like a rescue plan for John McCain for two hours, and it took us away from the work we were trying to do today.''

Obama suggested the talks were damaged by politics.

``When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you can actually create more problems rather than less,'' Obama said on CNN.

McCain's Campaign

McCain's campaign said more negotiations were needed to draft legislation that would pass Congress.

``There is not yet a majority of Democrats and Republicans who are willing to vote yes for anything,'' said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to McCain's campaign.

Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, said the speed with which Dodd's plan was put together was designed ``to deny Senator McCain a role in trying to craft a bipartisan solution.'' "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 12:55 PM

Rationalizing Obama's Defeat

You must know the old joke:
A young man returns home from a job interview at a radio station, dejected. His mother sees his sunken face and understands immediately that something has gone wrong.

"My son! The sport's announcer's job—you didn't get it? Nobody knows more about sports than you! How could they reject you?"

The son: "Mom, it was anti-sss …. anti-ssssssss … anti-sssssssssss … anti-SSSSEMMM-itism."

Democrats are already preparing their excuses for the possible defeat of Barack Obama in November. That was an important column Bob Shrum just wrote. True, the column offers Barack Obama unfortunately little guidance as to how to win the election. But it does offer an all-purpose excuse if Obama should lose: racism. Some might say that five weeks in advance is a little early to be developing rationalizations for defeat. And others might say that a candidate who has consistently led in almost every poll since early summer has little need for rationalizations. But those who say these things do not know the Democratic Party!

Maybe I am unfair here, but to an outsider it seems that Democrats see these quadrennial presidential contests not as trials between two parties with the voters deciding, but as trials of the voters! Are the voters good enough, decent enough, unprejudiced enough to vote Democratic? Or will they succumb to their lower natures and vote Republican?

At the end of Hunter S. Thompson's book on the 1972 campaign, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Thompson listens to the news reports declaring Richard Nixon's re-election and thinks: "Okay, we are a nation of used car salesmen." Not for him the thought that there might have been anything wrong with George McGovern or the party that nominated him! If I fail … it shows there's something wrong with you.

That mode of thinking is obviously very condescending. Less obviously, it is very self-defeating. Suppose the voters are just as lunk-headed as Thompson and (depending on the outcome) Bob Shrum believe. What follows? Yes, another couple of decades of massive illegal immigration may well create a very different electorate. Until then, however, these are the voters you have got. The only route to political power is through convincing them; abusing them does not help with that work.

Even more counter-productive, the blame-the-voters mindset relieves candidates of responsibility for developing and articulating acceptable policies. Barack Obama faces other challenges in this campaign than his race.

Obama is running as the more pacifist candidate in a country where the more nationalist candidate has won every presidential election since 1816. He is running as the more economically collectivist candidate in a country where the more economically individualist candidate has won seven of the 10 elections since 1964. He is a more remote and inaccessible personality and he has a radically less impressive resume than his rival. His personal story not only lacks the heroism of John McCain's, but it is punctuated with odd gaps and unanswered questions. Obama still has not delivered a fully plausible account of his relationships with such figures as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps the most immediately damaging fact about Obama's candidacy, however, was his decision not to reach out to his principal party rival, even though she won very nearly as many Democratic votes as he did.

Obama may be The One. But he is far from a perfect candidate, regardless. And Democrats do neither him nor themselves any favors when the only flaws they can see are the flaws in this democracy's ultimate decision-makers: their employers, the voters.

DAVID FRUM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:20 PM

Jeeze, you come up with some pure-dee crap sometimes.

I'm preparing for the election of Obama. Compared to John McCain he's the only viable option.

Mister Frum is speaking from a dark, bent corner, it seems to me. Lofty conclusions of great weight with very luittle foundation to them do not make for a lively analysis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 01:24 PM

Amos:


"I'm preparing for the election of Obama. Compared to John McCain he's the only viable option."

Jeeze, you come up with some pure-dee crap sometimes.






THAT order makes some sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

Ya know, Brucie, the more practiced you become at twisting other people's words out of spite, the more you will slip out of ocmmunication, and the more bitter you will grow.

I'm sorry I spoke harshly, but hell, you know where all my buttons are.

I think I have asked you ten times not to engage in this infantile mockery like a fifth-grader on a bad recess day.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Electoral Map | Changes in Electoral Count | Map With No Toss Ups | No Toss Up Changes
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 09/18 - 09/25 -- 48.2 44.2 Obama +4.0
Gallup Tracking 09/23 - 09/25 2736 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Rasmussen Tracking 09/23 - 09/25 3000 LV 50 45 Obama +5
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/23 - 09/25 912 RV 49 42 Obama +7
GW/Battleground Tracking 09/21 - 09/25 1000 LV 46 48 McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times 09/21 - 09/24 LV 48 43 Obama +5
FOX News 09/22 - 09/23 900 RV 45 39 Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 09/19 - 09/22 1085 RV 48 46 Obama +2
ABC News/Wash Post 09/19 - 09/22 780 LV 52 43 Obama +9
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/19 - 09/22 838 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Ipsos-McClatchy 09/18 - 09/22 923 RV 44 43 Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research 09/19 - 09/21 697 LV 51 47 Obama +4

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:33 PM

Washington Dispatch: Why some of Bush's intel professionals are now working for a Democrat—and how they'd reform the CIA. Part Two in a series on the candidates' national security policies.

By Laura Rozen (Mother Jones News

September 25, 2008


As has become painfully clear since 9/11, intelligence is only as good as the worldview of the person receiving it. The team of former intelligence professionals who have come together to advise Barack Obama describe a candidate who they believe is open-minded and intellectually inclined to absorb information—not just the recognized current threats (terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, a resurgent and more belligerent Russia), but the ones on the horizon (nuclear terrorism, water wars, climate change and the conflicts it could generate). But they also are urging him to rethink the architecture of the intelligence community to grapple with both current and emerging threats, and to do away with the Bush administration's legacy of excessive secrecy and its tendency to view complex international challenges in black-and-white terms.

"The world is a very complicated place and there are not always easy solutions to a lot of the problems out there," says John Brennan, a top Obama intelligence advisor and former senior CIA official who co-founded the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the National Counterterrorism Center, a post-9/11 effort to integrate the US government's terror threat intelligence. "If you look at the world in black and white, you miss a lot of the subtleties out there. 'Either with us or against'—the world is not divided into good and evil a lot of time. Despite America's military might, a lot of these problems do not lend themselves to kinetic solutions"—i.e. the use of force. And world dynamics are likely to get more complicated and nuanced, not less, by 2025. An intelligence forecast being prepared by the US intelligence community for the next president "envisions a steady decline in US dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy," according to the Washington Post.

Obama himself articulated his approach to intelligence in a speech in July. "It's time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists," Obama said at Indiana's Purdue University. "It's time to look ahead—at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday."

But even though matters such as politicized intelligence, torture, domestic surveillance, and preventing terror attacks are among the most controversial issues of the Bush legacy, intelligence has remained largely a stealth topic in the presidential campaign.

Intelligence advisers to Obama say the topic's relative absence may actually be appropriate: "This is not an issue for the campaign," says one former White House official now advising Obama. Adds a former senior CIA operations officer who is also a member of the campaign's intelligence working group: "The only way we can correct it is to have a bipartisan, national interest audit of what it's currently doing, figure out what works, and make the best recommendations and implement them. And you don't want to see this pitfall the election."

Aside from Brennan, the campaign's intelligence working group (which is coordinated by former National Security Council official Rand Beers) spans a range of national security professionals who have served in senior leadership, operational and legal positions in the National Security Council, CIA, and defense intelligence agencies, including many who served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Among them: Former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, former senior CIA operations officers Art Brown and Jack DeVine, retired Ltn. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, retired Ltn. Gen. and former head of the Defense Human Intelligence Service Donald Kerrick, former CIA lawyer and special advisor to the CIA director Kenneth Levitt, former CIA general counsel Jeff Smith, former CIA Near East division chief Robert Richer, and former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. Former CIA lawyer and Clinton-era NSC official Mary McCarthy has stepped back from her previous role coordinating the group due to private sector work demands. One participant described the group's priorities for a prospective Obama administration to me this way: "The intelligence community is a complete mess. Intelligence reform—try to fix it. Improve morale. CIA is dysfunctional. Rectify a lot of stuff that was done by executive order in secrecy, and bring more transparency. Better protection of civil liberties. Improve oversight of CIA on these activities."

Meanwhile, national security experts in the McCain camp characterize their candidate as a Washington veteran who doesn't need a working group to advise him on the issues. "John has been in town for three plus decades," says Gary Schmitt, a former executive director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board who occasionally contributes advice to the McCain campaign. "McCain is his own guy and he has been his own guy. McCain can pick up the phone and call [former deputy secretary of state] Rich Armitage whenever he wants."

But some of Obama's intelligence advisors say their experience with the recent administration has shown that leaders who think they already know it all can lead to disaster. "Old man Bush was a great guy," says one veteran intelligence officer now supporting Obama, who requested anonymity. "He was truly interested and sensitive to intelligence. But this Bush administration has done terrible damage to the intelligence business. They have operated a perpetual campaign, treated intelligence as a political tool, and never fully appreciated why it must be non-partisan and objective and can't be tampered with."

"It's time," he continued, "for a very serious change."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 05:18 PM

David Frum is a right wing fanatic who is a complete embarrassment to the majority of Canadians. His mother used to be a CBC newsperson of considerable stature here. I hope he remains in the USA for good and gets a key spot in the new Orwellian propaganda ministry when the fascist police state-in-the-making down there in Washington becomes an officially recognized fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 06:59 PM

Method....................Obama...McCain
Latest Poll Per State......238.....266
Poll of Polls..............270.....265
Survey USA.................159.....269
Rasmussen Reports..........228.....259
Quinnipiac.................131......51
Research 2000...............42......95
Zogby......................335.....131
National Average...........45.2%...43.5%
Weighted Nat'l Avg.........44.8%...46.0%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:26 PM

It looks like the debate gate scam turned things around for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:24 PM

Interesting that you chpoose to hide the source of that data, Sawz. You desperate?

Here's "Real Clear Politics" summary across the polls:

Poll        Date        Sample        Obama (D)        McCain (R)        Spread
RCP Average        09/21 - 09/25        --        47.9        43.7        Obama +4.2
Gallup Tracking        09/23 - 09/25        2736 RV        48        45        Obama +3
Rasmussen Tracking        09/23 - 09/25        3000 LV        50        45        Obama +5
Hotline/FD Tracking        09/23 - 09/25        912 RV        49        42        Obama +7
GW/Battleground Tracking        09/21 - 09/25        1000 LV        46        48        McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times        09/21 - 09/24        LV        48        43        Obama +5
FOX News        09/22 - 09/23        900 RV        45        39        Obama +6
Marist        09/22 - 09/23        689 LV        49        44        Obama +5

So...where's your contrary data coming from, and of what date is it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 08 - 09:24 PM

Today that number is up from 4.2 to 4.3.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 01:36 PM

Sunday's update:


Gallup Tracking        09/25 - 09/27        2719 RV        50        42        Obama +8
Rasmussen Tracking        09/25 - 09/27        3000 LV        50        44        Obama +6
Hotline/FD Tracking        09/25 - 09/27        914 RV        47        42        Obama +5
GW/Battleground Tracking        09/21 - 09/25        1000 LV        46        48        McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times        09/21 - 09/24        LV        48        43        Obama +5
FOX News        09/22 - 09/23        900 RV        45        39        Obama +6
Marist        09/22 - 09/23        689 LV        49        44        Obama +5

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 04:46 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 04:56 PM

Friday's update


CORN         - -         - -         - -         - -         - -         5430         9/26 - 12:40
SOYBEANS         - -         - -         - -         - -         - -         11640         9/26 - 12:40
WHEAT (DAY)         7456         7560         7580         7450         -194         7652         9/26 - 12:25
LEAN HOGS         69625         69100         69675         68900         350         69275         9/26 - 12:17
LIVE CATTLE         100950         101200         101250         100500         0         100950         9/26 - 12:17
COTTON         5806         5864         5864         5864         -115         5921         9/26 - 23:00

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 06:36 PM

Sawzall:

What on earth is all that gibberish about, in actiual fact?

No. 6: What are you doing?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 07:46 PM

Trying to find a distinction between live cattle and Democrats, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 11:31 PM

What am I doing??

Posting Friday's closing of the agriculture future's quotes and prices.

It is a lot more meaningful than all the polls of the carny election.

And somewhat easier to read if I don't say so meself.   :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:47 AM

Well, start a thread on the subject, Bill.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 06:46 AM

I think my postng of the future's prices is quite appropriate in this thread Amos.

Those prices are tangible. They reflect 'what' one pays.

The poll figures are not tangible. If people base on who would make the best president, or who is right or wrong based on poll figures for outcome of their vote they are being led astray. The issues are what matters ... people should pay more attention to the issues ... not to the carny predictions for their decicion. Polls are a media deception to influence the vote.

biLL :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:37 AM

Would you say reading polls is baffling, somewhat baffling, totally baffling, beyond baffling, all of the above?

Wal-Mart shoppers are with John McCain.

The Starbucks crowd is divided.

'These are among the findings of a poll conducted by National Public Radio, not necessarily associated with Sam's Club in most people's minds, in 14 critical battleground states.'

About this time of every election year the publication of political polls starts taking on a life of its own. Like the undead in those 1950s movies.

They're everywhere -- who's up among playground supervisors, why isn't the Democrat doing better among car salesmen, dog-lovers love McCain, wine-sippers prefer Obama, not every woman votes the same

You wade through all those numbers and age groups and economic criteria and that +/- stuff and you're not in there. You simply don't exist. Apparently, you are unique on the planet.

And, anyway, by tonight you'll hear about another poll that totally contradicts what you just heard at breakfast from that female TV anchor whose hair never moves.'

Mark Silva - as reported in the Los Angeles Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:45 AM

Emma ... exactly .. good post. Thank you.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:48 AM

Yeah, it sounds like he's got a pretty good handle on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:36 AM

The electoral arithmetic looks brighter for Obama
September 30, 2008
Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View
THOSE who fear that democracy is losing its vigour in the modern West should have been reassured by the first debate between the US presidential candidates. Not because of anything that emerged from the debate itself, for it revealed almost nothing that was not already known about the two candidates and their views. But because, if polls are any guide, American voters are beginning to show a real shift in their allegiance. And that shift seems to be based not on what the candidates had to say to each other, or on what spin doctors had to say about it, but on the voters' own assessment of what is happening in their country.

In American presidential elections, the vote that matters is not the tally of popular support for each candidate, but the number of delegates that the candidates win in the electoral college that formally chooses the president. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has long performed well in estimates of the national popular vote: he reportedly leads his Republican rival, John McCain, by an average of 5% across all polls. But Senator Obama has struggled to win enough support in the states he is likely to need to win to secure an electoral-college majority.

This week, however, for the first time in several months, the polls show that if the election were held now the electoral college votes in one of those crucial states, Virginia, would go to the Democratic candidate. The balance has also swung in another state that had hitherto inclined to the Republicans, North Carolina. Senator McCain has a slight edge in Ohio, a "swing" state that the eventual victor is expected to have to win, but the evidence is that the college count is shifting in favour of the Democrats.
..." From The Age.com

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:45 AM

I regularly receive Zogby surveys. Among the questions asked each time are who I last voted for for president, who I plan to vote for for president, how likely I will vote, how interested I am in politics, whether I am a NASCAR fan, whether I attend religious services, how often if ever I shop at WalMart, whether any family is a member of a union, whether any family member is in the military. These are all questions regarding demographics that are routinely part of the polling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM

'The way that polling and demographics slice up the population is, ultimately, a matter of preference; it does not derive from, but is a presupposition of, the "science."
Searching for segments of the electorate that vote as a bloc, demographers split the population up into groups they decide are important or salient.
And their decisions don't necessarily reflect empirical results -- they are more an index of THEIR OWN social attitudes, presumptions and prejudices.

It would be nearly as scientific to rig up any segment of the population and regard it as decisive: blue-collar women, black and white, under 35; black men plus Latino women; left-handed divorcees.

When you bring a set of racial or gender-based categories to the data, the divisions these attitudes represent will always be confirmed as the most important divisions in our society.

That just reinforces the problematic divisions that infested the attitudes of the pollsters in the first place.
And then, at the end of each election, our divisions of race, gender and class are, in our imaginations, stronger.

The right response to the notion that "scientific polling" shows that the election outcome turns on white men or black women or soccer moms is a shrug of the shoulders and the arch of an eyebrow.'

'Polling's fuzzy math'

by Crispin Sartwell (a teacher philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., and is the author of the forthcoming "Against the State: an Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory.")

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:13 AM

The reason I prefer the Real Clear Poltiics poll treport is that they average the values froma dozen polls across the nation.

Of course they may still be missing important demographics (such as 20-30 somethigns with only cell phones), but it's the best representation of poll-based information you can get.

RCP Average 09/21 - 09/28 -- 47.9 43.3 Obama +4.6
Rasmussen Tracking 09/26 - 09/28 3000 LV 50 45 Obama +5
Gallup Tracking 09/25 - 09/27 2719 RV 50 42 Obama +8
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/25 - 09/27 914 RV 47 42 Obama +5
GW/Battleground Tracking 09/22 - 09/28 1000 LV 46 48 McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times 09/21 - 09/24 LV 48 43 Obama +5
FOX News 09/22 - 09/23 900 RV 45 39 Obama +6
Marist 09/22 - 09/23 689 LV 49 44 Obama +5

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 02:45 PM

Obama offers some well-deserved bitch-slaps to McCain


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 02:48 PM

McCain says Obama policies will deepen recession

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 15 minutes ago



COLUMBUS, Ohio - Lagging in the polls, Republican presidential candidate John McCain unleashed a blistering attack Monday on his Democratic rival, saying the race comes down to a simple question: "Country first or Obama first?"

In his first public appearance since Friday night's debate, McCain said Democrat Barack Obama advocates tax-and-spend policies that "will deepen our recession," and voted against funding for equipment needed by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"That is not putting the men and women of our military first," he said.

McCain stressed his own record of opposing Republicans on key issues, and said, "When it comes time to reach across the aisle and work with members of both parties to get things done for the American people — my opponent can't name a single occasion in which he fought against his party's leadership to get something done for the country. That is not putting the interests of the country first."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 04:33 PM

Obama lead over McCain steady at 8 percent, new poll shows


"Barack Obama maintains a sizeable lead over John McCain in the presidential race, according to the latest Gallup daily tracking poll.

The poll, which had McCain ahead in the race just weeks ago, and has shown a close race through much of the summer, now indicates that registered voters are favoring Obama over McCain by a 50 percent to 42 percent margin.

The latest tracking poll would take into account initial reactions to Friday's debate, as well as Sarah Palin's recent interview with Katie Couric. It would also take into account the building, dire, financial credit news, though not the failure of the bailout bill on first vote.

Now, as always, it's a poll, national, not state by state, it is still September, etc... Lot's of reasons not to read too much into any poll.

But, this is the second day in which Obama has attracted 50 percent support, a rare number for either candidate to reach in this race. These numbers would indicate that the number of undecided voters is 8 percent. the polls margin for error is +/- 2 percent, so the results are outside that margin."

(Kansas City Star)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 04:41 PM

Well Bruce, If McCain talks about the economy, it must be true; especially if it is self serving.

:-)

I notice that he didn't say that he plans to double down on the policies that got us in this mess to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 06:21 PM

The NRA needs to get started with their advertising program.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:28 PM

Bailout ushers in the era of Obama

"Even if Sen. Barack Obama loses the presidential election — and of course he may — the playing field of our politics now has shifted seismically in his philosophical direction.

The era of cowboy capitalism has died, largely of self-inflicted wounds. Who knows what's coming now? I do: A new era of tight business regulation and government intervention in the markets.

For now, and perhaps for many years, there will be no going back.

The Rubicon was crossed this weekend, when the deal was struck for a $700 billion federal takeover of the carcass of Wall Street.

At that moment, the conservative era in America, which began with Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, ended. It did so not with a bang, but with a whimper — a cry of help from erstwhile Masters of the Universe who suddenly feared for their platinum-level lives.

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson could hear those cries because, until two years ago, he was a Master himself.

For decades, conservatives had fought — in very good conscience — to unshackle free enterprise from the grip of statist thinking, the kind of thinking represented at its most suffocating by communism. It was a worthy fight; Hayek was right: the "road to serfdom" lies in the idea that The State is the answer to everything.

But Wall Street and Washington (especially the hacks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) produced, in addition to colossal profits, a farrago of greed unseen since the Roaring Twenties, which was the last time, by the way, that the gulf between the rich and poor was as wide as it is today.

That party is over.

If Obama does win, it will be because of the economic crisis now upon us, of which the bailout is the capstone and political symbol.

The crisis has had two pro-Obama effects.

For one, it yanked the national consciousness away from security and terrorism, Sen. John McCain's two strongest areas of expertise and appeal.

Second, the crisis underscored and amplified the yearning in the country for something — and someone — new. Voters have been saying for more than a year that they want change. Now they REALLY want it.

Suddenly, "experience" and purported expertise mean next to nothing. After all, Dick Cheney was "experienced," and what did that get us? And George W. Bush had a Harvard MBA! And what did that get us?

Cheney and Bush have given credentials a bad name. If that is the case, why not go for a fellow who by virtue of his very being represents change: a new generation, a new demographic, a new outlook?..."


Fineman, MSNBC)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 07:40 PM

Exactly, Amos...

Change has allready come... The Reagan era is over... Boss Hog, as I have predictedm isn't so comfy these days... But it had to happen... There is only but so much wealth to go around and we are beyond the tipping point in how it has been unfairly distributed...

So, regardless of the outcome of this election, hang on 'cause the pendelum is swinging back...

I guess the only sticky point will be if McCain is elected and he has to pick a Supreme Court judge... That will be a war because that could be a change that would put the Supreme Court on the wrong side of popular opinion...

But hopefully we won't have that scenerio...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:57 PM

"And I’ll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it," Obama said in a speech in Daytona Beach, Fla., on Sept. 20, 2008. "Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty â€" half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would’ve watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would’ve been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a 'casino culture' on Wall Street â€" but the fact is, he’s the one who wants to gamble with your life savings."

McCain has, in the past, supported plans that would allow workers, only if they want to, to have a portion of their Social Security put into personal retirement accounts that allow investment in the stock market.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:37 AM

"The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.''

The New York-based Guttmacher Institute reported in January 2008 that in 2005 the country's abortion rate fell to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, continuing a trend that started after the abortion rate peaked in 1981 at 29.3. The institute, a think tank on reproductive health issues, reported that the number of abortions also fell, to 1.2-million in 2005, which it said was 25 percent below the record high of 1.6-million abortions in 1990.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:22 AM

Secret, Foreign Money Floods into Obama Campaign

Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
...
Foreign Donations

And then there are the overseas donations -- at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their "state" as "IR," often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as "UK," the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain's or Sen. Hillary Clinton's online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton's presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria's stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria's largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," the Libyan leader said. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were "legitimate," the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to "root out fraud," including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.

In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

Geller picked up on the revelation, which Glenn Simpson of The Wall Street Journal reported first, that donors from the Gaza Strip had given more than $33,000 to the Obama campaign, through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign's year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as "GA," as in Georgia, although they entered "Gaza" or "Rafah Refugee camp" as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers' contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Many of the small donors participated in online "matching" programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

"Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight," campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. "And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate."

FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, "the two people must agree" to do so.

This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, "We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program."

Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous -- and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:32 AM

From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 08:35 PM

.... I've carried my values with with me for a long time now and believe me, if Obama screws up I'll be on him like ugly on a gorilla... I just haven't seen the screw up yet but you can take it to the bank that if I see it I won't rationalize it and defend him...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 09:24 PM

I'm watching his every step, bb...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:05 AM

INteresting point. SHould contributors from foreign nations -- that would have to include Israel, I suppose -- be barred from contributing to Presidential campaigns?


Its an open question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:15 AM

I thought foreign entities were barred from contributing to presidential campaigns.

                If that wasn't the case, China could get Obama elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:32 AM

"SHould contributors from foreign nations -- that would have to include Israel, I suppose -- be barred from contributing to Presidential campaigns?"


Whether they should or not, under current law they ARE barred.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:35 AM

"the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign."

from the post...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:35 AM

Well, for example, how are they barred,exactly? Are they not allowed to buy buttons or teeshirts from political-funding websites, or just not allowed to write checks to the major parties? Anyone know, exactly, how this bar works?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:43 AM

Obama July 7 2008: "The strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let's say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market. We wouldn't just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil (gas?). We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for."

Obama Aug. 4 2008, "We should sell 70-million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:02 AM

I think you are pretending these two statements contradict each other, Sawzwood.

One is about not using the strategic oil reserve. The other is about replacing part of the reserve with crude, which does not deplete the reserve (in case you didn't think the thought through).

It would be nice if you could evolve, when presented with new data, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:05 AM

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign's year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as "GA," as in Georgia, although they entered "Gaza" or "Rafah Refugee camp" as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers' contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:12 AM

Not an open question at all, Amos.

Just under $30 million has been requested by the FEC to be refunded or redesignated. ANd Obama's campaign is dragging it's compliance.


"The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. "


How much can Obama make off holding onto that $30,000,000.00 until after the election ( Like Clinton did with illegal foreign contributions)?


"I've carried my values with with me for a long time now and believe me, if Obama screws up I'll be on him like ugly on a gorilla... I just haven't seen the screw up yet but you can take it to the bank that if I see it I won't rationalize it and defend him..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:18 AM

Hmmm. Looking at the numbers and dates, Obama's campaign is lying.


"A pair of Palestinian brothers ...contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in *****October and November 2007******, FEC records show.

...In an *****April 15, 2008******, report that examined the Obama campaign's year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on *****July 30*****.

...
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in *****December*****. "




"I've carried my values with with me for a long time now and believe me, if Obama screws up I'll be on him like ugly on a gorilla... I just haven't seen the screw up yet but you can take it to the bank that if I see it I won't rationalize it and defend him..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:34 AM

Well, that little detail was so important you had to post it twice. SOrry it took so long to process those mislabeled funds, but I'm glad to see the O. campaign is doing the tright thing, at last.
No embezzlement, misappropriation, etc. has occurred. Are you beating your chest because you like the hollow sound?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:44 AM

"Well, that little detail was so important you had to post it twice. "


I think you need to be careful- YOU have posted many statements ( opinions) as facts, and demanded that some of us respond to the alledged impropriety. So, when I ask you to do the same, with facts from the FEC YOU claim they are getting around to it- after telling the FEC they did so last December....


"SOrry it took so long to process those mislabeled funds"

Seems like you are cutting Obama slack that you would not allow Palin or McCain: I know you are partisan, but you appear to be blind to anything that looks like a fault in Obama, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 11:50 AM

Wife of former NH gov. backs Obama
September 30, 2008
Email| Print| Single Page| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + MANCHESTER, N.H.—The wife of former New Hampshire Gov. Walter Peterson has endorsed Barack Obama, putting her at odds with her husband, a big supporter of John McCain.

Dorothy Peterson announced her support for the Democratic presidential candidate Tuesday, saying Obama is the best prepared to lead the country on everything from women's rights to the war in Iraq.

Her husband, a Republican who served as governor from 1969 to 1973, was honorary chairman of McCain's winning New Hampshire primary campaign and is a member of his New Hampshire leadership team for the general election. He frequently attended McCain's town hall meetings around the state.

---

That has got to sting....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:22 PM

Obama: "And once again, we are faced with a politics that makes all of this possible. In recent years, the doors of Congress and the White House have been thrown wide open to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. Year after year after year, they stand in the way of our progress as a country. They stop us from addressing the issues that matter most to our people. ?

....at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. is this Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

The lobbyists' task? "Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient," they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas' key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.

Together, Obama's obscure measures -- known as tariff suspensions -- steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.....

The change we need to Keep Jobs in America????????????????????????

---

....Since 2003, Hunter Biden's Clients Have Paid His Firm A Total Of $3.8 Million. "Since 2003, Hunter Biden has been registered to lobby for an array of small universities, hospitals, and drug research companies seeking earmarks and other appropriations. Those clients have paid his firm a total of $3.8 million, jumping from $20,000 in 2003 to $1.6 million in 2007, according to lobbying disclosure records."

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the lone Republican presidential candidate in the Senate, did not win a single earmark in the spending bills. He has chosen instead to position himself on the hustings as a leading critic of excessive government spending.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:50 PM

Excuse me, amigo. I completely supporty your position against earmarks as a bad way to allocate funds, and against lobbyists, as a bad way to represent the public interest to its representatives, believe me.

But just to keep things in perspective, you are poking at a budget item that represents, if memory serves, a per cent or so of the total budget, while completely ignoring the really big items that cause hemorrhaging, such as defense overspends and the close-knit no-bid contracts with huge firms beloved by the Bushites such as Blackwater, L-3 Communications/Titan, and Cheney's own special relationship, Haliburton.

Your friends in the Administration have run up a deficit of ~$500B.

The Federal budget is on the order of ~$3T (trillion) dollars.

Your high-finance amigos have gone to Washington demanding the taxpayers commit to ~$700B in a bailout program.

Mister Bush's brilliant war has run up a price tag around $580 billion and counting.

The total of all Republican And Democratic earmarks (including the Bridge/Road Across Nowhere)? Around $18B.

Just to keep things in perspective, as I was saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:58 PM

The word on the street is, the Obama campaign is swimming in foreign donations, and the name Khaddafi keeps coming up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:07 PM

Wow, what a sweeping negative generality, no source, no stats, no fractual references, just "the word on the street", huh? Gues it depends on what street you live on.

I know one down in Southeast San Diego where the word is that Palin's rise to fame was funded by a back-room operation selling Alaskan high-school dropouts as sex-slaves to the Russians.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM

I was just trying to get your attention, Amos. It was on that News-Max thing, which is highly questionable I know, but no more so that the Daily.Kos or MoveOn.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:30 PM

Rig:

You are a world-class jerk, and when I get up in your neck of the woods I am going to hunt you down and make you buy me a beer and sit at the table while I drink it. You can have one too, if you wish.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

You're on! I'll do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM

:>) Deal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:18 AM

Ouch

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:59 AM

Gov. Blagojevich Releases Statement On Obama

CHICAGO February 10, 2007

"On this historic day, I am pleased to join many Illinoisans who are excited and proud to support Sen. Obama in his bid for the presidency. I know that Sen. Obama will fight to make sure that working families have access to health care, good paying jobs, and opportunities to provide for their children. Senator Obama supports the very best of these Democratic values; they are values that he and I share, values I know he will fight for.

"Sen. Obama has the vision, skills and dedication necessary to bring people together and make real progress in Washington to help solve our country's greatest and most pressing problems. Sen. Obama offers real hope for the American people and I am proud to give him my support.

"I want to take this opportunity on this historic day to urge the Legislature to immediately send me a bill to move our state's primary from March 18, 2008 to February 5, 2008. That will give Illinois voters an opportunity to send an early message in support of Senator Obama and send him to victory."

Then he rolls Obama under tha buss;

With Antoin "Tony" Rezko's federal corruption trial looming, Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday tried to deflect the heat he's been getting over his former adviser and top fundraiser by pointing out he's not the only politician who has received help from Rezko.

Blagojevich ticked off a list of elected officials who also have ties to the indicted developer. While not naming them, he made reference to everyone from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to House Speaker Michael Madigan, his political nemesis, and Madigan's daughter, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:08 PM

He looks a lot like Alfred E. Newman. Are we supposed to take any of these characters seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:19 PM

Sawz:
How does tyhat "roll someone under the bus".

I mean, let's get clear: specific facts are specific facts. Let's have details, verified as true, or rejected as false.

All you armwaving just muddies the waters, I'm afraid.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

Obama Holds Sizable Lead In Today's Tracking Polls
By Eric Kleefeld - October 1, 2008, 1:06PM

Here's a wrap-up of the four major national tracking polls for today. Barack Obama continues to hold a substantial lead over John McCain:

• Gallup: Obama 48%, McCain 44%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 49%-43% Obama lead yesterday.

• Rasmussen: Obama 51%, McCain 45%, with a ±2% margin of error, unchanged from yesterday.

• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 47%, McCain 42%, with a ±3.2% margin of error, compared to a 47%-41% Obama lead from yesterday.

• Research 2000: Obama 51%, McCain 41%, with a ±3% margin of error, unchanged from yesterday.

Adding these polls together and weighting them by sample sizes, Obama is ahead 49.4%-43.7%, down just slightly from yesterday's 49.8%-43.3% lead, but still well ahead.

(TPM.com's Election Central)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:38 PM

IF you shaved, Rig, you'd look a lot like AEN too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:17 PM

"I mean, let's get clear: specific facts are specific facts. Let's have details, verified as true, or rejected as false."

You first.

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:33 PM

Journalist, Evelyn Pringle, has been doing a lot of indepth research into Obama's many long time connections to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois. Here are some exerpts from her research:

'...when the scandal is recorded in the history books it will be the "Barack Obama" case. "

'Dr Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 a little over a month before the first meeting on June 30, 2003. He also donated $25,000 to Blagojevich three weeks later on July 25, 2003, and gave Obama another $500 in September 2003. Malek was an investor in Riverside Park. '

'Dr Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. Massuda's husband, Charles Hannon, is a co-schemer in the pension fund case and testified against Rezko in the trial.'

'In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators "build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru's Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005," according to the February 10, 2008 Sun-Times.'

'On May 20, 2005, the Times said, 'Two Rezko associates gave Blagojevich $25,000 each just days after the governor named them to a state panel.'

However, the reporters either failed to notice, or failed to mention, that panel member Malek gave $10,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM

Sawz:

I suggest you ask the author of that remark. I don't know what he was thinking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:49 PM

Feds track Obama's visits to Rezko

In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators "build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru's Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005," according to the February 10, 2008 Sun-Times.

During his March 14, 2008 interview, the Times told Obama, Thomas is an FBI mole and he "recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko's office a lot."

"And three other sources told us that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily."

"Is that true?" the reporter asked.

"No," Obama said, "That's not accurate.""I think what is true," he said, "is that, it depends on the period of time."

"I've known him for 17 years," Obama stated. "There were stretches of time where I would see him once or twice a year."

He told the Times, "when he was involved in finance committee for the U.S. Senate race, or the state senate races, or the U.S. Congressional race, then he was an active member."

"During the U.S. Senate race, there's be stretches of like a couple of weeks - for example prior to him organizing the fundraiser that he did for us - where I would probably be talking to him once a day to make sure that was going well," he said.

"But the typical relationship was one that was fond," he added. "We would see each other."

"But there would be no reason for me to be seeing him that often," he stated.

This issue may be sorted out soon enough because Fitzgerald's charts matching up Obama's contributions, visits and calls are bound to be every bit as thorough as the ones produced to prove Rezko is guilty as charged in the first trial. They simply were not produced because they were not needed to prove the defendant guilty in the first case....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 04:42 PM

Strictly for the sensational arousal and gratification for sawz, BB, rig and Doug

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 04:42 PM

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/tarpbook.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 04:55 PM

The anti Micheal Moore film deleted a scene from the Zucker movie.
It was a scene with Kelsey Grammer as Patton picturing a world in which Lincoln declined to go to war. Coleman is a slave washing Patton's car and tosses the sponge to Barack.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:02 PM

Does he catch it, or does it smack him in the face, like all of this news about Rezko is about to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:03 PM

Rezko trial

Bob Secter April 14, 2008

"Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's name came up again at the Antoin "Tony" Rezko corruption trial today in Chicago and in a way that earlier filings in the case did not telegraph.

Stuart Levine, the prosecution's star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.

Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko's bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.

The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama's presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity."

How come this is not being hooted all over the MSM like Sarah Palin's family life?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:29 PM

Edwards, Obama, and lobbyist money
by Ted Frank

At YearlyKos, John Edwards and Barack Obama sought to distinguish themselves from Hillary Clinton by saying they didn't take money from registered lobbyists, and Clinton was booed for defending herself. (Also: Franke-Ruta.)

I found this curious: after all, Obama and Edwards showed up at the national convention of the lobbying group for the trial lawyers, the former Association of Trial Lawyers of America (who now call themselves the American Association of Justice). There, they gave speeches (as did Clinton, Biden, and Richardson). A look at the largest donors for Obama and especially Edwards shows a disproportionate number of active members of that lobbying group. Indeed, John Edwards's finance chairman is Fred Baron, the former president of ATLA. If Obama and Edwards want voters to believe that Clinton is influenced by lobbyist money, what should we think about these two candidates' debts to trial lawyers? Are we to believe that the critical difference is the lobbyist registration papers, at which point money becomes tainted and dirty? Are any reporters going to ask that hard question, or will they let the two candidates demagogue from the high ground as they take millions from the most pernicious special interest group in America?

Change we can believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:23 PM

Daily Obama Earmark Update: Chicago Museum Of Science And Industry

Here is a series of earmark requests for the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. Pay particular attention to the funds secured for the Henry Crown Space Center. The Crowns are bundlers for Barack Obama's campaign and have assisted in promoting his career. Obama has pursued questionable earmarks for the Crowns in the past.

"In 2005, Obama Requested $3 Million And Helped Secure $750,000 For The Renovation Of The Museum Of Science And Industry's Henry Crown Space Center." (Obama For America Website, Accessed 6/3/08)

"[Jim] Crown And His Wife, Paula Crown, Are Members Of Obama's National Finance Committee And Have Raised More Than $200,000 For The Campaign, According To Obama's Campaign Web Site." (Matthew Mosk, "Obama Lists Requests For Pet-Project Funding," The Washington Post, 3/14/08)

Paula And Jim Crown Are Part Of The Billionaire Crown Family. "Obama had substantial support from longtime Democratic donors as well, with a hefty portion of his money flowing from titans in his home town, Chicago, such as his national finance chair, Penny Pritzker, a Hyatt hotel heiress, and Paula Crown of the Henry Crown family. The Crowns are worth an estimated $4.1 billion and hold stakes in the Chicago Bulls, the New York Yankees, Hilton Hotels and Rockefeller Center." (Matthew Mosk and Perry Bacon Jr., "Clinton's Campaign Has Most In Bank," The Washington Post, 4/16/07)

Jim Crown Is The Chairman Of The Board Of Trustees At The University Of Chicago. "Chairman of the Board of Trustees: James S. Crown." (University Of Chicago Website, Accessed 5/16/08)

Obama Visited Jim Crown And His Father, Lester, As He Was Preparing To Run For The Presidency. "As Mr. Obama moved closer to running, he paid a visit to James S. Crown and his father, Lester, billionaire investors who presided over a sprawling Chicago business dynasty and prominent leaders in the Jewish community. As the meeting ended, the younger Mr. Crown said, his father — who is 'fairly hawkish' about Israel's security — was noncommittal about Mr. Obama. But, James Crown said, 'I pulled him down to my office, and I said, 'Hey, look, I think you should run, and I want you to win.'" (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, "Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side," The New York Times, 5/11/08)

The Crowns Helped Arrange Meetings For Obama In His Visit To Israel. "Mr. Crown, for his part, could not be more pleased. Since Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate Mr. Crown said that even his father had been won over, helping to arrange meetings for Mr. Obama in a visit to Israel. James Crown said he had 'never had even the slightest glimmer of concern that Barack wasn't terrific' on Israel — a view that Mr. Obama jokingly reinforced at a meeting last year in Mr. Crown's office." (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, "Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side," The New York Times, 5/11/08)

Obama Requested An $8 Million Earmark For General Dynamics; Jim Crown Sits On The Company's Board Of Directors. "But Obama's list raised questions because it includes $8 million for a defense contractor that has ties to one of his most prodigious campaign fundraisers. According to the earmark disclosure, the money was for a project overseen by General Dynamics. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on the company's board of directors, and his family holds a sizable stake in the firm." (Matthew Mosk, "Obama Lists Requests For Pet-Project Funding," The Washington Post, 3/14/08)

* Obama Ultimately Secured $1.3 Million For A High-Explosive Technology Program Run By General Dynamics. "His campaign's list said the senator had secured $1.3 million of an $8 million request in 2006 for a high-explosive technology program for the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The list said the program was overseen by General Dynamics." (Christopher Drew and Jo Becker, "Obama Lists His Earmarks, Asking Clinton For Hers," The New York Times, 3/14/08)...........Much Much More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:33 PM

NYT:
As Mr. Obama moved closer to running, he paid a visit to James S. Crown and his father, Lester, billionaire investors who presided over a sprawling Chicago business dynasty and prominent leaders in the Jewish community.

As the meeting ended, the younger Mr. Crown said, his father — who is "fairly hawkish" about Israel's security — was noncommittal about Mr. Obama. But, James Crown said, "I pulled him down to my office, and I said, 'Hey, look, I think you should run, and I want you to win.' "

In courting families like the Crowns, Mr. Obama was gaining entree into the upper echelon of the city's corporate boardrooms, a ripe source of campaign money. But he was also seeking to broaden his appeal to Jewish voters, and he was wading more deeply into one of the touchiest issues in American politics: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more "evenhanded approach" to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama's precise position was often difficult. "You may come away thinking, 'Wow, he agrees with me,' " he said. "But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure."

A.J. Wolf, a Hyde Park rabbi who is a friend of Mr. Obama's and has often invited Mr. Khalidi to speak at his synagogue, said Mr. Obama had disappointed him by not being more assertive about the need for both Israel and the Palestinians to move toward peace. "He's played all those notes right for the Israel lobby," said Mr. Wolf, who is sometimes critical of Israel.

During the Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a "Walk for Israel" rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel's building of a security fence.

But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.

In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that "none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel's security." Mr. Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: "I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront." ... Much Much Much More Here.........

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 12:19 AM

Sawsaw--

You certainly are expert at pillaging articles, guilt by association, etc. Two can play that game--but it's a waste of time--and proves nothing. Too bad you have nothing to say that makes any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 12:33 AM

Obama and his Rezko ties

April 23, 2007 TIM NOVAK Staff Reporter suntimes.com

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on but their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building.

Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years. Rezko has been a political patron to Obama and many others, helping to raise millions of dollars for them through his own contributions and by hosting fund-raisers in his home.

Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district.

Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.
Allison Davis, a co-founder of the firm who since has left, is a major Chicago developer. Miner, Davis and other partners and clients have been a regular source of campaign money for Obama, giving him $100,000 over the years. Miner said he organized fundraisers for Obama's first state Senate run, his 2000 congressional campaign and his 2004 U.S. Senate race.

Davis, who could not be reached for comment, has been a partner with other Chicago developers who also are clients of the firm and are Obama backers. One Davis partner was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a major Obama patron who is now on trial in a federal public corruption case.

In 1998 Obama used state Senate stationery to urge that state and city officials provide tax subsidies to help a partnership consisting of Davis and Rezko develop low-income housing, the Chicago Sun-Times reported last year....More...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:04 AM

My, my. You must be highly motivated to rake all that muck.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:59 AM

"You certainly are expert at pillaging articles, guilt by association, etc. Two can play that game--but it's a waste of time--and proves nothing."


Yes, we HAVE learned a lot by watching Amos and Ron D. on this and other threads.


And now they admit they have proved nothing, after years of claiming otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:47 AM

Neener nneeener, amigo.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM

Another intelligent response by Amos!


As I have stated, you have been asking that we check our facts- how much trouble is it for you to do so as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM

Geoff Elliott, St Louis, Missouri | October 03, 2008

SUPPORT for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has surged according to a series of polls yesterday.

The Illinois senator now heads Republican rival John McCain nationwide, including significant leads in battleground states in the lead-up to the November 4 poll.

The polls reinforced trends witnessed in the past two weeks as the meltdown on Wall Street and the US economy worked in the Democrat's favour and as the Palin bounce - the surge in polls for Senator McCain after he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate - evaporated.

Voters were also impressed with Senator Obama in the first presidential debate last week, watched by 56million people.

Even more could watch today's debate between Ms Palin and Senator Obama's vice-presidential pick, Joe Biden.

Reputable polls from Quinnipiac University Polling put Senator Obama well ahead in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Virginia, which has not been won by a Democrat since 1964.

The trends were confirmed in a separate poll released by Time/CNN which also had Senator Obama ahead in critical battleground states and with similarly big margins.

Among the CNN poll's most dramatic findings is that Senator McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them. Senator Obama now leads Senator McCain by 17 points with women, 55per cent to 38per cent.

Before the conventions, women preferred Senator Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49per cent to 39per cent. After Senator McCain picked Ms Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie.

Insiders in the Obama camp warned that the swings looked too dramatic. They said the campaign's internal polling had not reflected such a fall in support as was shown in the news polls when Ms Palin rallied conservatives to the McCain standard.

In a worrying sign for Senator McCain, the polls indicated that independent voters had started to drift away from the McCain-Palin ticket. In the most dramatic shift, independent voters went from leaning towards Senator McCain by 45per cent to 44per cent on September 11 to favouring Senator Obama by 59per cent to 29per cent in the Quinnipiac poll.

The polls also indicated that the working-class vote, which had been difficult for Senator Obama to attract, appeared to be now heading towards the 47-year-old Illinois senator.

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute assistant director Peter Brown said it was "difficult to find a modern competitive presidential race that has swung so dramatically, so quickly and so sharply this late in the campaign".

Mr Brown said that, in the past 20 days, Senator Obama had gone from "seven points down to eight points up in Florida, while widening his leads to eight points in Ohio and 15 points in Pennsylvania". (The AUstralian)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: toadfrog
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 08:40 PM

This looks like a truly massive battle of the paste-ups. I thought that was contrary to the rules, but I haven't been around for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:16 PM

MBA Applauds Senators Hagel R, Sununu R and Dole R for Re-Introducing Legislation to Reform GSE Oversight

Washington, DC (January 26, 2005) – The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) today applauded U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Sununu (R-NH) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) for re-introducing legislation to significantly improve oversight of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).

"MBA has long supported legislation to ensure effective and well-funded regulatory oversight of the GSEs, which are critical to ensuring a healthy housing finance system," said Kurt Pfotenhauer, MBA senior vice president of government affairs. "We commend Senators Hagel, Sununu and Dole for introducing the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, and encourage the Senate Banking Committee to act quickly to advance this bill."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Congress to facilitate a strong secondary market for mortgage loans, freeing up capital to expand homeownership. With over 2,900 member companies who originate loans in the primary mortgage market, MBA has long advocated for statutory language clarifying where the primary mortgage market ends, and the secondary market begins. "This legislation draws a needed bright line between the primary and secondary markets which will empower the regulator to keep Fannie and Freddie Mac focused on their mission," said Pfotenhauer.

The new bill will create a strong, effective regulator modeled after other safety and soundness regulators. MBA has long supported this improvement.

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) is the national association representing the real estate finance industry, an industry that employs more than 370,000 people in virtually every community in the country. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the association works to ensure the continued strength of the nation's residential and commercial real estate markets; to expand homeownership and extend access to affordable housing to all Americans. MBA promotes fair and ethical lending practices and fosters professional excellence among real estate finance employees through a wide range of educational programs and a variety of publications. Its membership of over 2,400 companies includes all elements of real estate finance: mortgage companies, mortgage brokers, commercial banks, thrifts, Wall Street conduits, life insurance companies and others in the mortgage lending field.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:25 AM

October 1st, 2008
Vatican official attacks U.S. Democrats as "party of death"

Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican's highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.

Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican's Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked "transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues." He then attacked two of the party's most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.

He said Biden and Pelosi, "while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way."

Pelosi drew U.S. bishops' scorn for saying in a television interview last month that the Church itself had long debated when human life begins. Biden is a practicing Catholic who also supports abortion rights and analysts have said he could help woo wavering Catholics into Obama's fold. Both argue that they cannot impose their religious views on others.

Burke said pro-life Democrats were "rare" and that it saddened him that the party that helped "our immigrant parents and grandparents" prosper in America had changed so much over the years.

Burke made headlines as archbishop of St. Louis for his public attacks on public figures who strayed from Catholic teaching. He suggested during the 2004 presidential campaign that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic, should be denied communion because of his views on abortion. Several bishops said at the time they would not give him communion and the media staked out churches where he attended Mass to see if he received it.

"Lately, I've noticed that other bishops are coming to this position," Burke told Avvenire, which is owned by the Italian bishops' conference.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote a letter in 2004 to American bishops restating the Church position that a priest must refuse to distribute communion to a Catholic politician who supported abortion rights. But Burke lamented that the letter was never distributed.

Burke's criticism isn't limited to Democrats. Last year, he accused singer Sheryl Crow of being "a high profile proponent of the destruction of innocent lives" for defending a woman's right to have an abortion and for being a proponent of stem cell research. He resigned as head of a children's medical charity that featured the singer for a benefit concert.

Pope Benedict has been encouraging Catholic bishops to speak out more openly on public policy issues to make the Church's voice heard. Any bets on when we'll hear from Burke next?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:14 AM

Friday, October 3, 2008
FBI raids Obama friend's home

Andrea Billups (Contact)
The FBI on Wednesday raided the county offices of a former Illinois state senator who is a poker-playing buddy of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

According to Chicago authorities, the FBI visited the offices in Joliet, Ill., of Will County executive Larry Walsh, a longtime friend of Mr. Obama's, and his chief of staff Matt Ryan.

Mr. Walsh, who served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2005, was endorsed by Mr. Obama in his county executive election bid. With the support of some of Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate volunteers, he easily defeated incumbent Republican Joseph Mikan.

Will County auditor Steve Weber confirmed that his office had been asked by the FBI to assist in an investigation, but he did not elaborate on the specifics.

Two FBI agents out of Chicago reportedly spent more than an hour in the Will County offices on Wednesday morning.

According to sources, the Walsh investigation may be tied to lobbying firm Smith Dawson and Andrews, which was hired in 2006 for $10,000 per month to help Will County acquire federal grants.

The firm, which is registered with the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, assists clients with communications and legislative strategies that better their public policy agendas, according to its Web site. Last month, Mr. Walsh announced that Will County was the recipient of a $750,000 federal government grant that would allow law enforcement and prosecutors to fight against domestic violence.

One of the firm's partners, James P. Smith, contributed $2,000 to help Mr. Walsh's county executive election bid.

A corn farmer from Joliet, Mr. Walsh has supported his friend's presidential bid, and campaigned for him in rural and farming areas of the state. They are seen hugging each other in photos before Mr. Obama's announcement that he was running for president.

The two men became tight friends during their tenure in the Illinois Senate and bonded over games of poker. According to a report in Time magazine, Mr. Walsh lost to Mr. Obama once with what he thought was a winning hand, and then slammed down his cards and said: "Doggone it, Barack, if you were more liberal in your card-playing and more conservative in your politics, you and I would get along much better."

Mr. Walsh denied any knowledge of any investigation.

"I don't have a clue what you are talking about," Mr. Walsh said in reports published Thursday in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 09:59 AM

Amos looking in the mirror:

My, my. You must be highly motivated to rake all that muck.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:10 PM

Sorry, Guest, you are wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp


I may not want Obama to be President ( because of his political views) but there is no doubt that he is qualified to run.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:14 PM

Code Pink 'Bundles' for Barack
by Catherine Moy 04/14/2008

The co-founder of the radical anti-war group Code Pink has "bundled" more than $50,000 for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and pro-troops groups are demanding that he return the money.Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it to Obama's presidential campaign, according to information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Citizen.
------Evans and her son, a student who lives at her Southern California address, each also gave the maximum individual allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama's campaign. The donations have raised questions about Obama's association with the more radical elements of his base. Code Pink has harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls "counter-recruitment." The group also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom it called "insurgents" fighting for their homes.
------Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com, issued a statement this week saying Obama should cut ties to his radical bundler.
------"Barack Obama's judgment to be commander-in-chief is seriously in question because of his association with Code Pink's Jodie Evans and her war against the American military," the groups said in a joint statement. "If Sen. Obama wants to earn the trust of the American people to send their sons and daughters in harm's way, he should immediately renounce Evans and return all contributions associated with her."
------Obama's campaign did not respond to repeated attempts to get comment on the latest controversy to hit his campaign.
------
"As somebody who has stood toe-to-toe with Code Pink, I am sickened that Senator Obama would accept large donations from the leader of the hateful, anti-American group," said Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward, the nation's largest pro-troop group.
------Code Pink has also waged a campaign of psychological warfare against America's wounded warriors and their families by protesting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, targeting them with signs bearing messages such as "Maimed for a lie" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton," the joint statement from pro-troops groups said.
------Evans has a long history as a political organizer for radical causes and as a Democratic operative. She also worked for former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who is now the state's attorney general. Evans sat on the board of directors of the Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), a coalition of capitalist-hating environmentalist groups. The cofounder of RAN also founded the violent and radical Animal Liberation Front, which the FBI listed as one of the largest domestic terrorism threats in the United States.
The FBI reported that RAN and the Earth Liberation Front committed more than 600 criminal acts and racked up $43 million in damages over seven years.
------Evan's radical ideology fit with the other founders of Code Pink, which is notorious for its attempts to shut down the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center, occupying congressional offices, intimidating families of soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq, attacking opponents and disrupting Congress while dressed in Pepto Bismol-colored outfits.
------Most of Evans' money comes from a failed marriage with Westside financier Max Palevsky, a billionaire who cashed in on a computer business in the late '60s. Evans took the cash and has invested in anti-American, anti-capitalist ventures.
------In federal documents relating to her donations to Obama, Evans listed Code Pink as her employer. "After the mess with his former pastor and another radical character, Jeremiah Wright, Obama needs to distance himself from Evan and Code Pink," Morgan said. "If he doesn't, it is clear that he is not ready to lead the best military in the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:22 PM

Sawzaw that crap that you are reading is going to rot your mind.
Why don't you try to find some perspective man?
Obama has raised what? A quarter billion? 50,000 is coffee money for his North Carolina operations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 12:16 AM

Novak:

On the campaign trail, Obama has been highly critical of corporate executives and promised them nothing but tougher regulation and higher taxes. But the unannounced, small evening sessions with them since he clinched the Democratic nomination have been nonconfrontational and cordial.

Obama scheduled the meetings without any hopes of winning the captains of industry over from Sen. John McCain, but to show them they would be able to do business with him in the White House and that the president's door would be open to the corporate leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 01:01 AM

Obama suporter, Code Pink's treasonous behavior on foreign soil has been equally disgusting.

The organization traveled to Iraq to give $600,000 in aid to what they called "the other side" so they could resist Coalition Forces. The "other side" is a euphemism for Islamic terrorists. But remember, according to the worldview of Barack Hussein Obama, these terrorists have nothing to do with the jihad that's been declared against America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 08:16 AM

I wonder if McCain will use all of this material in the later stages of the election?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 09:25 AM

I have a feeling the old white haired dude is saving his best ammunition for the last volley.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 09:34 AM

Whom would Mr. Jive Turkey vote for?

The Acorn Indictments

Flashback:

So, less than a week before the midterm elections, four workers from Acorn, the liberal activist group that has registered millions of voters, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board. But hey, who needs voter ID laws?

We wish this were an aberration, but allegations of fraud have tainted Acorn voter drives across the country. Acorn workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are still under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.

The good news for anyone who cares about voter integrity is that the Justice Department finally seems poised to connect these dots instead of dismissing such revelations as the work of a few yahoos. After the federal indictments were handed up in Kansas City this week, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a statement that "This national investigation is very much ongoing."

Let's hope so. Acorn officials bill themselves as nonpartisan community organizers merely interested in giving a voice to minorities and the poor. In reality, Acorn is a union-backed, multimillion-dollar outfit that uses intimidation and other tactics to push for higher minimum wage mandates and to trash Wal-Mart and other non-union companies.

Operating in at least 38 states (as well as Canada and Mexico), Acorn pushes a highly partisan agenda, and its organizers are best understood as shock troops for the AFL-CIO and even the Democratic Party. As part of the Fannie Mae reform bill, House Democrats pushed an "affordable housing trust fund" designed to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits to subsidize Acorn, among other groups. A version of this trust fund actually passed the Republican House and will surely be on the agenda again next year.

Acorn and its affiliates have pulled some real stunts in recent years. In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a Congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained Acorn's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.

"You have to wonder what's the point of that, if not to overwhelm the system and get phony registrations on the voter rolls," says Thor Hearne of the American Center for Voting Rights, who also testified at the hearing. "These were Democratic officials saying that they felt their election system in Ohio was under assault by these kinds of efforts to game the system."

Given this history, it's not surprising that Acorn is so hostile to voter identification laws and other efforts to ensure fairness and accuracy at the polls. In Missouri last month, the state Supreme Court held that a photo ID requirement to vote was overly burdensome and a violation of the state constitution. Acorn was behind the original suit challenging the statute, and it has brought similar challenges in several other states, including Ohio.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that blacks today are almost twice as likely as they were in 2004 to say they have little or no confidence in the voting system. Such a finding would seem like a powerful argument for voter ID laws, which consistently poll well among people of all races and incomes and would increase confidence in the voting process. Of course, voter ID laws would also cut down on fraud, which, judging from the latest indictments, would put a real crimp in Acorn's style.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 09:56 AM

Barack Obama's closet

"in Chicago, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is more important than Iraq or Washington. ACORN and its associated Midwest Academy, both founded in the 1970s, continue to train and mobilize activists throughout the country, often using them to manipulate public opinion through "direct action." It's sometimes a code for illegal activities.

Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.

Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups
STEPHANIE STROM NYT July 9, 2008

Two prominent national nonprofit groups are reeling from public disclosures that large sums of money were misappropriated in unrelated incidents by an employee and a former employee.
   The groups, Acorn, one of the country's largest community organizing groups, and the Points of Light Institute, which works to encourage civic activism and volunteering, have dealt with the problems in very different ways.
   Acorn chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million eight years ago as an internal matter and did not even notify its board. After Points of Light noticed financial irregularities in early June, it took less than a month for management to alert federal prosecutors, although group officials say they have no clear idea yet what the financial impact may be.
   A whistle-blower forced Acorn to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization's founder, Wade Rathke.
   The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group's board members and not to alert law enforcement.
   Dale Rathke remained on Acorn's payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him.
   "We thought it best at the time to protect the organization, as well as to get the funds back into the organization, to deal with it in-house," said Maude Hurd, president of Acorn. "It was a judgment call at the time, and looking back, people can agree or disagree with it, but we did what we thought was right."
   The amount Dale Rathke embezzled, $948,607.50, was carried as a loan on the books of Citizens Consulting Inc., which provides bookkeeping, accounting and other financial management services to Acorn and many of its affiliated entities.
   Wade Rathke said the organization had signed a restitution agreement with his brother in which his family agreed to repay the amount embezzled in exchange for confidentiality.
   Wade Rathke stepped down as Acorn's chief organizer on June 2, the same day his brother left, but he remains chief organizer for Acorn International L.L.C.
   He said the decision to keep the matter secret was not made to protect his brother but because word of the embezzlement would have put a "weapon" into the hands of enemies of Acorn, a liberal group that is a frequent target of conservatives who object to its often strident advocacy on behalf of low- and moderate-income families and workers.
   Wade Rathke said he learned of the problem when an employee of Citizens Consulting alerted him about suspicious credit card transactions. An internal investigation uncovered inappropriate charges on the cards that led back to his brother.
   "Clearly, this was an uncomfortable, conflicting and humiliating situation as far as my family and I were concerned," he said, "and so the real decisions on how to handle it had to be made by others."
   The executive director of New York Acorn, Bertha Lewis, who has been named director of an interim management committee set up to run the national group's day-to-day operations, said Dale Rathke was paid about $38,000 a year but that none of that money was used to pay back Acorn.
   Instead, she said, the Rathke family has paid Acorn $30,000 a year in restitution since 2001, or a total of $210,000.
   A donor has offered to give Acorn the rest of what the Rathkes owe, and an agreement to that effect should be finalized in coming days, Ms. Lewis said.
   "Now that this is under our watch, we are putting financial auditors in place, legal counsel in place, a strong management team in place to make sure this organization moves forward for another 38 years," she said. "I will not allow and the board will not allow something like this to happen again."
   But the fact that most of the handful of people who did not disclose the fraud when they learned of it eight years ago still work for Acorn or its affiliates concerns many of the group's financial supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 10:44 AM

Head of Foundation Bailed Out Nonprofit Group After Its Funds Were Embezzled
STEPHANIE STROM August 16, 2008 NYT

When the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of the founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as Acorn, surfaced last month, the organization announced that an anonymous supporter had agreed to make it whole.That supporter was Drummond Pike, the founder and chief executive of the Tides Foundation (T H Kerry's benefactor), which channels money to what it describes as progressive nonprofits, including some Acorn charitable affiliates.Mr. Pike is a friend of Wade Rathke, the founder of Acorn and its leader until the scandal broke, and he agreed to buy the promissory note that required the Rathke family to repay Acorn the money that Mr. Rathke's brother, Dale, had stolen.Mr. Rathke is a member of the board of the Tides Foundation and other Tides-related organizations. Since 2000, the Tides Foundation has provided more than $400 million to nonprofit groups, with much of that money flowing out of donor-controlled accounts it manages in the same way that the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund or a community foundation does
.
John A. Powell, board chairman of the Tides Network, the umbrella organization for various Tides affiliates, wrote in an e-mail message to The Times that Tides had no involvement in the matter and that none of its money was used to buy the Rathke family's debt to Acorn.He said Mr. Rathke was on a leave of absence from all Tides boards.In 2000, Acorn discovered that Dale Rathke had embezzled $948,507.50 from it and affiliated charitable organizations. The management committee that controlled the organization decided not to alert law enforcement officials, and negotiated an agreement with the Rathke family to repay the money.That agreement was carried on the books of an affiliate, Citizens Consulting Inc., as a loan to an officer.

Sometime in June, Mr. Pike bought the loan from the affiliate, according to e-mail messages between senior executives at Acorn that were provided to a reporter by Acorn employees, who requested anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.Mr. Pike refused to confirm or deny that he had bought the note. "As a rule, I do not comment on my personal finances," he wrote in e-mail messages in answer to questions about the deal.But e-mail messages among Acorn's senior executives discuss how to keep Mr. Pike's identity secret, even as they acknowledge that some of the foundations and philanthropic advisers that have supported Acorn and its affiliates know that he bought the note."Does Drummond know the word is out?" Steven Kest, the executive director of Acorn, wrote on July 4. "If not, shouldn't someone tell him?"In a July 12 e-mail message to Mr. Kest, Acorn's political director, Zach Pollett, wrote: "I talked to Drummond on this yesterday and had Beth Kingsley" — Acorn's lawyer — "prepare a 'keep your yaps shut' confidentiality memo to people at Acorn and CCI."Charles D. Jackson, a spokesman for Acorn, said the organization would not comment on the purchaser of the note.

Acorn's board members and senior executives have signed confidentiality pledges that forbid them from disclosing Mr. Pike's identity or discussing the purchase agreement, according to three Acorn contributors who asked to see the agreement but were told they would have to similarly pledge confidentiality. They declined.But a handful of executives at foundations that have contributed to Acorn and Tides have learned through connections at those organizations that Mr. Pike was the buyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 10:50 AM

From The Real Acorn Blog:

Wednesday, July 9, 2008
As I said-Wade is no longer Chief Organizer
Well you saw it here first. Now Wade has stepped down: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/09embezzle.html

So here is the deal as I have pinted our for some time:

1) Wade Rathke's brother ran the money (that would be Dale)
2) His wife runs the Louisiana office.
3) He has surrounded himself with his best friends
4) He created a compliant and in many ways ignorant board thatg would do whatever he said (How long has Maude been Chair)?
5) As reported in the New York times Wade's brother Dale used the for profit entity they set up to steal a million dollars.
6)Maude and the girls have given Wade a golden Parachute and allowed him to resign as Chief Organizer and promoted him to Chief Organizer of ACORN International! He is now Chief Organizer of the world?
7) Not on my watch pal!!!!!!!

Let us be clear, I don't hate ACORN, and I am not some right winger. I am former ACORN organizer.

What I care about is the milions of dollars I have personally watched get wasted, mispent, misdirected, and that were supposed to be for the social justice movement.

What I care about is field organizers who aren't paid shit, who rsk their lives, so that Wade, his wife, his brother, John Kest, Helene O'brien, and the rest of the crew can bleed this movement dry. Jetting around the world and selling out communities instead of focusing on community organizing.

Wade Rathke is a wealthy white boy who surrounded himself with wealthy white boys who is trying to stay wealthy while trying to look like some Mother Theresa.

The only way a person of color could rise to the top was for Wade to step down.

Berth Lewis we wish you luck!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 01:09 PM

Well, here it comes. McCain implies that on Tuesday his new, "fiercer" ads will be out. No more Mr. Nice Guy, I guess. Right.

Let's Hope This Backfires

As they say, there are three important things to do in a political race:

$1, Look at the Record
#2, Look at the Record
#3, Look at the Record

The 'funny' thing is that McCain is extremely vulnerable to exposure- wonder if the Democrats will use it? The temptation is there, I'm sure, but mud-slinging on both sides makes everybody dirty - and everybody will feel even worse.

As for the stuff that some of you guys have been posting, some of it quite possibly is rrue - how many of you have no skeletons rattling in your closet? hmmmmm? - but most of it is right wing guilt by association and I'm not going to dignify it by recognition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 09:44 PM

The Republicans have worse than ACORN and Code Pink working on their campaigns. AirBus Lobbiests, Georgia lobbiests, bank deregulators.

McCain wants to talk about associations and judgement?

The Obama Campaign has way more ammunition.

How about the associations with Keating, Abramoff, Cheney and George W. Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 10:16 PM

There's a lot of ammunition to use against Obama. In spite of the fact that he has little official experience, he has a really sleazy background. The way things are going, McCain might as well use it. It doesn't look to me like he's got anything much to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 10:36 PM

As far as I can see, Obama's background is pretty typical of Chicago. Which is pretty typical of US politics. At least Obama is constantly contradicting himself and promising to vote agianst bills he helped to author. The economic crisis has shown the real John McCain.

On Olbermann Friday night there were four examples on video tape of McCain saying he was weak on economic matters. As a McCain supporter, do you want to see those played in the battleground states as a response to the assertion that Obama is unprepared?

I also see three things about McCain's current campaign and ten more about the Republican party for every bit about Obama. Bring it on! McCain has nothing to lose but this election. The Republicans down ticket can lose their ability to Filibuster in the Senate. The house can be a blood bath and the Republicans down ticket can lose positions all over the country from Governor to County Clerk if McCain goes all negative.

Bring it on!!

Bring..... it ...... on.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 08 - 11:00 PM

Its started already Yawn....

Bill Ayers and calling Obama a liar.

Is that the best they have?

Bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 12:58 AM

There is one person who's been consistent on reform issues and that has been John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 01:07 AM

The Real ACORN: Anti-Employee, Anti-Union, Big-Business

In the 18 months since the Employment Policies Institute's May 2003 report exposed the hypocrisy of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), this group has continued its pattern of outrageous activities. As the 2004 presidential election season moved into full swing, ACORN (and their subsidiary Project Vote) has been implicated in several voter fraud cases in states across the nation.
  ACORN's most serious violations have occurred in Florida, where an ACORN-operated political action committee, Floridians for All, is actively supporting a ballot initiative to raise the state minimum wage to $6.15 an hour (a higher wage than many ACORN employees receive). In St. Petersburg, ACORN submitted a false voter registration card for Charles Schuh. Schuh, a 68-year-old former Democratic mayor and city council member, was registered as a 30-year-old female Republican. While one may be tempted to write this off as simple sloppiness (a plausible thought, considering this is the same organization that failed to turn in thousands of voter registration cards on time, resulting in voters being denied the opportunity to participate in the primary), this is clearly another case of voter fraud. When Schuh asked to see his supposed registration card, he found that someone had signed his name but it "was certainly not [his] signature." In addition, Schuh noticed his social security number had been altered.
  Recent statements by former ACORN Miami-Dade field director Mac Stuart reveal that Schuh's case is actually part of a larger organized effort to rig the outcome of Florida's presidential election and minimum wage ballot initiative. Stuart claims that "there was a lot of fraud committed" at ACORN, including quality-control workers routinely removing registration cards for Republican voters. Stuart said that ACORN submitted thousands of invalid registration cards and failed to turn in boxes of registration cards for Republican voters. Stuart claims that "the voter registration project has been operating illegally since it started." 2 In order to meet the quota for voter registration cards established by ACORN, Stuart and other Miami employees targeted Florida felons by setting up voter registration booths outside of the Miami police department and Dade County jail. These activities are all motivated by ACORN's practice of paying for each voter registration card collected—a third degree felony under Florida law.
  ACORN's fraudulent activities were not limited to voter registration cards. ACORN employees routinely accepted signatures for the minimum wage ballot initiative from individuals who were not currently registered to vote—a requirement under Florida law. ACORN employees also backdated registration cards in order to gather these signatures. Statements from former employees reveal that few ACORN directors actually conducted a rigorous fraud check on the signatures gathered by their employees. Those who did found significant numbers of blatantly doctored signatures.
  This pattern of voter registration fraud in Florida should come as no surprise to anyone with a cursory knowledge of ACORN's actions around the country:
• In November 2003, election board officials in St. Louis, MO, finished their review of ACORN gathered election registration cards. ACORN submitted 5,379 cards in this city, of which only2,013 appeared to be valid. Of these, at least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally.
• In August 2004, election officials in Albuquerque, NM, discovered that an ACORN employee, Christina Gonzales, registered a 13-year-old boy to vote. This registration was only discovered by the boy's mother when a voter card showed up in the mail. The card contained an incorrect social security number, a fabricated birthday, and only a partially correct address. ACORN's actions led New Mexico State Representative Joe Thompson to state that they were "manufacturing voters" throughout New Mexico. Interestingly, while Gonzales was fired by ACORN, it was not for manufacturing voters, but rather for claiming credit for registration cards submitted by other employees.
• In Ohio, ACORN has been accused of several acts of voter fraud. In June, 74-year-old Arthur Creasap had a voter registration card submitted with a false birth date and a misspelled name. Franklin County Board of Election Supervisors Director Matthew Damschroder said the "blatantly false" forms were turned in by ACORN and Project Vote. In June, ACORN was forced to fire two employees after it was discovered that they turned in registration forms that were duplicates and contained false information. In Cuyahoga County, OH, ACORN submitted registration cards that had the highest percentage of errors, 15%. Most egregiously, an ACORN employee in Columbus has been indicted for forging signatures and falsifying voter registration cards.
• During a traffic stop in Minnesota, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the car trunk of 19-year-old Joshua Reed, a former ACORN employee.6 The cards were weeks and even months old, despite the fact that the law requires they be submitted to the secretary of state within 10 days of being filled out and signed.
• In Pennsylvania, Reading's Director of Elections received numerous calls from individuals registered by ACORN complaining that those taking down the voter information deliberately put inaccurate information on the form.
• Kym Cason admitted to registering three of her friends to vote 40 times to help her boyfriend, whom ACORN paid $2 for each voter he signed up. Cason admitted to forging signatures and filling out her friend's information to the best of her knowledge.
• In 1998, a single mother of three in Arkansas was arrested for falsifying approximately 400 voter registration cards. Some of the addresses listed on these applications were traced to vacant lots, boarded-up buildings, abandoned buildings, and nonexistent house numbers. The woman was a contractor of Project Vote, a subsidiary of ACORN. (Project Vote was involved in the scandal that brought down Ron Carey, former president of the Teamsters. In 1996, Carey arranged for a $175,000 contribution to Project Vote in exchange for reciprocal contributions to his campaign for presidency of the Teamsters.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 12:59 PM

It is almost laughable. In 1070, Barack Obama was 9 years old. And the "terrorist" now works on charity boards.

Who is Sleazy now? Not to say, Desperate

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 01:03 PM

Oooooo, that man is old. Make that 1970.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 01:58 PM

Even long time Republicans are speaking out against the lies McCain is telling.

From Watertown, NY, a quote in part:
"McCain running a campaign of lies and fear
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2008

As a former New York State Republican Committee member I am extremely disappointed and embarrassed by the campaign of lies, deceptions and fear being foisted on the American people by the Republican candidate for president, John McCain. The country became used to this kind of deceitful tactic during the campaigns of the current administration, but I had hoped for better from a man who promoted himself as being a maverick and honest and straightforward. Now we are getting more of the same from a man I had always considered to be an honorable American.

Lies about his opponent's tax plan, lies about his opponent's legislative record and lies about his own running mate have been documented by many major and respected news organizations around the country. Even the Web site factcheck.org has documented lies and misrepresentations by the McCain campaign that referenced factcheck.org itself.

Just look at the issue of the McCain campaign's attacks on his opponent's legislative record. The facts are these: In four years in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama's name was attached to three pieces of major legislation that became law. In Sen. McCain's 26 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, his name appears on just six pieces of legislation that became law. You do the math." Dorothy M. Hilts

Brantingham


Read the rest of the opinion here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 08:26 PM

"Bring..... it ...... on....."


                         Yes, they might as well. It matters little if the Democrats with a larger majority in Congress with the puppet of their chosing in the White House.

                           The only hope the American people have at this point is for McCain to win. That would nullify some of the damage that can done from a Democratic Congress. If they have a president with no demonstarted ability to think things through, to rubber-stamp everything, the country's days could be numbered in months rather than years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 08:29 PM

Dream on, ya cruddy whelp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 10:14 PM

"the country's days could be numbered in months rather than years. "

Don't be silly, Rig. ;-) The country will still be around long after we have all mouldered into dust.

I'm curious, though..you say you think that the only thing that can save the country is to avoid a Democratic majority in Congress?

Well, if you do think that, then why were you originally hoping for Hillary Clinton to win the presidency?

I'm not asking that to be cute or anything, I just can't figure what your line of reasoning is.

Look, the USA as a nation is fully capable of surviving either the Democrats OR the Republicans! ;-) Why do I say that? Well, it has survived both of them numerous times in the past...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 01:48 AM

I find it poignant that Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" had this to say on June 11, 2008:

There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.

But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother, who is an American national, made statements that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world. We hope that this is merely an elections "clearance sale," as they say in Egypt – in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections – a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him: :"You promised this and that," he says: "No, this was just elections propaganda." This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: "This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes."

Allah willing, it will turn out that this was merely elections propaganda. Obama said he would turn Jerusalem into the eternal capital of the Israelis. This indicates that our brother Obama is ignorant of international politics, and is not familiar with the Middle East conflict.

We still hope that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:11 AM

Yes, well, everybody has hopes, don't they, Sawzaw?

You can also find a quote from someone somewhere to fit ANY proposition, no matter what it is. Just look around some. You'll find it. You can find quotes that indicate, for instance, that Americans in the USA planned and executed the 911 attacks so that it could be used as a pretext for wars in the Middle East.

You can also find quotes about how the CIA moves billions of dollars worth of illegal drugs from abroad into the USA every year to raise money to fund fortress Amerika, and those drugs get peddled on your own main street and ruin the lives of young Americans.

Have a look. You'll find those quotes. Lots of them.

But why do I think you wouldn't bother looking for such quotes in the first place? ;-) Because it probably wouldn't suit your desire, that's why.

We only look for the dirt that suits our desire, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:09 AM

"Well, if you do think that, then why were you originally hoping for Hillary Clinton to win the presidency?"


                I don't think you would have a problem with a Democratic Congress and an experienced president in office. The problem comes when you have a Democratic Congress and an "empty suit" in the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 05:11 PM

Yes, I guess we should all accept Muammar Gaddafi as the foremost expert on Obama's personal history, discard all of the known evidence to the contrary and believe everything he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 05:31 PM

"...discard all of the known evidence to the contrary and believe everything he says."


                         There is no evidence to the contrary!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 06:07 PM

I follow your reasoning about the Democratic congress and the empty suit, Rig...

But why is it that you distrust an entire collective Democratic congress any less than you do a single "experienced" chief executive? That's the part I don't get.

Experience in itself is no guarantee of either good intentions or good results. Al Capone, for example, was VERY experienced.

As for there being "no evidence" of any positive sort about Obama...well...you can never find something positive if you don't expend one watt of personal energy looking for it, can you? ;-)

The last thing in the world I think you would ever look for is:

a) anything good about Obama
b) anything good about religion
c) any chance that you might ever be wrong in any of your basic assumptions about anything

People simply DON'T look for stuff that doesn't support their favorite chosen viewpoints. Haven't you noticed that? Accordingly, they never find it. Accordingly, they see that all the "evidence" out there is on their side! This confirms for them what they always believed as a matter of faith: that they are right, dead right, and always will be and those who disagree with them are wrong, dead wrong, and always will be! ;-)

As your punishment, I suggest that you should reincarnate someday AS an American presidential candidate and have people like yourself out there attacking you on a daily basis and belittling your every personal characteristic. You will then discover just how unfair life can be in a political world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:10 PM

LH - It isn't that I don't trust Congress, but the Constitution was written to provide checks and balances in the legislative process. If you have an administration as far to the left as Barack Obama seems to be, and you have a Democratic Congress that can simply rubber-stamp anything the administration wants, I think you have a potential disaster.

                   In America, we are still living with the damage that was done by LBJ. The change in the immigration laws in 1965 is probably the most egregious.

                     I don't dislike Barack Obama. I just don't want to see him as president. I don't think he's qualified, and I think he'd get carried away trying to build a shrine to himself just like LBJ did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:13 PM

Good heavens. What kind of shrine did LBJ build?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:43 PM

It was the Shrine of the Enormous Ears that LBJ built, wasn't it? ;-)

Rig, you think Obama is too far left??? Huh? In what respect?

Hell, I don't think you even have any genuine leftists among the Democrats or Republicans...except maybe Dennis Kucinich to some extent. I don't think American society has ever gotten close enough to "the left" to even recognize it. The Republicans are a rightist party that make no apologies for it. They serve big business and big banks. The Democrats are a rightist party that pretends not to be (which is why they have such a tough time selling themselves). They also serve big business and big banks. They BOTH serve their major sources of cash, Rig, and those sources are virtually indentical.

Obama will do what the $ySStem wants him to if he gets elected...or he won't live too long (in my opinion). That's how it works. You do what they want and you get to playact "commander-in-chief" for 4 to 8 years. If you're enough of a fool then you can fool yourself into really believing that you are commander-in-chief while you're there.

Well, the truth about that is sure to set in the day after you're no longer there! Every president is expendable...but the $ySStem sees itself as immortal and it would NEVER be so foolish as to give you ordinary citizens a real chance to vote it in or out of office.

The $ySStem is larger than any of its organs or its members. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It is beyond public control. It is a law unto itself. Every president is a front man, a figurehead for the $ySStem, and he's strictly temporary. He's a marketing device to get you to rubber stamp the $ySStem when you walk into the voting booth. You sign away your freedom for another 4 years the moment you cast your vote.

Same deal in Canada, by the way... (in case you wondered)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 11:47 PM

"Nobody hates their own country."

Rev Wright:

"God Bless America? No, No, No, Not God bless America, God damn America."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:22 AM

I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.

~~And~~

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

--Joe Vogler, founder of the Alaskan Independence Party of which Todd Palin was a member for some number of years, and of which the Party itself maintains Sarah Palin was a member as well.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:35 AM

The videos in the link in my last post don't seem to be any good any more. Here's another one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmt0rLtgmK0

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:04 AM

"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

At Bill Ayers home in 1995, Illinois State Sen. Alice Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Obama to some of her long-time supporters as her chosen successor. According to the New York Times story, it was one of several neighborhood events held that year on Obama's behalf, and it was not the first. Obama campaign officials also note the event at Ayers' home was not a fundraiser. And they claim that Obama did not know Ayers' history with the Weather Underground at that time. They did not say when Obama found that out.

Shouldn't such an educated man, a lawyer, have known about Ayers and the Weather Underground and avoided contact?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:07 AM

couldna, shouldna- Might John McCain have known about Keating's wrongdoings before he embroiled himself in the scandal? Oh, my apologies- you're saying that Obama is brighter than McCain? *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:10 AM

"hatred for the American government"

Not hate America.


I sort of hate the government too. It is not doing it's job.

Not Congress, not the current administration, not the previous administration.

Sooner or later it will lead to anarchy or a dictatorship unless the lobbying, pork and partisan politics stop.

Obama or McCain will not stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:12 AM

"I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 08:13 AM

Oct 6, 2008 10:26 | Updated Oct 7, 2008 8:43
Ex-generals cry foul over pro-Obama video
By MATT ZALEN AND SHANI ROSENFELDER


A Jewish American group and an Israeli film company blamed each other on Monday regarding claims they had misled a number of retired IDF generals and top Mossad officials who were filmed in a video endorsing Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The Jewish Council for Education & Research (JCER), a non-profit organization that supports Obama's presidential run, distributed the clip online on Sunday.

Former head of the Mossad Ephraim Halevy and former IDF deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. Uzi Dayan accused the group of taking their words out of context, saying that when filmed they had been told that the issue at hand was the challenges facing the next man in the White House, and not that the film was aimed at endorsing Obama for president.

"It's not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with," Dayan told The Jerusalem Post, "and to know that they used this interview and took [only] five seconds [of it], and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama...

"It wasn't about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in," he continued.

"Nothing was said about Obama or [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain."


"I don't want other people to interfere in our elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States," he said, adding that to do so would be neither "ethical nor smart."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 11:42 AM

"I've got no use for" <> God Damn America or hate America.

"Keating's wrongdoings before he embroiled himself in the scandal?"

Was Keating involved in bombings? Wanted by the FBI? A fugutive? A member of a terrorist group.

McCain is well intentioned but not so smart and I do not support him. He was stupid to be part of the Keating 5.

Obama is smarter so he claims. Why didn't he know?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM

Sawzaw, what is America?

And what is it in a person's mind when he says "I hate America"?

Is it the government? Probably. Is it something about the social order? Quite possibly. Is it the area of land and the actual people who live on it? Almost certainly not.

You lift a fragment out of a sentence that Reverend Wright once spoke when he was raving away in a moment of passion and you interpret it according to your own political desires to mean, I think, that he hates the land and the people.

I very much doubt that the land and the people were what he had in his mind when he made the statement.

I very much doubt that the land and the people were what Sarah Palin's husband had in his mind when he made a similar statement.

No, I think they were probably upset about many of the same governmental and social forces and powers that upset you and me.

Therefore you are misinterpreting the statement to suit your own desired agenda which is to take that statement and attack it in some way to Barack Obama...and that's just silly, because it wasn't his statement.

If I go to a church, sawzaw, I do not bear personal responsibility for every single word my pastor said when he got carried away in some sermon that he made. Good lord! If that sort of guilt by association had any merit, then we could all be condemned on the basis of something somebody else said.

Again, I ask you, what is America? America is many, many things. It's a government, an economy, a military, 2 huge political parties, a bunch of social customs and traditions, many cultural and racial groups, many geographical regions, a historical record, many religions, mass media, etc......... There is no way of knowing for sure exactly what was in Wright's mind when he made the statement, no way of knowing what aspect of America upsets him so, but it's most probable that he was complaining about something quite different in America from what you leap to imagine when you consider that statement he made.

You consider it an attack upon the nation itself. Wright probably considered it an impassioned defence of the nation he loves.

He wants to see a different America. You probably do too. He wants justice. So do you. He wants equality. So do you. He wants an end to poverty and discrimination. So do you.

So do all of us.

Your interpretation of Wright's statement is entirely to your own political convenience, and it misses the point.

Likewise, a liberal's interpretation of Sarah Palin's husband's statement is entirely to their political convenience too.

See how it works? Nothing but opportunistic mudslinging in either case, in an attempt to establish guilt by association.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 01:30 PM

"It was the Shrine of the Enormous Ears that LBJ built, wasn't it? ;-)"


                     Not only that, but he picked his beagles up by their ears. How's that for cruel and unusual punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 02:58 PM

Oct 7, 2:25 PM EDT


Ill. governor: Convicted pal Rezko must tell truth

CHICAGO (AP) -- Governor Rod Blagojevich is calling on Tony Rezko to tell the truth, the day after federal prosecutors indicated that the convicted fundraiser might be cooperating with them.

Appearing at a ceremony Tuesday, Blagojevich wouldn't say whether he was worried about his future now that his friend and fundraiser may be talking to authorities.

Blagojevich hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing and insists he does things the right way.

Rezko, also a past fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama, was convicted of scheming to use his clout with the Blagojevich administration to squeeze kickbacks out of companies. Prosecutors are hinting he is cooperating by moving Monday to delay his sentencing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 05:55 PM

The end of Obama is in sight!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 06:04 PM

That's only because he ha sleft ou in the dust, pal. I think he's doing fine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 06:08 PM

Oh...if ONLY the end of the Democrats and Republicans could be in sight. If ONLY! I wish them the same fate as I wish all political scoundrels...a despised place in the future history books which will one day discuss our era with the benefit of hindsight.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 06:43 PM

Well, I hope they hurry on their way out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 06:49 PM

"The end of Obama is in sight!" Rig

It may behoove you to kiss it, Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 07:27 PM

Hee, hee! The question is, which end?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 07:44 PM

The "God damn America" in that quote wasn't an expression of hating America. Wright has said himself he doesn't hate America. He was talking about the punishment that he felt God might have in mind for America because of the things it was doing to people. Wright felt that America was setting itself up for punishment, and he said so, but he had no desire to not be a part of this country.

Joe Vogler, on the other hand, hated America so much that he wanted his state, Alaska, to not be a part of it any longer. And Palin's husband, and possibly Palin herself, belonged to the organization that was calling for Alaska to secede from the US.

Wright wanted to fix what was wrong with this country. Vogler and, it would appear (for a while, anyway), Todd and Sarah Palin wanted to break the country apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 08:07 PM

LEt me add that reciting that quote from Wright without its context completely reverses its meaning, and thus degrades the quote. When it is done intentionally, as by Sawz here, it degrades the defamer even more. To twist the truth intentionally for personal benefit is hardly honorable, Sawz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 06:17 AM

"To twist the truth intentionally for personal benefit is hardly honorable,..."


                      And Obama does it all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 10:43 AM

The FEC on Monday provided The Associated Press with a spread sheet of potential overseas donors that did not include contributors who left their state designation blank. As a result, the list was incomplete.

The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, speaking to reporters en route to Nashville, Tenn., on Tuesday, noted that anyone can donate to the campaign through the Internet. "We monitor these things as best we can," he said.

Republican John McCain's campaign lists all his donors, even those who give less than $200, on his Web site.

The Obama campaign has begun to request passport numbers from donors to verify their citizenship.

Asked why the Obama campaign doesn't do the same and open its database to the public, Axelrod said the campaign returns improper contributions.

"Obviously we've got a huge database of contributors," he said. "It's valuable to our campaign... We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone."

Independent watchdog groups, however, have asked the campaign to provide more information about its fundraisers and to at least provide information about small donors by zip code or country from where they donate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 10:56 AM

Oct. 8, 2008 | Dear Camille,

I was actually leaning towards Obama before he stated his willingness to enter negotiations with Iran with no pre-conditions. This is frightening stuff here. My wife and I lived in Germany for five years until late 2006, and I worked in Baghdad during the better part of 2006. His offer is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain, but I don't think Obama's motives are as sincere as Chamberlain's. Like most politicians, I believe Obama says what the people want to hear. He doesn't come across as a change agent.

Sincerely,
Philip Steelman


Your concern about the foreign-policy world-view of liberal Democrats is certainly justified. The university culture at Columbia and Harvard through which Obama passed has been drenched in a reflexive anti-Americanism for several decades. Armchair blame-America-first leftism is the default mode. Disdain for the military is rampant, and conservative voices are rarely heard.

However, your invocation of Neville Chamberlain may be a bit alarmist because there is no Hitler on the horizon -- just a series of regional petty dictators who, in my view, can be contained or neutralized through joint international efforts rather than open war. But the Chamberlain parallel cannot be entirely discounted, because British and European artists and intellectuals during that highly creative first generation of avant-garde modernism did indeed drift away from national affiliation into a chic, passive cosmopolitanism.

As an Obama supporter, however, I was not particularly troubled by his rather carelessly phrased response about negotiation without preconditions during a primary debate with Hillary Clinton. I don't believe that would in fact happen during an Obama administration, when the new president would have time to reflect and to absorb State Department briefing books. Surely the standard, prudent diplomatic protocols would kick into action.

I am well aware of the widespread conservative view of Obama's naivete and lack of preparation (Rush Limbaugh stingingly calls him a "man-child"). But I am one of the many who regard Obama as authentically inspirational -- as a leader appealing to our better nature rather than armoring us in eternal fear and paranoia against our fellow human beings. I remember how John F. Kennedy (the first politician I ever campaigned for) electrified young people and transformed our political reality, which was about to emerge from the long, grey slog of the Cold War.

What would concern me more about an Obama administration, given these rampant doubts, is the possibility that he would jump more readily toward war in order to prove his toughness. We don't need more foolish military incursions, bogging us down in regions whose vicious factionalism has boiled irresolvably for 3,000 years. Where our national interest is not directly at stake, we should mind our own business. Israel, on the other hand, whose very survival might be menaced by a nuclear Iran, would always have the right of preemptive self-defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 11:29 AM

No -- it is not justified.

Neville Chamberlain's appeasement involved giving away POland to the Nazis.

Obama's commitment is to keeping lines of communication open, and opening diplomatic channels, not to appeasing tyrrany.

There is a world of difference, and the reactive impulse to identify the two together incorrectly is hardly a credit to the analytical skills of tyhe author.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 12:18 PM

LH:

It is not so complicated. If someone says I hate America, it means everything. Policy, people, customs, everything.

If they say they hate the government that is what they hate.

I have stated my near hatred of American government above.

Congress and the electoral college is an outdated, archaic form of representation that dates back to horse and buggy days when it took a week for news to travel from one end of the 13 American colonies to the other.

People should be able to vote directly on the passage and content of bills thereby bypassing all of the skewing of votes due to lobbying, campaign contributions, self enrichment and the owing of political favors.

This back and forth finger pointing bullshit between Dems and Repubs is yet another facet of the game. It divides the American people in to something like the Bloods and Crips, Ford and Chevy, blacks and whites, two warring factions. Divide and conquer.

People want to blame things on Bush or the Democrats or the Republicans. The fight is not getting anything accomplished. We are headed toward a dictatorship if people cannot realize that people are wrong sometimes and they are right sometimes. It is a simple as that.

I see things that I believe LH is right about and I see things I believe he is wrong about.

The same with Obama and McCain, Palin and Biden.

I don't support any of them because I believe they are playing this divide and conquer game and I believe they are wrong for doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 01:46 PM

Jim Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae who was one of three advisors tapped by Democrat Barack Obama to vet vice presidential candidates, resigned today after questions were raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide Financial Corp.

Insisting he had done nothing wrong, Johnson issued a statement saying that he did not want the flap over his mortgage to distract attention from Obama's run for the presidency.

"I would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from that historic effort," Johnson said. "I believe Barack Obama's candidacy for president of the United States is the most exciting and important of my lifetime."

Johnson, 64, ran Walter F. Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign and helped John F. Kerry in his vice presidential search in 2004. Johnson was part of a three-person team – including Caroline Kennedy and former Deputy U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder – appointed by Obama to cull the prospective candidates for vice president.

The Wall Street Journal reported 10 days ago that Angelo Mozilo, chief executive of Calabasas-based Countrywide, may have provided favorable terms on mortgages to Johnson and other friends. Ever since Johnson and the Obama campaign have been on the defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 01:54 PM

Obama Got Discount on Home Loan


By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; A03

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:54 PM

CNN) -- iReporters across the country agree that Sen. Barack Obama won the second presidential debate Tuesday at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.


Students at Northern Virginia Community College gather to watch the second presidential debate Tuesday.

Dozens of iReporters sent in video reactions to the debate between Obama and Sen. John McCain. While the majority said that Obama came out ahead, several iReporters called the face-off a tie.

The reaction from iReporters reflects the results of a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey that was conducted after the debate. Fifty-four percent of respondents said Obama performed better in the debate, while 30 percent said McCain fared better.

Frequent iReporter Jason Dinant noted that McCain went into the debate with the advantage of the town hall meeting. "However, at the end, hands-down Barack Obama won this debate," he said.

Dinant, who lives in Las Vegas, Nevada, said he is now an undecided voter. Originally a supporter of former Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, he later switched his vote to McCain.

After watching both presidential debates, he is now considering voting for Obama in the presidential election. iReport.com: Watch why Dinant is tried of hearing the phrase 'my friends'

Obama "came off as definitely more knowledgeable in this debate," he said. "Sometimes McCain stumbled and you could definitely see it through his lies."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:58 PM

On Wednesday, Barack Obama surged to his biggest lead yet in the Gallup Poll, 52-41 percent over John McCain. And that gap could grow even larger in the next few days.

That's when Americans will make it clear they think Obama won Tuesday's debate with McCain.

Obama has been at or above the magical 50 percent victory margin the past five days.

Why? Because people recognize McCain has no answer on the nation's economic problems -- and McCain has been in Washington all these years as the crisis approached.

To be clear, Obama also wrongly favors lower taxes as a way to get out of this mess, something that would only exacerbate the fiscal ills of a nation that's been living too high off the hog for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 03:10 PM

Amos, Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, not Poland. He declared war on the Nazis when it came to Poland.

Sawzaw - I agree with you entirely when it comes to the old divide and conquer game you allude to that the Democrats and Republicans are playing. I don't support any of them either, though I do think McCain is a somewhat worse alternative than Obama. Whether I am right about that, we'll never know, because we're only going to get to try out one of them as president.

We'll never know for sure what the other one would have done in his place.

You are quite correct that everyone is right sometimes and wrong sometimes...but you'd never know that listening to the partisan voices in America, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 04:03 PM

QUite right, LH. SOrry for the misstatement. The distinction is still vividly important, however.

Current numbers:

RCP Average 10/01 - 10/07 -- 49.0 43.9 Obama +5.1
Gallup Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 2747 RV 52 41 Obama +11
Rasmussen Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 3000 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 1220 LV 47 45 Obama +2
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 904 LV 45 44 Obama +1
GW/Battleground Tracking 10/02 - 10/07 800 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/02 - 10/06 858 RV 47 40 Obama +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/04 - 10/05 658 RV 49 43 Obama +6
CBS News 10/03 - 10/05 616 LV 48 45 Obama +3
CNN 10/03 - 10/05 694 LV 53 45 Obama +8
Democracy Corps (D) 10/01 - 10/05 1000 LV 49 46 Obama +3

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 06:31 PM

Well, well, well...

Yeah, looks as if Obama did very well In a forum that John McCain has favored...

Just a couple of things... I think the "That guy" thing was way outta line and borderline ricist and will only help McCain with the most rabid of his base...

But, secondly, McCain did roll out a new-to-him proposal whereby the feds would get into refinancing of folks who are about to be forcliosed... I believe that this was something that the Dems floated a couple weeks ago and had it shot down by the Repubs but this is a good idea and I'm glad that McCain has changed his mind on this... I belive there is room for bipartisanship here... Yeah, okay, I know that McCain only did it to try to get some votes and it probably won't help him but it is good to see the idea back out there for consideration...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 06:48 PM

He said "that one", like an object, not a person. At least "guy" refers to a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 06:52 PM

"That One" has already hit CafePress, with lots of people creating shirts and other items like I'm Voting For That One, I (heart) That One,
This Joe Six-Pack is Voting for That One...

CafePress That One

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 09:55 PM

There seem to be a whole lot of folks with nothing much constructive to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 10:15 PM

Au contraire, dear Rig. The wave of new enthusiasm represented by those tee-shirts is very constructive, indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:13 AM

"McCain only did it to try to get some votes"

Now there is real wizdom.

I don't suppose that anything either of them says is an effort to get some votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:21 AM

Perish the thought! What they are each trying to do is "save America" (from the horror of being governed by the other guy's party)... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:23 AM

...of which, neither party is capable of governing!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:29 AM

I take it that Rig in in the "none of the above" category.

I think McCain is trying to be in the middle between the two parties. In doing so he makes himself seem wishy washy. Ready to cave in under pressure from either side.

If there was just some way to get rid of the two party system. A dictatorship would do that. I am afeard that Obama would soon turn into a Chavez type of president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:00 PM

Actually, I think we should go the other way. A strong third party would be nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:37 PM

"a Chavez type of president"

Someone who is very popular with the poorer people, and very unpopular with the rich business people, you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:51 PM

No. I mean person that uses the old socialist class warfare strategy to divide and conquer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:00 PM

Oy, have you got the wrong number, Sawz. For one thing, Obama is NOT a socialist by any stretch of the imagination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: curmudgeon
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:00 PM

And now for something completely   different!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:40 PM

"Obama is NOT a socialist by any stretch of the imagination."


                   I knew there was something fishy about him!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:15 PM

Obama is NOT a socialist? Then neither is Chavez.

Would any self respecting Socialist would employ Truth Squads to intimidate free speech?

How about school indoctrination?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:32 PM

JERUSALEM – The official campaign website of Sen. Barack Obama has completely scrubbed a series of user-generated blog postings on the candidate's site by a former top communist activist who is an associate of former Weathermen terrorist leader William Ayers.

The move has raised questions regarding Obama's relationship with the deleted blogger, Mike Klonsky, who runs an education organization that was founded by Ayers and that received a substantial grant from a group directed by Obama. Klonsky served with Ayers and Ayer's wife, former Weathermen terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, in the Students for a Democratic Society group, a major leftist student organization in the 1960s that later splintered, with Ayers and Dohrn leading a more activist approach with the Weathermen. Klonsky reportedly favored less aggressive tactics, promoting the philosophy that young workers possessed the potential to be a revolutionary force to overthrow capitalism.

In the 1970s, Klonsky became a top communist activist and leader of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party.

He reportedly identified as a Maoist, and traveled in 1977 to Beijing, where he held friendly meetings with the Chinese leadership.

In a book, "Revolution in the Air," author Max Elbaum, himself a former Maoist activist, recounts that in Beijing, Klonsky toasted the Chinese Stalinist leadership who, in turn, hailed the formation of his Communist Party group as "reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people," effectively recognizing Klonsky's organization as the all-but-official U.S. Maoist party.

In a brief conversation with WND yesterday, Klonsky would not state whether he is still a communist. He did not deny his associations with Ayers or his communist activism in the 1970s.

Klonsky's blog postings were removed from Obama site during a period the presidential candidate has been repeatedly questioned about his relationship with Ayers, who is currently a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and was a member of the Weathermen group, which sought to overthrow the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers has admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s.

Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released Sept. 11, 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." He posed for a photograph accompanying the piece stepping on an American flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:43 PM

Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).

The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

    Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

    The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

    Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

    In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

    The New Party's various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

    One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s.

    In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Canto and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:20 AM

If Obama was a socialist, the socialists here in the Mudcat would be endorsing him. They are not. In fact, for some reason, one of them has been campaigning rather heavily for Palin here in the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:34 AM

I've been kind of puzzled by that too, Carol. I understand perfectly why Ake dislikes the 2-party system in America, but I can't figure what it is that he likes about Sarah Palin. I mean, aside from those conspiratorial winks that she favors us with now and then. ;-)

Sawzaw - I think Chavez is a socialist in a number of respects. He's also a populist. And he's a man with a big ego who would like to have more extensive powers than he ought to have. I other words, like you said awhile back, he's gets some things right and he gets some things wrong...same as the rest of us. He's very popular with the majority of the poorer people in Venezuela and has been winning democratic elections despite the efforts of the rich people and the CIA to end his government...so I have to say on the whole that I am reasonably well impressed with Mr Chavez. I prefer him to America's kind of pet Latin American dictator by a long shot.

But.....I haven't seen anything that would make me think Obama's a socialist. Heh! I think it's about as likely he is a socialist as that George Bush is a Buddhist.

If he gets endorsed by some socialist group...so?   What does that prove? It proves they like him better than McCain, that's all, and that's no big surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:20 AM

So, Obama will solve Iraq??? What is it they call people who act against the government of their own country????



Obama tried to sway Iraqis on Bush deal

In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay
Barbara Slavin
Friday, October 10, 2008

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.

Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.

However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.

"In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.

Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward.

The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:01 AM

"I haven't seen anything that would make me think Obama's a socialist."


                      Or anything else, for that matter. He never says anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

Rig:

You are so full of it some times. Is the notion Obama never says anything because you never read, litsen to, or think about any of the things he does say? Or are you getting all your news from a 1972 Sylvania with a broken audio circuit?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:40 AM

LH: Why does Chavez see fit to change the laws and the constitution in Venezuela in his favor?

Where is he now without $149 a barrel oil to support his blow hard pandering to the poor crap?

The King of Spain had to tell him to shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:25 PM

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A19

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.

McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.


McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.

This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.

Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.

Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM

It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters.

John McCain - Charles Keating, Oliver North, and Gordon Liddy. And that's just for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:32 PM

John McCain has made the distant connections from years ago between Barack Obama and "unrepentant terrorist" Bill Ayers a centerpiece of the McCain-Palin campaign.

But McCain has much closer, more direct, and more recent connections to terrorists who committed acts far worse than Ayers, yet McCain's links to "unrepentant terrorists" are completely ignored by the media. And although Obama has forcefully condemned the past actions of Ayers, John McCain has never denounced his terrorist friends.

In the 1980s, McCain personally funded a guerrilla group (the Contras) that engaged in terrorist acts. Just last year, McCain expressed how "proud" he was of an ex-felon who urged shooting law enforcement agents in the head (G. Gordon Liddy). And earlier this year, the McCain campaign trumpeted the endorsement of a man who illegally provided weapons and money to terrorists; when a reporter questioned this, the McCain campaign refused to even criticize this criminal (Oliver North).

In February 1988, the Washington Post reported that McCain personally (and relatively "recently") gave the Contras $400.

No one can doubt that acts of terror were committed by the Contras. Human Rights Watch concluded in 1989 that "the Contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." Human Rights Watch also criticized acts of terror by the Sandinista government, but called the Contras "a force that has shown itself incapable of operating without consistently committing gross abuses in violation of the laws of war."

Here are some eyewitness reports of the terrorism committed by the Contras:

    They took out their knives and stuck them under his fingernails. After they took his fingernails off, then they broke his elbows. Afterwards they gouged out his eyes. Then they took their bayonets and made all sorts of slices in his skin all around his chest, arms, and legs. They then took his hair off and the skin of his scalp. When they saw there was nothing left to do with him, they threw gasoline on him and burned him. The next day they started the same thing with a 13 year old girl. They did more or less the same, but they did other things to her too. First, she was utilized, raped by all the officers. They stripped her and threw her in a small room, they went in one by one. Afterwards they took her out tied and blindfolded. Then they began the same mutilating, pulling her fingernails out and cutting off her fingers, breaking her arms, gouging out her eyes and all they did to the other fellow. They cut her legs and stuck an iron rod into her womb.

    Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken and their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were then killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.


A congressional committee confirmed at the time that the Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including children" and that "groups of civilians, including pregnant women and children were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."

Harold Pinter recalled the testimony of Father John Metcalf:

    I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.


And no one can doubt that McCain knew about these acts of terror when he was publicly funding them. On February 10, 1987, the New York Times noted that a 170-page report by Americas Watch determined about the Contras, "They still engage in selective but systematic killing of persons they perceive as representing the Government, in indiscriminate attacks against civilians or in disregard for their safety, and in outrages against the personal dignity of prisoners. The Contras also engage in widespread kidnapping of civilians, apparently for purposes of recruitment as well as intimidation." The report noted, "The escalating brutality of Contra practices leads Americas Watch to conclude that disregard for the rights of civilians has become a de facto policy of the Contra forces."

McCain also must have known that the Contras were engaged in drug smuggling while he was handing them money. On August 5, 1987, the CIA Central American Task Force chief testified before the Iran-Contra Committee about the Contra drug trafficking: "It is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people."(pdf, p. 38)

In addition to his personal support for the Contras, McCain has a supporter who is far more of a terrorist supporter than Bill Ayers. His name is Oliver North. Ayers was never convicted for any crime, and there's no evidence he ever killed anyone. North, by Contrast, was convicted (he got away with it because his testimony to Congress provided him with immunity).

There can be no doubt about North's connection to terrorism. Under the direction of North, the US covertly sold $48 million in battlefield missiles and other weapons to Iran, even though Iran was classified by the US government as a sponsor of international terrorism. North then illegally used some of this money to help finance the Contras.

So what is the McCain campaign's position toward this terrorist supporter? Have they denounced his views? No, McCain's own campaign website promotes the endorsement of him by North. McCain also supported North's 1994 campaign for the US Senate in Virginia.

The Washington Post blog did ask the McCain campaign, "Is McCain pleased to receive North's endorsement, given the fact that the failed GOP senatorial candidate was convicted in 1989 of shredding documents, accepting an illegal gratuity and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress?" The McCain campaign declined to criticize North or remove their link to his endorsement: "We'll let the comments in the release stand," wrote spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker in an e-mail.

Obviously, McCain has no regrets about supporting the Contras. McCain named Otto Reich as his adviser on Latin American issues, even though Reich was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. In the mid-1980s, Reich ran the U.S. Office of Public Diplomacy and illegally coordinated with the CIA to run a "White Propaganda" campaign planting bogus op-eds written by his speechwriters in newspapers. In 1987, the Republican Comptroller-General formally found that Reich had broken the law. As ambassador to Venezuela, Reich arranged the release and asylum of Cuban-American terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had planted a bomb on a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 people on board.

McCain's connections to G. Gordon Liddy are even closer and more disturbing. Liddy, of course, is famous as an ex-felon convicted for his role as a mastermind in the Watergate break-ins and cover-up. Less well known is the fact that Liddy proposed to kidnap anti-war activists in 1972 and even plotted the murder of a newspaper columnist deemed unfriendly.

If his criminal activity helped bring down a president weren't bad enough, Liddy actually advocated terrorist acts, too. In 1994, Liddy advised listeners to his radio show to kill federal law enforcement agents: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

Despite this public advocacy of terrorism, McCain appeared at Liddy's home for a fundraiser Liddy organized for him in 1998. Liddy has given McCain $5,000 during his various campaigns, including $1,000 in 2007. McCain has never refused the money. Less than a year ago, McCain appeared on Liddy's radio show (where Liddy greeted him as an "old friend") and McCain told Liddy, "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family. It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

No one imagines that John McCain's connections to terrorism should automatically disqualify him from the presidency or should even be a major factor in the election, when questions about the economy, health care, and foreign wars loom much more prominently.

But John McCain's character does matter. And unlike the attacks on Obama and Ayers, McCain's terrorist connections have an important policy dimension. No one imagines that Obama is going to implement a policy of covert symbolic bombings in America as Ayers did, and Obama has strongly condemned what Ayers did decades ago.

However, McCain has never condemned the Contras or Oliver North or G. Gordon Liddy, and that raises many policy questions. Would McCain ever allow a Watergate-style criminal ring in his White House? Would he ever sell weapons to a regime engaged in supporting terrorism? Would he illegally engage in covert propaganda aimed at Amricans? Would he ever try to secretly fund a guerrilla force committing acts of terror? Unlike the guilt-by-association smears against Obama, McCain's friendship with terrorists is more than just a character issue. McCain needs to answer these questions about critical errors of judgment committed by past Republican administrations, since his terrorist associations suggest that he might endorse these terrible mistakes and be prone to repeat them.

The questions about Obama and Ayers have been asked and answered and analyzed in depth many times before. But John McCain still hasn't answered any questions about his terrorist connections. And the media have almost entirely ignored all of McCain's friends who are "unrepentant terrorists."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:24 PM

"Charles Keating, Oliver North, and Gordon Liddy."



                  None of the people are as reprehensible as Gee Reverend Wright.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:39 PM

Has anyone noticed that the more vehement, hateful, slanted and bigoted McCain's ads become, the more Obama's polls outpace McCain's?

Today, he's up by 6 points on the national RCP average, while the McCain campaign starts frothing and spraying more desperately than ever, trying to paint him with the AYers slanders and imlying that he is soft on crime (a great porposition coming from one of the founding members of the Keating Five.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:46 PM

In your opinion, Rig. Personally I can't think of a more reprehensible human being alive than G. Gordon Liddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 03:41 PM

Rig:

The Rev Wright has served his country in the U.S. Navy AND the USMC and has served two presidents as a medical corpsman.

The fact that he believes America should take responsibility for its own actions in the world is not sufficient grounds to warrant your unspecific and somewhat hateful knee-jerk reaction, informed solely by arm-waving Hannity and his hysterical soundbites taken from the middle of two sermons. There is no rational defense for that kind of unthinking bigotry, and I believe you know it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 03:46 PM

Sawzaw, you asked: "LH: Why does Chavez see fit to change the laws and the constitution in Venezuela in his favor?"

I already alluded to that in my previous post when I said:

"And he's a man with a big ego who would like to have more extensive powers than he ought to have. In other words, like you said awhile back, he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong...same as the rest of us."

Chavez is not perfect. Neither are you or I or McCain or Obama. I'm just saying that Chavez is better, on the whole, than a number of Latin American dictators who have run outright police states in their countries with the full cooperation and approval of the USA.

The USA doesn't mind Chavez because of anything undemocratic or autocratic in his nature...in fact, his democratic election victories have really annoyed them. ;-) They mind him because he is not cooperating with USA big business concerns as they would like him to.

If he did cooperate with the USA's big business concerns, then he could freely execute and torture thousands, imprison thousands, rape villages, be a 100% dictator, and terrorize his population and all you would hear about from the State Department would be "our good friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela".

It's sheer pragmatism and corporate self-interest in action, Sawzaw. Nothing to do with morality or democracy. The only "democracies" which are tolerated are those which obey orders from Washington. Those are not real democracies, they are controlled surrogates...controlled mostly by American money. If the money fails, then they are controlled by military intervention or a CIA-sponsored coup which overthrows their government. (that has been attempted in Venezuela, but it failed, much to the chagrin of planners in Washington, and now the USA is a bit too busy elsewhere to settle their Venezuelan "problem", which is simply an independent nation that won't bend over and let itself be used in a certain way by American business interests).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 03:55 PM

We need to rethink the phrase, "leader of the free world" now that we are the number one exporter of torture and murder.    Only China outpaces the USA in the area of capital punishment.
Perhaps we should also rethink democracy since our elections have proved to be such a problematic mess.



Barack Obama's name appears on the ballot as Barack Osama.

The explanation is that it was a typo that slipped through the cracks of 3 proof readers.

I don't buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:48 PM

Funny--it was spelled correctly on the ballot I just mailed in.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:55 PM

"Rev Wright has served his country in the U.S. Navy AND the USMC and has served two presidents as a medical corpsman..."



                Well Gee Gordon Liddy ran around in the middle of the night and shot people in the back for his country...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM

Yes...soldiers, like other people, do both good and bad things...no matter what side they are on.

That proves nothing one way or another, does it?

You see, if Liddy's people had "won"....(not been caught and prosecuted)...he'd be a well respected man, wouldn't he?

Hitler's number one commando in WWII would have been a world-renowned hero if he'd only been on the winning side when the war ended. We'd be watching movies about his daring exploits if he'd been an American instead of a German.

You will always pick the examples that appear to support your point if you're like most people, Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 05:17 PM

"Both sides of the aisle insist the typo was only a mistake"

If that is so, not only are the three proofreaders incompetent but to me it appears that they must be heavily biased. I realize that Rensellaer County is in New York, not in Georgia (ha! I first wrote George! Not sure what that says about me), say, but anyone who is not smitten across the eyes on seeing those two words together: Barack Osama has some kind of problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 05:32 PM

With 26 letters in the alphabet, and "B" being the letter they were looking for, they were facing pretty long odds to come up with an "S." Not only that, but when I miss the letter "B" on the key-board, I usually come up with a "V" or an "N."

            But, folks have to do what they can to off-set the huge advantage in money that the sheep herders at MoveOn.org handed Obama, so...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:17 PM

The obvious answer is to alter McCain to appear as McPain on a similar number of ballots...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:00 PM

William F Buckley's son endorses Obama...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:32 PM

Congrats on Post 3200, Carol!! Our man has certainly stirred up a long-running thread!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 05:45 PM

I find it perfectly and pleasingly poignant that Louis Farrakhan, AKA Louis X, AKA Louis Eugene Walcott, Supreme Minister of the Nation of Islam and the National Representative of Elijah Muhammad, Calypso singer and violinist "The Charmer", a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa, another man in Obama's and Bill Ayres tight knit neighborhood of radicals and liberal elitists, preached this to his congregation with divine and unerring accuracy:

You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

It is to be noted that Farrakahn's religion is on spaceships and other outer space mumbo jumbo like L Ron Hubbard and people still fall for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:04 PM

Some background on Obama supporter Farrakhan:

Louis Farrakhan: Liar Extraordinaire.

Louis Gene Walcott Farrakhan is not a Muslim, nor is his doctrine Islaam. Farrakhan is the leader of a black racist cult called "the Nation of Islaam," (NOI) founded in Detroit, Michigan in the 1930's. While the group calls its followers Muslims, in reality, they have very little to do with the faith of Islaam. Islaam believes in the total transcendence of Almighty God (called in Arabic, Allaah), the NOI teaches that black people are angelic gods. Islaam maintains universal brotherhood, the NOI says that Islaam is for blacks only. Islaam teaches that Prophethood ended with Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, more than 1400 years ago. The NOI teaches that Farrakhan's teacher, Elijah Muhammad, is the last prophet. Islaam teaches principles of spiritual and moral decorum such prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage, etc, Elijah Muhammad cast these out or altered them beyond recognition.

Yet, it is an error to oversimplify the issue by denouncing Farrakhan's racist diatribes while playing down Farrakhan's God-is-a-man and Prophet-after-Muhammad beliefs. Racism has very little to do with the issue. Sure, racism is contrary to Islaamic principles and Islaam rejects it. However, the deviation of Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan are MUCH more serious than racism. It is the sin which Allaah DOES NOT forgive. If Farrakhan would leave his man-is-god and prophet-after-Muhammad beliefs, but was still a raving racist, he would be much better off than the other way around! Let me say very clearly, that there is NO ideology on the face of this earth which could be farther from Islaam than that of Louis Farrakhan. NONE!

The NOI's origins are found in

(a) Two black self-improvement movements that began shortly before World War I: the "Moorish Science Temple of America," founded in 1913 by Timothy Drew, and the "Universal Negro Improvement Association," founded in 1914 by Marcus Garvey.

(b) The NOI was also shaped by a Depression-era con-man, and convicted drug dealer, Wallace Dodd Ford. Upon Ford's 1929 release from California's San Quintin Prison, he moved to Detroit to start a new life. Ford used a number of names, including Wali Farad and Master Fard and claimed to be from Mecca, Arabia. Being that Ford's parentage was a mixture of white and South Pacific Maori, he used his skin color and his prison con skills to pass himself off to blacks as a "mystic" and a "prophet" from the Middle East.

Working as a door-to-door rug salesman by day, Ford blended the ideas of Garvey and Drew along with a smattering of Islaam, to form what would later become the Nation of Islam. Among his first students was an unemployed Georgia migrant worker, Elijah Poole, who Ford renamed "Elijah Muhammad." In later years, Ford disappeared and Elijah assumed leadership of the NOI which he held until his death in 1975.

Elijah developed an convoluted belief system based on ideas extracted from everything from Christianity to Masonry to Islaam. He elevated Ford's status to that of the Creator of the heavens and earth, and he developed a myth which he dubbed, "Yacub's History." This racist doctrine is still maintained by Louis Farrakhan.

In brief, the doctrine states that the first humans, a race of black people, whom the NOI calls 'the Original Man,' created white people in a genetic experiment 6,000 years ago. Elijah claimed that they (the whites) would rule the world for 6,000 years and then be destroyed at the 'end of their time' by the blacks. He said that 'Judgement Day' means that at the 'end of time' the Gods (i.e., blacks) would destroy the entire white race (devils) and then establish a Paradise (nation) on this earth ruled forever by the blacks (i.e., Gods).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:08 PM

Farrakhan continued:

For a number of years, Farrakhan has managed to present himself as a champion for the oppressed masses, this also is a distortion. Like his teacher, Farrakhan has for more than 35 years engaged in hoodwinking blacks out of money in the name of black self improvement. The only self-improvement however, that has taken place has been for Farrakhan's family and their associates.

Additionally, his entire inspiration for the "Million Man March" is based on his alleged, "vision of being swept into a UFO that took him to a larger mothership." While in the UFO, he claims to have spoken to the late Elijah Muhammad before being beamed back to earth. (The Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1995, p. D3).

What many do not realize, is that Farrakhan has repeated this doctrine for more than 35 years! Indeed, Farrakhan's UFO "vision" is an inseparable, doctrinal link to the heretical claims of Elijah Muhammad. Elijah explained that blacks were originally, "moon people" and that the UFO "mother wheel" was piloted by 13 youths who perpetually orbited the earth, waiting to unleash global destruction on whites, while rescuing all blacks. Farrakhan to this day, teaches this same doctrine- his inspiration for the Million Man March. The Million Man March in fact, was planned with the following goals in mind:

(a) To hold it in Washington, and aim for a turnout of one million, so as to surpass the number of attendees at Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington, and thereafter be promoted as being greater than Dr. King and Malcolm X.

(b) By being mentioned in the same context with Dr. King, Farrakhan hopes to be remembered likewise as a charismatic, messianic black figure who commands a large and politically significant following among US blacks.

(c) To remove the cloud of suspicion which still surrounds Farrakhan regarding his involvement in Malcolm X's assassination.

(d) Most importantly, Farrakhan has to find a new way to pay for his and his family's ornate palaces in Chicago and Phoenix, his Lexus, Mercedes, Rolls Royce and Lincoln Town Cars, a Mexican villa, a new 77-acre Michigan estate and over $1.5 million dollars in unpaid back taxes. This is the reason he had an $11 registration fee, a $3.99 per minute 900 number for call-in registration (Average call is three minutes), a $700 vendor's fee, (reduced from $1000), and even ads in his newspaper soliciting for "donations" to "help defray the astronomical costs of the march," in exchange for listing the donor's name and city under appropriate categories (Platinum, Gold, etc.): $1000 or more (Platinum), $500 or more (Gold), $100 or more (Silver), $25 or more (Patron) not to mention $2 "special issues" of his 'Final Call' newspaper. Louis. A true high-tech con-man. You want to see Louie's real vision?: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

It is thus impossible for anyone to try to make a distinction between Farrakhan and his UFO inspiration, or "endorse the goals of the march without endorsing Farrakhan," or say that Farrakhan is greater than Malcolm X. Malcolm's greatness was as a result of his renouncement of Elijah's false teachings, and his acceptance of true Islaam, factors which Farrakhan has yet to achieve....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:10 PM

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

January 15, 2008

Hours after Farrakhan praised Obama during his annual Saviours' Day speech last Sunday, the Obama campaign moved to distance the candidate from Farrakhan, telling the Associated Press that it did not solicit Farrakhan's support.

In responding to questions during the debate, Obama took a much stronger approach.

"I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," Obama told Tim Russert, NBC Washington Bureau chief.

"I did not solicit his support. ... I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan."

March 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:10 PM

Obama has no connection whatever with Farrakhan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:37 PM

Never the less, the racist bigot, Farrakhan, just another guy in the neighborhood, encourages people to vote for Obama which benefits Obama.


Bill Ayers, famous "mainstream fixture" of the Chicago scene, poses for a magazine trampling the American flag in 2001 when Barack Hussein Obama was but a sprightly lad of forty one years old.

Ayres supports Obama and he contributed to Obama's campaign. Why hasn't Obama denounced Ayres?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:38 PM

You ar ebbeing pure-dee idiotic, Sawz, not to mention disingenuous and slanderous, by pursuing the effort to link Farrakhan with Obama.

Why must you persist in your asininities?

Grow up.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:39 PM

So....you were expecting Farrakhan to endorse McCain and Palin, weren't you, Sawzaw??? Hey, man, I was really surprised too that he would endorse Obama. Sheesh. I was astounded in fact.

I mean, God!....I just can't countenance HOW he would NOT endorse McCain, given his and McCain's general set of values...

It's perplexing. It's disturbing. What shall we do about it?

LOL!

Look, why don't we talk about something that really matters for a change? Or should I go and find the most unstable and bizarre individual in the USA who is endorsing McCain that I can and start a fearmongering thread about it?

Yeah, right. As if it fucking matters who this or that nutbar out there decides to endorse. Give me strength. I can't wait for the utter bullshit of this goddamn American election to end.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:55 PM

As if it fucking matters who this or that nutbar out there decides that wants impeached or wants to blame everything including the bad weather on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 06:59 PM

None of it fucking matters. We're all just blowing hot air because the pressure builds up inside us and we need to vent. You know that by now, don't you? But why can't people here talk about something substantial rather than just hurling pointless innuendo this way or that way?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 07:09 PM

Amos wanted popular views and he is getting them:
Obama is a Lightworker: Lightworkers use Light Energy within New Age Spirituality and alternative healing practices. Some of the more common forms of this form of Lightwork are: healing modalities that use different energetic processes such as reiki, and balancing or connecting energies from one place to another, such as from the Universe to the Earth grids. Pleiadian Lightwork created by Amorah Quan Yin is another system that employs the term itself. A new form of Energetic Lightwork is Vortex healing, which is derived from the Merlin lineage and encompasses Angelic healing.

Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don't understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama's aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.
   To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?
   No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.
   Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.
   Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
   The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.
   Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me. But you gotta wonder, why has, say, the JFK legacy lasted so long, is so vital to our national identity? Yes, the assassination canonized his legend. The Kennedy family is our version of royalty. But there's something more. Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.
   Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.
   Let me be completely clear: I'm not arguing some sort of utopian revolution, a big global group hug with Obama as some sort of happy hippie camp counselor. I'm not saying the man's going to swoop in like a superhero messiah and stop all wars and make the flowers grow and birds sing and solve world hunger and bring puppies to schoolchildren.
   Please. I'm also certainly not saying he's perfect, that his presidency will be free of compromise, or slimy insiders, or great heaps of politics-as-usual. While Obama's certainly an entire universe away from George W. Bush in terms of quality, integrity, intelligence and overall inspirational energy, well, so is your dog. Hell, it isn't hard to stand far above and beyond the worst president in American history.
   But there simply is no denying that extra kick. As one reader put it to me, in a way, it's not even about Obama, per se. There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about that's been held back by the armies of BushCo darkness, and this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod, is now effortlessly self-organizing around Obama's candidacy. People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically drawn to him. It's exactly like how Bush was a magnet for the low vibrational energies of fear and war and oppression and aggression, but, you know, completely reversed. And different. And far, far better.
   Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bulls-- and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 07:17 PM

So here's the deal, Sawz, that you just don't get...

So what if I were to endorse McCain??

Hey, I was a 60's radical... I was the "rector" of the Radical Student Union at VCU... I knew Jerry Rubin... I knew Abbie Hoffman... I organized some purdy rowdy anti-war demonstrations... There was a attempted bombing of VCU's president, Warren Brandt, by people I knew... And, yes, I was part of trashing the offices of the "Commonwealth Times" after it ran a racist cartoon of Jim Elam, a black student who was running as for campus student president...

Yeah, I did this stuff and alot more...

So, if I use yer logic/illogic by me endorseing McCain then McCain is also guilty of the things I did then count me in...

I'd endorse him right here and now if I knew that it would get the publicity that Farakhan has gotten from the rightie bloggers...

Yeah, I can see the headlines in tomorrow's Washington Post "McCain Linked to 60's Radical"....

Where do I sign up???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 08:03 PM

Ahh...the Lightworker thing...now that's interesting. It's also something the mainstream media and the average American wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole...aside from the folks in the New Age community and a few like-minded people.

Yeah, there are some genuine lightworkers out there...and there are some phonies too. And there are probably even some who are a bit of both. There always have been a few such people.

Now if Obama is a genuine lightworker as set out in that dissertation...well, that could have some powerful results, all right, although the resistance put up by the old established forces against it would be formidable. Such people have the ability to inspire others and shift the mood of a nation dramatically in a more positive direction on the (very) rare occasions that they go into political life.

Hard to say what would happen...but I'd say that his life would be in grave jeopardy, yet the possibilities for positive change would also be immense.

I've seen some lightwork done in my life. It's real. If you don't think so, well, fine...

Everyone has the right to believe in their own version of reality as best they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:09 PM

Bobert, Farrakhan, Ayres, Ghadaffi, Anybody can endorse anybody they want. And Jesse Jackson can say he wants to cut Obama's nuts off because he been um talkin down to black people. It is a free country.

However Mr Obama wants to use lynch mob tactics to stiffle free speech. Why doesen't he block Farrakhan for his divisive, destructive ranting? Because it benefits Obama?

As nation watches Denver, Obama campaign muscles Chicago station over ex-radical Ayres

LA Times:

In a surprising attempt to stifle broadcast criticism of its candidate, the presidential campaign of freshman Illinois senator Barack Obama is organizing supporters to confront Chicago's WGN radio station for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its main evening discussion program.
"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail sent to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. (Wednesday night) pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."
    Station logo of Chicago's WGN Radio 720 the target of an orchestrated protest effort by the campaign of Democrat presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama
    Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that examined Obama's ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who helped found a protest group that advocated violence.
    The magazine was blocked in its initial attempts to obtain records from the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project that Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded.
    As The Ticket reported here, the school later reserved its position and opened the records Tuesday. Media organizations are poring over scores of boxes of documents to study the Obama-Ayres relationship, which the senator has described as merely casual.
    Obama's campaign is urging supporters to call the radio station to complain. "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the note said.
    WGN, like the Chicago Tribune and The Times, is owned by Tribune Co. As a clear-channel station at 720 on the AM dial, WGN's signal reaches dozens of states. Such efforts to prevent programs often backfire by calling even more public attention to the controversy.
    "It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."
    Zack Christenson, executive producer of the longrunning interview program "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg," said the response from Obama supporters was strong. Rosenberg like Ayres is a college professor.
    "I would say this is the biggest response we've ever got from a campaign or a candidate," said Christenson. "This is really unprecedented with the show, the way that people are flooding the calls and our email boxes."
    Christenson also stressed that the Obama campaign was invited to send a representative to appear on the show to balance the discussion of the newly-opened documents. But the campaign headquarters just down Michigan Avenue from the station refused the request. This is not the first time Obama's organization has sought to steer supporters to influence a broadcast outlet airing criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:19 PM

Repeat a lie, repeat a lie, repeat a lie, until some people believe it is truth... pretty much the way the McCain campaign has decided to run their operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 11:38 PM

Seems to me, Sawzall, that standing up to liars and those who promote them is an honest thing to do. What you do, contrariwise, is replicate and emulate them. You should really be ashamed at your own lack of moral fiber.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:13 AM

If Mr Obama does not denounce Bill Ayres, he lacks moral fiber.

Where is the lie? Point to the lie.

Fictitious Donors Found in Obama Finance Records

NYT:

Barack Obama received some $40,000 from obviously fictitious donors, the New York Times reports. After poring over both candidates' records, the Times found some 3,000 donations to Obama from more than a dozen people with obviously falsified names —like "Test Person" from "Some Place, UT.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:15 AM

He cain't he'p it. He is a Repugnicant. There is a BIG difference between Republicans and Repugnicants. Telling lies and repeating lies is repugnant- when one does that and still calls oneself Republican, that's what one is.

*grin* But not really.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM

CROWN POINT, Indiana (CNN) -- More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana's Lake County by a liberal activist group this week have turned out to be bogus, election officials said Thursday.

The group -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN -- already faces allegations of filing fraudulent voter registrations in Nevada and faces investigations in other states.

And in Lake County, home to the long-depressed steel town of Gary, the bipartisan Elections Board has stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.

"All the signatures looked exactly the same," Ruthann Hoagland, a Republican on the board. "Everything on the card filled out looks exactly the same."

The forms included registrations submitted in the names of the dead -- and in one case, the name of a fast-food restaurant, Jimmy Johns. Sally LaSota, a Democrat on the board, called the forms fraudulent and said whoever filed them broke the law. Video Watch how dead people are turning up on voter registration forms »

"ACORN, with its intent, perhaps was good in the beginning, but went awry somewhere," LaSota said.

Over the past four years, a dozen states have investigated complaints of fraudulent registrations filed by ACORN. On Tuesday, Nevada authorities raided an ACORN office in Las Vegas, Nevada, where workers are accused of registering members of the Dallas Cowboys football team. And the group has become the target of Republican attacks on voter fraud, a perennial GOP issue.

A subsidiary of the group was paid $800,000 by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign to register voters for the 2008 primaries, and ACORN's political wing endorsed Obama back in February. But Obama's campaign told CNN that it "is committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process," and said it has not worked with ACORN during the general election.

Brian Mellor, an ACORN attorney in Boston, said the group has its own quality-control process and has fired workers in the past -- including workers in Gary. But he said allegations that his organization committed fraud is a government attempt to keep people disenfranchised.

"We believe their purpose is to attack ACORN and suppress votes," Mellor said. "We believe that by attacking ACORN, they are going to discourage people that have registered to vote with ACORN from voting."

CNN was unable to reach ACORN officials in Gary and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the group's Indiana operation is based. Offices in both cities were empty when reporters visited.

Lake County elections officials have set aside all 5,000 of the ACORN-submitted applications in what Hoagland called the "fake pile" for later review. But she said every one will be reviewed before the election to make sure no legitimate voters are skipped.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:36 AM

Sawzall, why the hail is this not the pertinent part? "A subsidiary of the group was paid $800,000 by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign to register voters for the 2008 primaries, and ACORN's political wing endorsed Obama back in February. But Obama's campaign told CNN that it "is committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process," and said it has not worked with ACORN during the general election."

Your view is seriously flawed, man.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:30 AM

No, the Obama campaign just has no respect for the truth. They're committed to lying. They'd lie when the truth would do them more good.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 10:11 AM

Wave your arms any faster, mate, and you'll take off. You keep positing these crashing derogatory remarks without any regard for specifics or substantiation.

The Fact Check sheets that I have seen indicate that there is a much richer layer of pure bull over the McCain offerings than there is over the Obama campaign's statement, not that either one is rigorously honest. But it is misleading of you to imply by exception that the McCain campaign is less dishonest than the Obama campaign when the opposite is the truth.

If you would care to provide specifics, you would be a lot more credible.

As it is, you sound like a parrot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 11:25 AM

I didn't say I thought the Obama campaign was more misleading than the McCain campaign. I only have to support the McCain side, because I think Obama would be worse for the country than McCain.
                   I wish we had better canididates, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:40 PM

You do! Chongo Chimp is running for president too, in case you had forgotten.

Sheesh. Talk about a media blackout.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 02:37 PM

You have yet to specify a single clear factual reason for your conclusion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 02:43 PM

A 106-year-old American nun living in a convent in Rome could well be the oldest person to vote in the 2008 US Presidential election.
Sister Cecilia Gaudette, who last voted for President Eisenhower in 1952, has registered to vote and says she will vote for Democrat Barack Obama.
Although hard of hearing, she keeps herself informed by reading newspapers and watching TV at the convent.
"I'm encouraged by Senator Obama," she says.
"I've never met him, but he seems to be a good man with a good private life. That's the first thing. Then he must be able to govern," she adds.
Sitting in her modest office in the convent where she has lived for the past 50 years, the diminutive nun appears uninterested in the row inside the American Catholic church over Senator Obama's support for pro-choice policies on abortion.
Asked about her hopes for the US under an Obama presidency, she says: "Peace abroad. I don't worry about the Iraq war because I can't do anything about it. Lord knows how it will end."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 03:31 PM

Little Hawk, it is my contention that when a worthy cause emerges -but does not succeed in becoming known - the fault lies with the promoter. Perhaps Chongo Chimp has a poor promoter?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 03:42 PM

Naww...I'll tell you what it is. Specism! Rank specism! (That and the fact that there is not a single chimpanzee who has a controlling interest in any of the main media outlets...which, of course, is again due to endemic specism.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:04 PM

"You have yet to specify a single clear factual reason for your conclusion."


                      Obama seems to have come from nowhere. I have no idea what to expect from him--I know what he says, but he hasn't proven not to follow what he says--campgaign financing is a classic example.
                      So who is behing the publishing and promotion of his books? That seems to have gotten him off and running. And what roll did Rezko and Ayers play in getting him launched, and how many other people were there like those two that we don't know about?

                      He has little experience, a short track record, and seems to be a little shaky on the few things we do know about him.
                      I have to reason to trust him, and a number of reasons to doubt him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

Little Hawk, she says patiently, how about his promoter's abilities? Do you lie awake in the dark hours of the night and question your skills? Think, man. You could find yourself responsible for the greatest travesty of modern times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 04:35 PM

Yo, Rigs,

Yer parroting the Repub PR talking points... And with the blinders that you are wearing you will never know where Obama is from , nor will you ever know what he stands for...

I find it interesting that you have not availed yourself to find those things out about Obama yet you are all over the Rezko and Ayers stuff???

(But, Boberdz... That's what partisans do...)

Yo, Sawz,

So it's Obama who is the one with the lynch mob mentality??? Hmmmmm??? Then why is it that people attending his rallies leave feeling hopeful and people leaving Palin rallies are completely pissed off and want to kill people???

I mean, get real...

Yo, Everbody Else,

I'm still available to endorse McCain should it be of value to Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 05:46 PM

"You could find yourself responsible for the greatest travesty of modern times."

Well....no, I think you overestimate my abilities in that regard, Ebbie. ;-) Think of the competition! I would have to outdo George W. Bush, Woody Allen, and the people who created Reality TV.

As for Chongo, I am not his promoter. I am merely a humble advocate for his campaign because I think he offers a fresh, new approach to politics in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 06:38 PM

"As for Chongo, I am not his promoter. I am merely a humble advocate for his campaign because I think he offers a fresh, new approach to politics in America." Little Hawk

Oh ho! Back pedaling, are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 07:08 PM

Rig:

I have to echo Bobert's remarks here. You have at your fingertips as much information about Obama as you have about any national politican. You know where he's been -- Harvard, Chicago, etc. You can find his positions and platforms clearly articulated. You can watch him talk and analyze his qualities for yourself. Instead of doing these things, you are erecting a pseudospace filled with talking points and wandering around in it like a blind cat in a coal cellar. Tsk.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:12 PM

"Tsk."


                Voting for Obama is like trying to sight in a rifle without a bead on the end of the barrel. You're liable to end up shooting your best red-bone hound.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 02:17 AM

Obama has denounced Ayres. Why don't people who keep going on and on about Ayres, actually take the time to look up some facts for a change?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 04:27 AM

Obama got his first book deal because of being the first African American to be president of the Harvard Law Review. That brought him to the attention of someone in the publishing industry, who offered him a book deal. After the book was published, it got warm reviews, but didn't make much money, so it didn't go anywhere. A new edition was published about ten years later after Obama won the Democratic primary for his Senate seat in 2004.

He's got more history than most people know about. But a lot of people don't bother to find things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:41 AM

"the Obama campaign just has no respect for the truth. They're committed to lying. They'd lie when the truth would do them more good. "

" not that either one is rigorously honest. But it is misleading of you to imply by exception that the McCain campaign is less dishonest than the Obama campaign when the opposite is the truth."




Who is being misleading, using a strawman arguement???

Bad Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:25 AM

Washington Post:


The World Vote

Barack Obama is almost universally favored over John McCain outside the United States. Should that matter to Americans?

Monday, October 13, 2008; Page A20

BY NOW it is well known that if the rest of the world had a vote, Barack Obama would be the next U.S. president. Polls and studies by the Pew foundation, BBC and the Gallup organization have shown that Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans and Asians not only favor Mr. Obama overwhelmingly over John McCain but believe he will improve U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Americans seem to be attracted by such findings; polls here show that many voters are concerned about the deterioration of U.S. prestige during the Bush administration and want the next president to restore it. This invites a question: If Mr. Obama were elected, how likely would he be to fulfill those high expectations? And could he really deliver results that are beyond the grasp of Mr. McCain? The answer is not as obvious as the survey results suggest.

One caveat comes in the report of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which points out that Obamamania is largely absent in the region where U.S. influence most needs a boost: the Middle East. Only 34 percent of Lebanese, 31 percent of Egyptians and 22 percent of Jordanians said they have confidence in Mr. Obama to do the right thing in world affairs; in Pakistan the figure was 10 percent. Israel is one of the few countries in the world where at least some polls have shown Mr. McCain leading Mr. Obama. Many Israelis fear that Mr. Obama will be too soft on Iran; many Arabs predict that he will be too soft on Israel. The new administration, whether that of Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, may have to accept anti-Americanism in Pakistan as the price of staying on the offensive against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Mr. Obama's huge popularity in Western Europe -- his favorable ratings are over 80 percent in France and Germany -- seems to reflect an expectation that the Democrat would reverse the policies of President Bush. But Mr. Obama favors sending large numbers of additional troops to Afghanistan, while public opinion in every NATO country but Britain favors withdrawal. At the governmental level, some senior officials in Germany, France and Britain say that they object to Mr. Obama's plan to pursue negotiations with Iran unconditionally; the European policy has been to require Tehran first to suspend work on its nuclear program. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are likely to alleviate two of the largest irritants in U.S.-European relations by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and adopting a serious program to combat climate change.

The outpouring of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama in places such as Berlin -- where a smaller share of people say they have favorable views of the United States than in Russia or China -- seems to reflect a longing to repair a broken relationship. An Obama presidency offers the possibility of building on those sentiments. Mr. McCain would have to start cold. Neither may have a good chance of obtaining more European troops for Afghanistan or major new sanctions against Iran. But on the intangible but critical question of American prestige and the willingness to accept U.S. leadership that comes with it, Mr. Obama has more to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:33 AM

Why don't people look at the facts? Isn't that a rather extreme suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:42 AM

It seems to me that facts are hard to come by.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 08:44 AM

Which "facts"? The ones in the pro-Obama sources, or the ones in the anti-Obama sources?

Both sides are claiming the other is lying- so who do we believe? The one who has spent more money in his campaign? The one who is saying what we want to hear?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:47 AM

At this point, according to RCP's aggregate polls, every one of the key battleground states with the exception of Missouri are tilting noticeably toward Obama. I think we are possibly going to see a landslide in his favor come November. Wouldn't much mind if we did, either. 'Course, there's still room for the Bushies to pull their October surprise, declare martial law and ruin the whole movie. WOuldn't put it past 'em, either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 12:47 PM

Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 email | print | tool nameclose
tool goes here
Daring to utter the 'L' word: Obama on track to a landslide
More on this Story
Story | McConnell's Kentucky race tightens over bailout vote
Story | With Obama ahead in must-win Florida, GOP casts blame
Story | McCain's gentler campaign: Obama's a pro-abortion radical
Story | Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Story | Time works against candidates on Social Security, Medicare fixes
Story | Science platforms offer similar goals but different paths
Story | Many doubt that McCain's health plan would help uninsured
Graphic | The electoral vote count and the balance of power
PDF | Issues: Obama & McCain
On the Web | Complete McClatchy election coverage

View larger image
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Barring a dramatic change in the political landscape over the next three weeks, Democrats appear headed toward a decisive victory on Election Day that would give them broad power over the federal government.

The victory would send Barack Obama to the White House and give him larger Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — and perhaps a filibuster-proof margin there.

That could mark a historic realignment of the country's politics on a scale with 1932 or 1980, when the out party was given power it held for a generation, and used it to transform government's role in American society.

Obama, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, is now well positioned to win the Electoral College. He's comfortably holding most of the "blue" states that went for Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry in past elections, polls show, and he's gaining momentum to take away several "red" states that have voted Republican in recent elections, including Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia.

The Democrats are also widely expected to take big gains in House and Senate races. Like Obama, they're reaching deep into once solid Republican territory. Even such stalwarts as North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, could be in jeopardy.

Building on the Democrats' sweeping wins two years ago when they seized control of both chambers of Congress, big gains this year would be reminiscent of the Republican gains in 1978 and 1980 that delivered "the Reagan Revolution."

Former Reagan political adviser Ed Rollins likened today's landscape to that in 1980, when voters were angry at President Jimmy Carter and the Democrats and turned to Reagan in droves once they felt comfortable with the idea of him as president.

"Barack has met the threshold," Rollins said. "Once Reagan met the threshold, people wanted to get rid of Carter and they did in a landslide. This is going to turn into a landslide."

Democrats already had a political advantage heading into the fall campaign, with just 9 percent of Americans thinking the country's on the right track, the lowest ever recorded. President Bush's approval rating this week was only a point higher than Richard Nixon's on the day he was forced to resign from office, reflecting voter anger at Republicans as the party controlling the White House.

Add the collapse of stock prices and anxiety about the economy, and polls show public opinion surging in favor of Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 01:31 PM

Monday, October 13, 2008
BARONE: The coming liberal thugocracy
Michael Barone
COMMENTARY:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 01:39 PM

that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false."

What's your definition of libel, BB?

As I recall it has to do with making false statements of defamatory nature abouot someone. Because it is harmful, it has gradually been proscribed by law. Correct?

Or do you thing people should be encouraged to break the law?

There's a large difference between free speech and the freedom to defame and libel irresponsibly. Speech intends to communicate.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM

< Back to Front Page Text size – + Obama gets newspapers' support
Email|Link|Comments (4) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor October 13, 2008 12:14 PM
Over the last few days, Democrat Barack Obama racked up a bevy of newspaper endorsements that, as much as they praised him, soured on Republican John McCain.

"We believe the person best equipped by temperament and intellect to firmly grasp the reins of government and guide it safely forward in these uncertain times is Barack Obama," said the Toledo Blade.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch opined that Obama "has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions. In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential."

"Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man," the Post-Dispatch added. "He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear. He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, 'County First,' by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan's No. 2 in 1896."

The Dayton Daily News complained that "Sen. McCain's campaign has been as disappointing as his move toward party orthodoxy. More than his opponent, he has run a relentless stream of commercials that have been discredited by nonpartisan fact-checkers. (Last week, all his ads were negative.) He has articulated no vision for the country other than to suggest that it should believe in him as an individual, as a war hero of independent judgment. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate was stunning. She is shockingly lacking in presidential qualifications. Some of Sen. McCain's most enthusiastic supporters have been forced to admit this. Her defenders say her resume compares well with Sen. Obama's, but it does not… [I]n a time of change, Sen. Obama is the more promising leader. With his agile mind, often pitch-perfect judgment and preternatural calm and self-confidence, he seems built for the job of sorting through this thing, if anybody can."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the State Journal in Madison, Wisc., were among other papers backing Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 02:13 PM

One of the early tests of Barack Obama's political skills came when he was a law student at Harvard University in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Gaining the support of both progressive and conservative editors, Mr. Obama was selected as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He had decided to seek the post believing that he might help ease ideological tensions at the journal even as the campus was embroiled in divisive doctrinal and political debates over issues like faculty diversity.

The uproar included the protests of Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first black professor to win tenure at the law school, who took an unpaid leave of absence and eventually resigned over the lack of a tenured black woman on its faculty.

In the midst of those battles, Mr. Obama presided over difficult debates among intellectuals with wildly different and intensely held views. Yet he was able to set an amicable tone at the journal, according to Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor who taught Mr. Obama and served as his mentor.

Mr. Ogletree and others who have known Mr. Obama, now a U.S. senator from Illinois, say his record at Harvard provides an indication of how he might govern as president.

The editors of the law journal "saw him as a coalescing force around which they could come together and do high-quality work," Mr. Ogletree says. "He was able to gently steer them without anyone feeling compromised or undermined in their views."...
Chronicle of Higher Education

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 05:00 PM

Frank Schaeffer publishes the definitive article on Barack Obama at the Huffington Post site.

An excerpt:

" say this as a white, former life-long Republican. I say this as the proud father of a Marine. I say this as just another American watching his pension evaporate along with the stock market! I speak as someone who knows it's time to forget party loyalty, ideology and pride and put the country first. I say this as someone happy to be called a fool for going out on a limb and declaring that, 1) Obama will win, and 2) he is going to be amongst the greatest of American presidents.

Obama is our last best chance. He's worth laying it all on the line for.

This is a man who in the age of greed took the high road of community service. This is the good father and husband. This is the humble servant. This is the patient teacher. This is the scholar statesman. This is the man of deep Christian faith.

Good stories about Obama abound; from his personal relationship with his Secret Service agents (he invites them into his home to watch sports, and shoots hoops with them) to the story about how, more than twenty years ago, while standing in the check-in line at an airport, Obama paid a $100 baggage surcharge for a stranger who was broke and stuck. (Obama was virtually penniless himself in those days.) Years later after he became a senator, that stranger recognized Obama's picture and wrote to him to thank him. She received a kindly note back from the senator. (The story only surfaced because the person, who lives in Norway, told a local newspaper after Obama ran for the presidency. The paper published a photograph of this lady proudly displaying Senator Obama's letter.)

Where many leaders are two-faced; publicly kindly but privately feared and/or hated by people closest to them, Obama is consistent in the way he treats people, consistently kind and personally humble. He lives by the code that those who lead must serve. He believes that. He lives it. He lived it long before he was in the public eye.

Obama puts service ahead of ideology. He also knows that to win politically you need to be tough. He can be. He has been. This is a man who does what works, rather than scoring ideological points. In other words he is the quintessential non-ideological pragmatic American. He will (thank God!) disappoint ideologues and purists of the left and the right."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:24 PM

"He will (thank God!)"



                And that, of course, is the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:55 PM

Only, good Rig, if you are one of those ideologues.

Which I suppose you must be, judging from your reactive little posts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:42 PM

It's just that I think we need to progress towards a workable solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:52 PM

So, Mr. Hypocrite, since you don't like "thank God" ,exactly why is the McCain/ Palin ticket preferable on that issue?

And anybody who doesn't support Obama/Biden is ipso facto supporting McCain/Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:58 PM

Well, it is possible to document the facts being put forward by the Obama people about what he's said and his life history. So that would mean that the anti-Obama side is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:59 PM

Okay, Ron, I would agree. Given the choices we have McCain/Palin is preferable to Obama/Biden. I wish there were other choices out there, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:13 PM

McCain - Palin is a path toward a lot more destruction, pal. Shake off any delusions on that score.

But, hell, is a bit like discussing with a stone wall to point out, yet again, the reasons why this is so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:23 PM

Anyone who says they prefer Ralph Nader but then chooses McCain over Obama seems really confused about what Nader stands for. The fact is, my views match those of Nader more than any other candidate, but McCain is WAY down the list, far away from Nader's views.
If you go to
http://selectsmart.com/president/2008.html and select your views, it will match your views to those of the candidates and show you what percentage each agrees with you.

Here is the way the issues and the candidats match up with my views on the issues:
Ralph Nader   (81%)
Barack Obama   (76%)
Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (75%)
17 other candidates who ran in decreasing agreement until the
list reaches
John McCain   (20%)

So, Rig, your views agree with Obama a lot more than you think if you prefer Nader. If Nader's views and mine agree 81% and McCain only 20%, I really wonder why you would not vote for Obama. It must be something other than the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:50 PM

Mr conflicted Amos:

"As it is, you sound like a parrot"

"I have to echo Bobert's remarks here."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:49 AM

"He will (thank God!) disappoint ideologues and purists of the left and the right." Frank Shaeffer

"He will (thank God!)"

And that, of course, is the problem!" Rig

Surely, surely, Rig, you're not that dense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:33 AM

How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of)

Imagine an election where one of the participants calls foul. Investigations are launched or at least called for. Prosecutors raise the specter of charges, the U.S. attorney and FBI get involved. No voter fraud is ever actually found. But by the time that conclusion is reached, the myth has been solidified both to soothe the loser's supporters and condemn the winner.

Sound familiar? Sound like the recent ACORN scandal?

Well, actually I'm talking about the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. That Nixon was cheated out of a win is the stuff of legend on the Right. The allegations say that Kennedy loyalists fixed the vote counts in Illinois and Texas--swinging 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College to Kennedy. In more hyperbolic versions there is alleged involvement by the mob, the Teamsters Union or legendary Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

The story goes on that Nixon, "for the good of the country," conceded honorably and exited the scene. No matter that Nixon was later chased out of the White House for cheating in an election. The myth endures.

This whole story--maybe to be replayed with Obama playing Kennedy and McCain playing Nixon--is a canard. It is a fable. A lie made up by the conservative movement to hold together their fraying coalition.

In 2008 the stakes are bigger than they've ever been before for conservatives and the canard is that much more important to them.

In the case of Obama the conservative movement is lining up a serious of story elements. They are:

    • Obama was a community organizer.
    • ACORN, a group that does community organizing, has committed voter fraud.
    • Obama is from Chicago.
    • You know what happens in elections in Chicago. Remember the 1960 election.

The story is half true and half lies. As we all know, Barack Obama is from Chicago and was a community organizer. Those are the only true parts of the conservative story. But the other two facts are myths: the 1960 election wasn't stolen (says the conclusion of recounts and investigations in 1960 and numerous academic studies since). And, ACORN has not committed voter fraud. Not one bit.

The facts about ACORN are worth getting out. ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn't do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn't want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.

But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards--calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.

The sad fact is that in at least one state--Nevada--the voting officials disregarded ACORN's cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.

The stunning con of this whole thing is the assumption that bad voter registration cards being submitted will lead to vote fraud. If somebody submits a card for Mickey Mouse it isn't like Mr. Mouse is going to show up to vote. There is no voter fraud if nobody votes.

But the big story here is what the Right is doing. Their attacks on ACORN open up the door for two things.

First, the ACORN myth allows the Republicans to do more purging of the voter rolls--the process of removing people from the voter rolls because of arbitrary anomalies in the voter registration databases. Richard L Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog and a distinguished law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles recently wrote, "Careless purging--driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud--can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls." Already in Ohio the Republican Party is pushing for more purging and they found a federal judge who agreed citing ACORN's activities.

Second, in the event that campaigning, purging and intimidating voters doesn't work, the Right is creating a myth like they did in 1960. They are creating the myth of a stolen election. Conservatives plan to claim that ACORN and Barack Obama stole the election. Their hope is to steal the legitimacy of what is looking like a massive repudiation of Bush, conservatives and the Republican Party. The Right plans to steal the election by trying to steal the legitimate defeat of them by progressive forces.

And why wouldn't they? The entire Republican coalition could be shattered with this election. White suburban voters who once voted Republican on tax issues are running away from Republicans on a host of issues--including taxes. Independent are looking more and more like Democratic voters. Barack Obama may even win a majority of male voters. All of them are joining with urban votes, voters of color, young people, working class union members and others to form a long-term governing majority for progressives--a progressive majority.

Conservatives are scared of a progressive majority. And they're going to lie, cheat and steal to prevent it from happening. But they can only be successful if we let them.

The best way to deflate the conservative fable is to win with an overwhelming landslide that guarantees there won't be a dispute of the results.

We also need to confront the Republican vote purging and suppression. Already big efforts by the Obama campaign, the DNC and independent groups are working on this. Progressives and Democrats are united in this effort.

But we also need to make sure the ACORN canard doesn't get to live in daylight. It is time to circle the wagons and make sure John McCain and the Right can't steal the election...even if we win.

For progressives, the ball is in our court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matzzie/how-mccain-will-steal-the_b_133989.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:47 AM

Who else worked with Ayers?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:06 AM

CarolC

And the 2000 eleection was not stolen, either, by the facts of the matter and the post-election investigation- but most here believe it was...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:38 AM

I suspect it was, but I have seen no conclusive evidence it was or was not. At the time it seemed certain, because the Supreme Court wrote an illogical decree.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:48 AM

"The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out."


IF Gore had been honest, and asked for the ENTIRE state to be recounted, he WOULD have won- since he asked that ONLY the precincts that he thought he could pick up votes in be recounted, EVEN IF THEY HAD RECOUNTED he would have lost.

Facts= No "seemed" about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:53 AM

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)   
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals   
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)   
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:59 AM

Well, the facts are, as you say, that the state on the whole voted for Gore and got Bush. And note that your polemic, however fervent, does not take into account voters disenfranchised by the partisan manipulations of the Jeb and Katherine Harris axis of weevils.

Also, the fact is that the machinery of politics buying the Supremes played an important illegitimate role in the outcome as well.

Note, too, that 12 states in that election were "decided" by less than 5%, and the extent of disenfranchisement in any of them is debatable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:03 AM

Why do people say they do not trust Obama and that he scares them?

Because that is what they are told to think.

Based on my own reasearch, the AM clear channel radio stations repeat the phrases I do not trust Obama and Obama scares me (or an equivalent saying) as much as 36 times an hour and a low of 3 times an hour. The rate of repeating these sayings is only slightly lower than it was 2 months ago. When you include alleged annoymous call in people the rate is higher than it was two months ago.

Even serious pundits are stating that people feel that Obama scares them, when the truth is that is only what people have been told to think. Consider for a moment the average American man calling a radio show and admitting he is full of fear regarding "such and such", it does not happen. People tend to guard their fears as one of the most private of all emotions. It is tantamount to saying "I am a coward".

I am willing to go on npr and present my findings against the framework of my long standing experience with hypnosis and my life long quest to expose propoganda and free people from false memory and and emotion.

My first newspaper article on propoganda and hypnosis appeared in the Democrat and Chronicle, a Gannet publication. There I stated that people gobble up gobbledegook and feel full of information when it was really just the equivalent of junk food.

The opinion that people don't know Obama or that they are scared is not a self generated emotion, while it does play into the hands of racial unease by some.

It is only a planted false emotion.

Watch and listen to eople who now repeat that mantra of fear and unknowing, they stumble on the words as they might when recalling an event that they think happened but did not actually occur. The McCain campaign is now folding in the notion of 9-11 terrorist associations on top of the foundation of being scared and not trusting and it causes susceptable people to feel that they have been told thaqat Barack is an Arab.   This subjective observation...

This should be enough to get my point...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:10 AM

James Baker has said the events portrayed in the film, recount are factual accurate and a true representation of what happened in Florida.

I too believe that Obama would have to have a at least a 20% lead in the polls to barely win the election by a hair.

Between disenfranchising people from access to the polls and malicious voting software, Barack would need an enormous cushion to overcome the tricks of the trade of elections today.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:28 AM

"Anyone who says they prefer Ralph Nader but then chooses McCain over Obama seems really confused about what Nader stands for."


                     Not at all, he/she is probably just repulsed at what Obama stands for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 11:07 AM

I see that one member has become only very recently repulsed by the notion of becoming a citizen with a fair vested interest in their future rather than a puppet for the infinitly wealthy.

Why is that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 11:44 AM

Rig, what Nader stands for and what Obama stands for are not very different. There is something else that makes you against Obama than what he stands for. What you are saying is illogical, if you support Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:23 PM

"Not at all, he/she is probably just repulsed at what Obama stands for."

Well, Obama does stand for, in the minds of some people, the main thing that they fear: uppity Black people in power over White people. shudder

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:40 PM

RIg:

Exactly what are you referring to in the phrase "what Obama stands for"??? SPeak the truth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM

"what Obama stands for"???




          Self serving corruption!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 01:10 PM

Riginslimer, du bist ein esel.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:16 PM

"The Permanent (Smear) Campaign
        
Conservatives realize that a successful Obama presidency could remake American politics. If Obama wins the election, they will try to destroy his presidency with lies, just as they sought to do to Bill Clinton.
        
PAUL WALDMAN | October 14, 2008 | web only
        

Throughout his nearly two-year-long campaign for the White House, Barack Obama has talked about Americans' hunger for unity -- their ache for a government that will get past the petty divisions of recent decades, put aside partisanship, and come together to solve problems. From what we can tell, Obama's desire to provide that kind of presidency is sincere and stems from his own personality and history. Throughout his life, people have remarked on his ability to make those who disagree with him feel as though he has listened to their perspective and approached them with an open mind, even if he hasn't brought them around to agreeing with him.

But as we finally approach the end of this campaign, one has to wonder whether Obama knows quite what he's in for. Not what will happen over the next three weeks but what he'll face if he actually wins. Because for all his talk of bringing Americans together, a President Obama could face an opposition so consumed with disgust and anger and outright hate that it would make the 1990s look like a tea party.

That, of course, was what was supposed to happen if Hillary Clinton were the nominee. In fact, one of the arguments Obama supporters made early in the primary process was that if Clinton prevailed, the vast right-wing conspiracy would kick into high gear, besieging the woman they had hated so much for so long with an assault of unimagined viciousness. But now there is little doubt that that machinery of obsessive hostility was easily retrofitted for a new target.

Obama's apparently genuine desire for civility and inclusiveness shouldn't be mistaken for naiveté; as his opponents have discovered, he knows how to wield a shiv when necessary. In this race he has had to deal not only with the institutional efforts against him from his opponent and the Republican National Committee, but with a widely distributed campaign of smears and lies spread through viral e-mails and extremist Web sites. Unlike the McCain campaign, this broader effort will not fold up operations on Nov. 4. If Obama wins, the people now devoting their energies to seeing that he doesn't get elected will simply devote their energies to seeing that his presidency goes down in flames.

And the urgency of their cause (if not the despicable tactics they will no doubt use to advance it) will be thoroughly justified. Conservatives will quickly realize that the extraordinary challenges facing the government provide the opportunity for Obama to be either a spectacular failure or one of America's greatest presidents.

No president accomplishes all of his goals, but consider what Obama has before him. No matter what else he does, there are four large tasks on which his term in office will likely be judged. If he sees the country through the current economic crisis, brings the war in Iraq to an end, passes health-care reform that actually achieves something close to universal coverage, and sets the country on a course away from a reliance on fossil fuels, Obama would be considered the most important president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. If he succeeds, his presidency would be a mirror image of George W. Bush's, with accomplishments equal in grandeur to Bush's failures.

And that, of course, would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. It took 24 years after the death of the greatest Democratic president for an actual conservative (Richard Nixon) to win the White House, and Roosevelt's legacy was such that even Ronald Reagan's assaults on the New Deal and the Great Society were more rhetorical than substantive. Reagan may have hated Social Security and Medicare, but he wasn't going to risk his presidency in a futile attempt to dismantle them.

The danger for the GOP is that Obama's potential accomplishments could be just as lasting. If he does usher in a new energy paradigm, Republicans won't get anywhere advocating a return to the old one (and no matter what, it seems unlikely that we'll be hearing those weirdly gleeful chants of "Drill, baby drill!" after this election is over). If he guides us out of Iraq with a minimum of ensuing chaos, their foreign-policy and national security proposals will continue to be stained by the memory of conservative support for Bush's disastrous escapades. If Obama actually passes health-care reform, Americans will be grateful to Democrats for at least mitigating one of our most anxiety-provoking public-policy problems. And Republicans are already denying that they were ever really serious about the free-market fundamentalism that they championed for so long and that has proven so calamitous to the economy. If Obama sees us through to an economic revival, it will be almost impossible for them to explain why their ideas about the economy ought not be dismissed out of hand...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:25 AM

Hank updated his classic “Family Traditionâ€쳌 for the 2008 presidential campaign:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:44 AM

Jesse Jackson: Obama will rid United States of 'Zionist' control


The New York Post reported Tuesday that the Rev. Jesse Jackson said the United States will rid itself of years of "Zionist" control under an administration headed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The daily quoted the veteran civil rights leader on Tuesday as having said that although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they will lose a much of their clout when Obama enters the White House.

Speaking at the first World Policy Forum event in Evian, France, Jackson promised "fundamental changes" in U.S. foreign policy. He said the most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
        Advertisement
Jackson said that Obama "wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy." He went on to criticize the Bush administration's handling of Middle East diplomacy, telling the Post, "Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss. Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

Hank's rework is really sad--a bunch of jingoistic party soundbites strung together to a hackneyed tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM

Obama will rid the USA of Zionist control???

Awright! There's another great reason to vote for Obama. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 10:50 AM

An interesting armchair psychological analsyis of Barack Obama, from David Brooks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:17 PM

Who's Playing the Race Card?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A25

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association -- with total strangers, mind you -- but worse: guilty according to the New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations -- 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN -- you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person . . . that you do not have to be scared [of] as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

The search for McCain's racial offenses is untiring and often unhinged. Remember McCain's Berlin/celebrity ad that showed a shot of Paris Hilton? An appalling attempt to exploit white hostility at the idea of black men "becoming sexually involved with white women," fulminated New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower. Just photographs seen in every newspaper in the world of Barack Obama's Berlin rally in the setting he himself had chosen, Berlin's Victory Column.

Herbert is not the only fevered one. On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice.

This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card, too?

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Rev. Wright.

In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card.

How brilliantly? The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a preemptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

Those who yap McCainisms and Bushisms in their support--including major media outlets--have been emphasizing that "funny name" over and over, and Krauthammer is completely aware of it. Nor have either Bush OR McCain said anything to correct the abuse of tyhat name as a ridiculous pushbutton to stir up FUD in voters. Krauthammer is a professional disingenue.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 07:26 PM

LOL

Original lyrics to the Hank Williams Jr. song, Family Tradition...


Country music singers
have always been a real close family
but lately some of my kin folks
have disowned a few others and me
i guess its because
i kinda changed my direction
i guess i went and broke the family tradition

they get on me wanna know Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
over and over
everybody made my prediction
so if i get stoned
I'm just carryin'
on an old family tradition

I am very proud
of my daddys name
although his kinda music
and mine ain't exactly the same
stop and think it over
put yourself in my position
if i get stoned and sing all night long
it's a family tradition

Don't ask me Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
If I'm down in a Honky-Tonk
Some ol' slicks tryin to give me corrections
I'll say leave me alone
I'm singin all night long
it's a family tradition

Lordy, I have loved some ladies
and I have loved Jim Beam
and they both tried to kill me
in 1973
when that doctor asked me
Son how did you get in this condition
I said hey sawbones I'm just carryin on
an old family tradition

So don't ask me Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs you wrote?
Stop and think it over
Try and put yourself in my unique position
If I get stoned and sing all night long
It's a family tradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 03:15 PM

In Saint Louis, Missouri, the crowd that showed up today to hear Obama speak was estimated at 100,000 or more people.

Photo:
click

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 08:23 PM

That picture--the largest crowd ever assembled at a political event--is worth a thousand words. Thanks, Alice.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 08:27 PM

Olberman on Obama's counter-attack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 09:40 PM

From the traditionally Republican Chicago Tribune:

The historically Republican newspaper has crossed sides for the first time in its history to endorse its native son:

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
...

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

...

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 10:06 PM

An endorsement of Obama by the Los Angeles Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 11:29 PM

From the Baltimore Chronicle:

...In so many ways, Obama has tacked to the middle or even the right, while spouting soaring but empty rhetoric about "change."

Meanwhile, everything Ralph Nader says makes perfect sense. He has consistently called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the crimes that they are. He has consistently called for a nationalized health care system, which every other modern nation has long since proven to be a more cost-effective and health-effective way to run a medical system than the failed free-market approach advocated by Obama and the rest of the Establishment political system. He has correctly denounced the economic bailout as welfare for the rich and for the corporate criminals who have been sucking the life out of the US economy for years.

And yet, I think I have to vote of Obama this year.

The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out.


But even more important, when I see the hate-filled racists and right-wing yahoos braying at McCain and Palin rallies, when I hear people calling for Obama to be killed or lynched, and when I see the rabid hate mail circulating in email inboxes falsely labeling him as a secret Muslim, a terrorist, a Marxist and a black nationalist, I want to see the man resoundingly win this election.

But it's more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.

Call me naïve, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the history of the country has come to the office with such a background. That is no small thing....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 09:29 AM

Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune:

"It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans, Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they

(a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and

(b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM

Your argument collapses completely on the use of the word "association", Sawz. You and I are associated, too, but my character is not slurred by your constant output of irrational fearmongering. Ayers is a strawman in this discussion, waved around by wishful thinking.

"ormer Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Endorses Obama

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, former
Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama
for president.

New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM

Powell's endorsement makes the race an open racial conflict. I doubt if it will turn out well, no matter how it turns out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:41 AM

Rig:

That is the most heinous thing I've heatrd you say. And, as one opinion against another, it's a load of codswallop.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:57 AM

So Colin Powell is allowed to endorse White candidates (as he did John McCain in the Republican primary) but he's not allowed to endorse a Black candidate? He's only allowed to endorse a White candidate just because he's Black ?

Am I getting this right?

Colin Powell is not allowed to endorse a Black candidate without being accused of being motivated by race ?

So let me see if I'm getting this right... us White folks can vote for other White folks and that's not about race, but Black people can't vote for other Black people because if they do, that means it's all about race.

Did I get that right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 09:04 AM

Nothing right about it, Carol; it's just Rigslimer getting a bit desperate; no matter how hard he flaps his arms he isn't getting any lift.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:02 AM

We'll see how it plays in Peroria!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:44 AM

Debunking some of Tom Brokaw's Toxic BS -- specifically about Ayers being called a terrorist, inter alia.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:04 AM

Dear Amos:

Even though I am a lowly burger flipper and car parker and you are among the intelligensia, You and I are associated, but my character is not slurred by your constant output of irrational fearmongering.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:29 PM

Well, that's good to know, Sawz. I don't flog fear, as a rule--I am more in favor of intelligent analysis and personal courage in stating what one knows, sees, or thinks.

Sounds like you're borrowing my phrasebook again. Do let me have it back when you're done. I want to use some of its excoriating, scintillating, diamantine flourishes to expose the Know-Nothing party just over the hill. Well, a long way over the hill, now that I mention it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:45 PM

The reason the Know-Nothing party don't know nothin' is 'cause they keep readin' the Daily.Kos. They don't get no insightful information that a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:14 PM

From the Editors of The New Republic:

The New Republic) This column was written by The Editors of The New Republic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The past eight years have been like watching a TV makeover show in reverse. We entered the Bush era a ravishing beauty attracting envious stares. We leave it a gum-smacking sad sack with split ends and an empty social calendar. Over the course of George W. Bush's second term, in particular, the images of our country have not just been unattractive but virtually apocalyptic: a major city destroyed; cars raining into the Mississippi from a crumbling bridge; swaths of exurbia dotted with foreclosed homes; a financial system in ruins; angry emotionalism flooding politics.

There are many causes of this bleak age, and not all of them can be laid at the feet of the president. But there's no doubt that Bush has run down the one engine capable of making our vast economic and physical infrastructure function properly: the federal government. He has disregarded the tenets that have guided the state since the Progressive Era--deference to disinterested expertise, an apolitical civil service, reliance on regulation to protect the common good. The ethos of the executive branch under his command has been one of "heckuva job" hackery and anti-intellectualism. So the next president will not just inherit an economic crisis, a health care crisis, an environmental crisis, an infrastructural crisis, and, oh yes, two wars, an overstretched military, and a looming Iranian threat. He will inherit a government weakened to the point that it has become ill-equipped to protect the well-being of its citizens.

It's hardly surprising that, as a matter of policy, we overwhelmingly prefer that Barack Obama win the prize of dealing with this mess. But it is his temperament and smarts that give us some hope that he can do more than manage the damage wrought by Bush--that he can actually take advantage of the once-in-a-century opportunity presented by the current crisis and transform the American state.

Any endorsement comes with doubts. We have our share. With a candidate lacking in experience, how can you not? We wish that he had greater fluency in the global economy and the financial system he will likely remake. In foreign policy, Obama's slender record offers few clues. At moments--for instance, during his shaky response to Russia's invasion of Georgia--we ourselves have had jitters.

But we also have hopes that Obama will govern as the person who revealed himself in this campaign. On the whole, he has turned in one of the more impressive performances in recent political history--demonstrating an ability to explain complex ideas in plainspoken English, impeccable managerial skills, evenness of temper, avoidance of sloppy errors, and pragmatism, not to mention that he can really deliver a speech.

If the John McCain of 2001 or 2002 were running, this might be a far closer call. At that time, this magazine considered McCain a truly great political figure. During the 2000 primaries, we endorsed Al Gore and John McCain, an unorthodox step for us. Better than anyone in Washington, McCain made the case against creeping income inequality and political corruption. Oftentimes, we found ourselves wishing that his Democratic counterparts spoke with such clarity. Indeed, a cover story we ran urged him to switch parties. We didn't expect that he would listen, but we didn't expect that he would transform himself into a Sean Hannity conservative, either. And we certainly failed to appreciate how his impulsiveness could lead him to such spectacularly bad decisions (Sarah Palin) and such a spectacularly incoherent campaign. The implosion of the old McCain, if he ever truly existed as we imagined, saddens us, not least because the candidate he's become is so poorly suited to the challenges of the moment.

Obama, by contrast, has the makings of a man who understands the times. In these pages, our colleague Cass R. Sunstein has described his governing style as "visionary minimalism." By this, he means Obama will work to achieve an ambitious agenda but will revise his opinion when the evidence dictates a different course. He is a sincere liberal but without the temperament of an ideologue. His health care and environmental plans are broadly progressive but make concessions to the free market and do not fit the platonic ideals of the left. He doesn't intend to create a single-payer system (alas) and expresses openness to nuclear power. His recent education rhetoric has incorporated the best of the reform movement.

You can already grasp the political benefits of this style. It's striking how many conservatives have complimented Obama, even those who oppose him. No less than Charles Krauthammer has declared that he possesses a "first-class intellect and a first-class temperament." His appeal to the right has everything to do with his detached style. Obama has even been described as a Burkean. Unlike Bush, he actually listens to those with whom he vehemently disagrees; and, in the course of debating John McCain, he frequently, and without hesitation, voiced agreement.

Now, braininess and a knack for riffing on Reinhold Niebuhr hardly guarantees a successful presidency. But this is a distinct moment with an economy that won't likely be healed by the simple application of off-the-shelf ideological prescriptions or a diminished government blanched of experts. In the middle of this recession, the national mood will run raw. Major policy changes, now inevitable, will exacerbate the anger.

Fortunately, Obama has a fetish for data and the company of social scientists, as Noam Scheiber has shown in his reporting. And, just as important, he has the soothing demeanor that might calm tempers and the gift for language that could make necessary, but not necessarily popular, policies more palatable. His election offers an opportunity to roll back the Bush legacy and perhaps--if he turns out to be the rare transformational president that occurs when man and moment meld--even restore us to our former beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:14 PM

Obama widening lead over McCain, new poll indicates
Barack Obama is back up to his largest lead of the past month, 11 pts, over John McCain, according to the latest Gallup daily tracking poll.

Obama maintained 52 percent of support among registered voters, compared to 41 percent support for McCain.

It's the fourth time in the past two weeks that Obama's support in the daily poll has registered at 52 percent.

McCain's support also matches his low water mark in the poll.

The poll would seem to indicate McCain's message is not breaking through.

On the other hand, it's a poll. the actual vote is only two weeks away now, sowe might as well wait for that to see what Americans are really thinking.

The margin for error on this poll is +/- 2. And, as always, it is a national, not a state by state poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:52 AM

In other endorsement news, the editorial page of The Bryan-College Station Eagle, a newspaper in central Texas that has never backed a Democrat for president, has published an editorial in support of Obama's candidacy. The editorial begins:

In the past 50 years, The Eagle has never recommended a Democrat for president. We made no recommendations in 1960 and 1964 — when Texas' own Lyndon B. Johnson was on the Democratic ticket — nor did we in 1968 — although we did praise Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey's position on the Vietnam War. We did not in 1976 and 1980. In 1972, The Eagle recommend Richard Nixon, in 1984, Ronald Reagan. We recommended George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992 and his son in 2000. We recommended Bob Dole in 1996.

Four years ago, the Editorial Board couldn't recommend George W. Bush for a second term, but we also couldn't recommend Sen. John Kerry either, so we made no choice.
...(NYT)

"Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.

Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years." (Excerpt from the editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:55 AM

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, an informal adviser to Barack Obama for several months, is joining the Democratic nominee on the campaign trail.

Schmidt will appear today with Obama in the tightly contested state of Florida to talk about the economy. Although Schmidt announced his backing of Obama in Monday's Wall Street Journal, he has been advising the campaign on technology and clean-energy issues for most of the summer.

For years, Schmidt was a major Democratic fundraiser and high-profile supporter of Democratic candidates, notably 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore, who now serves as a senior adviser to Google.

But Schmidt has kept a low partisan profile during the 2008 campaign, offering up Mountain View's Google headquarters to all the presidential candidates for both parties during the primaries. Earlier in the year, he made supportive comments for energy independence plans proposed by both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Schmidt also showed up at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, where he spoke to a group of bloggers whose convention-reporting headquarters were partly paid for by Google.

As Google grows, so does its interest in government. The Justice Department has yet to issue a ruling on Google's proposed ad-sharing deal with Yahoo, which some legislators believe would give Google too much control over online advertising rates. The company also has lobbied on issues such as Net neutrality; it opposes allowing
telecommunications companies to set different rates for slower or faster levels of Internet service.

A statement from Google said the company "of course remains neutral" in the presidential race. As for Schmidt, the statement continues, "he believes that it is time for a change in America. In addition, his personal views on technology and energy are similar to Senator Obama's." ... (Mercury News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:59 AM

Yes, I don't see anyway Barack Obama can help but win at this point. The big losers in all of this, of course, are the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:08 AM

Wrong again, Rig.

This must not be a regulation game--usually, you whiff that many times, you are sent back to the bench.

I invite you to name one particular impact of an Obama election that will be a loss tot he American people in one specific way.

Your nabobbery and generalized gloomery makes you sound like a dingbat. I know you are not a dingbat, but sometimes you sound like one. I'm just saying.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 07:10 AM

It seems to me that Obama sees himself as a world leader, and not the leader of the American people. I living up to the bench mark he has set for himself, I think he will sell his own country down the river.

                I've been accused of not being consistant by backing Hillary in the primary, and not backing Obama in the general election, because their stated objectives are very similar.

                The difference is, I see Hillary as one who would honestly try to bring those objectives to fruition, whereas Obama just says those things, and when he gets into office I expect his agenda to be very different. I don't trust him to carry out his promises to the people, and his behavior in the election reinforces those suspicions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 09:07 AM

Well, at least you have voiced your misgiving, and I honor that. I would remark that the American president is of course a world leader to a large degree.

Your mistrust is another matter. I have no way of knowing what you are basing it on, but you might want to ask yourself if in some way you are projecting your own shortcomings or past disappointments in others on him?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 11:05 AM

There are a number of things. The way he handles things like this ACORN problem. Instead of admitting he was involved with ACORN but things have changed, because that's harder to explain, he just denys involvement.

                      Turning his back on public financing really puts the entire process in doubt. It's back to whoever has the most money wins.

                      But when he said he was going to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, I really lost all hope.

                      At this point, I'm just going to sit back and watch what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: DougR
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 01:08 PM

Popular view? That's simple, isn't it? He's the messiah.   Right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 01:43 PM

It's unclear. At the Al Smith dinner he said he was Clark Kent!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 05:07 PM

A new round of CNN polls in five red states has some very good news for Barack Obama: He's leading in four out of the five, with a huge lead in Virginia.

• Nevada: Obama 51%, McCain 46%, with a ±3.5% margin of error. Three weeks ago, Obama was up 51%-47%.

• North Carolina: Obama 51%, McCain 47%, with a ±4% margin of error. Two weeks ago, it was a 49%-49% tie.

• Ohio: Obama 50%, McCain 46%, with a ±3.5% margin of error. Two weeks ago, Obama was ahead 50%-47%.

• Virginia: Obama 54%, McCain 44%, outside of the ±4% margin of error. This is basically unchanged from Obama's 53%-43% lead a week ago.

• West Virginia: McCain 53%, Obama 44%, outside of the ±4% margin of error. A month ago, McCain was only up 50%-46%, so this is the one sliver of good news for him in here.

All five of these states voted twice for George W. Bush, and the four where Obama is ahead add up to 53 electoral votes. John McCain pretty much needs to hold on to all 53 of them, or else it will be exceedingly difficult for him to pull off a victory.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:46 AM

Secret of Obama tax planned revealed

I have learned how Barack Obama plans to cut taxes for 95% of the public, even though only 40% of people pay income taxes. The explanation came from a young man calling from an Obama phone bank, one of millions of such calls being made these days. Before we discussed the tax proposals, the college-age caller informed me that:

-Sarah Palin belongs to a church whose pastor believes in witchcraft, and that she is anti-Semitic.

-Obama will give me government-run health care and will pay for it, and all his other programs, by taxing the rich and corporations. When I pointed out that the wealthy already pay the majority of income taxes, and that corporations don't really pay taxes, that they -- for the most part -- simply pass those taxes on to consumers, he sounded confused, as though they were concepts he had never heard before.

-Under Obama's health plan I will be able to go to any doctor, including the most expensive specialists I can find, and the government will pay for it and all my other medical expenses, no matter how high the cost. Again, paid for by increased taxes only on the rich and corporations.

-After my questions about Obama's connection to ACORN, and the numerous investigations into widespread ACORN voter fraud, that John McCain was trying to prevent students from voting. His evidence? He had heard that nugget on one Air America talk show. He sincerely believed it to be the moral equivalent to the numerous investigations into ACORN voter fraud.

-McCain's economic policies would be devastating. When asked if he knew anything about McCain's proposals, he admitted he did not.

-Obama will hire people to drive down "high" unemployment, although he was unaware of where unemployment current stands (6.1% in September) or that it is low by historical standards.

-Obama will increase employment by giving tax breaks for corporations to bring jobs back to America. When I said my understanding was that the tax break would be $3,000 per job and asked how many people he thought would be willing to work for $3,000 a year, he said he would. He apparently had no concept of how little money that would be.

-The stock market will tank further if McCain is elected. When I pointed out that the stock market is a forward-looking mechanism, and that at least some of the market's recent fall has been the result of pricing in an expected Obama victory, he simply continued to maintain the market would fall if McCain is elected.

Finally, I asked the troubling question about how Obama will ensure a tax break for 95% of people--despite the fact that about 40% don't pay income taxes. He struggled with that one for a while. Again, it seemed to be a foreign concept to him, like no one had ever raised the subject before. He stumbled through a series of answers. Obama would "give" the unemployed jobs so that they could pay taxes and get a tax break. When I reminded him that would only account for 6%, he--in a tribute to the American education system--said that Obama was really talking about the 55% difference between 95 and 40. I reminded him that Obama had specified 95%, not 55%. He replied that "Obama didn't really mean that." I asked if he, the caller, was really supporting a candidate who lied about something so important?

He told me to wait while he talked to his supervisor. I could overhear bits of a conversation in which he referred to me, rather politely, as "a difficult one." (At least he didn't call me THAT one.)When he returned to the phone, he informed me that Obama would reach the 95% figure by initiating taxes on the 40% who don't pay income taxes now, so that he could later give them their promised tax break.

I don't know which is scarier: that the young man knew so little about the policies of the candidate for whom he had volunteered to work, that the young man's supervisor apparently knew little more, or that the talking heads say that young people like him could determine this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:54 AM

RCP's national average has increased in favor of Mr. Obama to >7%:

Poll       Date             Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 10/16 - 10/22 -- -- 50.1    42.7       Obama+7.4

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 04:37 PM

GOP's Arne Carlson endorses Obama
The former governor said Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis.

By MIKE KASZUBA, Star Tribune

Last update: October 23, 2008 - 1:43 PM

David Brewster, Star Tribune


Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama today, saying Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis and criticizing Republicans for waging a mean-spirited campaign that has "been going down all these side roads."

Introduced to a standing ovation at the State Capitol by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, Carlson said his party had strayed from the moderate philosophies of past Republican leaders such as Ohio Sen. Robert Taft and President Dwight Eisenhower. "I consider myself a Republican maverick," Carlson said in explaining his endorsement of Obama.

"I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president," he said. "I would contend that it's the most important election of my lifetime."

Carlson also took aim at Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, saying that her controversial remarks of the past week, suggesting Obama may have anti-American views, had led him to endorse the Democratic nominee. After hearing Bachmann's comments, Carlson said he telephoned former Vice President Walter Mondale, the Minnesota Democrat, to tell him of his plan.

At one point, Carlson compared Bachmann's statements to the tactics of Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator during the 1950s who helped define an era when the patriotism of many Americans was publicly questioned.

"I don't want Minnesota to continue to be seen in the national picture as some sort of a land that has these rather strange views -- we don't," he said.

The former governor said Obama's policies on the Iraq war, economic issues facing the middle class and alternative energy solutions meshed with his own views. "I think the disappointing part of the McCain campaign has been its inability to develop a national vision," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 05:17 PM

Sawzaw, are you aware that income taxes are not the only taxes paid by American citizens? All citizens are taxed, and they are taxed heavily, because they pay taxes on just about everything they ever spend a buck on.

This includes the poor.

It is perfectly normal to provide some sort of tax relief to all people in a society no matter whether they qualify for income tax or not, because we ALL pay taxes, no matter how low our income is.

The only way you can not pay taxes is to disappear into the wilderness, vanish off the social records, and live by hunting and foraging and making your own clothes and building a hut for yourself in the woods out of sticks and underbrush.

The real level of taxation in North America now is about 40 cents on the dollar. Only about half of that is your income tax...the other half hits everybody, but they don't notice it as much because it is not all paid in one lump sum once a year. Therefore it's largely invisible to most people, but it's built into the price of everything you buy.

If Barack Obama gives all the people under $250,000/year income a tax break, he will be doing nothing the least bit unusual in that respect...except in the view of someone who panders to a rich elite, in which case they won't like it, will they?

EVERYONE in Canada below a certain income threshold gets a tax rebate in the form of a GST refund (Goods and Services Tax), regardless of whether or not they pay any income tax. You know why? Because income tax is NOT the only form of taxation! Not even close. It's about half what most of us end up paying in taxes each year. NO ONE escapes paying taxes.

But you'd rather ignore that little detail, wouldn't you? It's inconvenient to your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 08:52 PM

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thursday, October 23, 2008 -- 8:43 PM ET
-----

New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Obama for President

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Senator
Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States,
stating: "We believe he has the will and the ability to forge
the broad political consensus that is essential to finding
solutions to this nation's problems."

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 08:10 AM

Now that McCain has finally figured out he needs to appeal to the independents and undecideds--and as a result is strongly attacking the Bush admininstration, I hope the Obama campaign is readying an ad with long clips from the Republican debates---where McCain is praising GWB to the skies.

Just the contrast from one of those clips and a current McCain speech would be very instructive to independents.

Particularly regarding McCain's "steady hand at the helm".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 08:28 AM

Yer rigtht, LH... All Americans do pay taxes and if you were to take all of them, including those which are hidden in the prices we pay for goods and services, we have a very regressive tax system which puts a massive burden on the poorest among US...

As for Obama's tax proprosals, they are purdy much straight forward and the reason that McCain and his shills are spending so much time attackiong Obama for them is because McCain sees them as one of Obama's strengths... That is Karl Rove politics... Attack the other guys strenght...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 08:57 AM

THe Times provides a long essay on their reasons for endorsing Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 09:28 AM

Published: October 24, 2008
Filed at 9:11 a.m. ET

SALEM, N.H. (AP) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president on Friday, citing the senator's steady leadership, good judgment and ability to unify Democrats, Republicans and independents.

''Sen. Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America's standing in the world,'' Weld said in a statement.

''We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Sen. Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire. Throughout this campaign I've watched his steady leadership through trying times and I'm confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward,'' he said.

Weld joined other prominent Republicans endorsing Obama over GOP nominee John McCain in the campaign's final weeks, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson and Scott McClellan, former press secretary to President Bush.

Last year, Weld came to New Hampshire to campaign for another former Massachusetts governor, Republican Mitt Romney, who ended his bid for the presidential nomination in February.

Weld was governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997. Before that, he was U.S. attorney for Massachusetts under President Reagan and was later led the criminal division of the Justice Department.

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 11:19 AM

The Kansas City Star, The Miami Herald and the News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., all influential newspapers in major battleground states, recommended Barack Obama for president in their Sunday editions.

The endorsements were part of what appears to be a groundswell among newspapers in favor of Obama over his rival John McCain.

The Star, the Herald and the News & Observer are owned by Sacramento, Calif.-based The McClatchy Co., but McClatchy does not dictate what recommendation its papers make in political contests.

McClatchy's Sacramento Bee also recommended Obama to its readers on Sunday. Other McClatchy newspapers that endorsed Sunday included the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Olympian in Washington State, and the Idaho Statesman in Boise, Idaho.

What impact the newspapers' recommendations will have, of course, is unknown. The value of such endorsements is hotly debated in both news industry circles and among politicians.

Last week, Obama received the endorsements of the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune. Editor & Publisher, a newspaper trade publication, reported Saturday that by its count newspapers endorsing Obama outnumbered those supporting McCain, 62 to 18.

Obama was endorsed last weekend by the Toledo Blade and the Dayton Daily News in Ohio.

Two major papers endorsed McCain on Saturday: the Tampa Tribune and the Dallas Morning News.

Here're links to some of the editorials. (Scroll down to mid-page).

(Excerpted from the Miasmi Herald)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 12:39 PM

THE POLL: Newsweek poll, national presidential race among registered voters nationwide.
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 53 percent, John McCain 40 percent.
OF INTEREST: Obama's lead is as strong among likely voters, 53-41. Obama appears to be consolidating his support across demographic groups, leading in every age group and among men as well as women. In a reversal from April, when McCain led Obama among working-class whites 53-35, the poll found Obama with 46 percent to McCain's 44 percent. The survey also found that 62 percent now say they have a favorable view of Obama, versus 32 percent who have an unfavorable view.
DETAILS: Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from Oct. 22-23 by telephone with 1,204 adults and 1,092 registered voters. Sampling error margin plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all adults and 3.6 percentage points for registered voters.
MORE: http://www.newsweek.com

10/16 - 10/24        --        --        50.4        42.5        Obama +7.9 (RCP National average)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 12:58 PM

People are judging Obama by the color of his skin, and not the content of his character!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:36 PM

Riginsling-

And what do you think they conclude by that? Would you care to clarify?

Amos-


The October 23rd poll in Maine indicated that Obama was leading in both districts of this state by over 20 points. Just 10 days ago the race appeared much closer. Then Palin and McCain made a swing through the State, and robo calls deluged prospective voters, and there was a subsequent surge for Obama.

Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, however, appears not threatened by her Democratic challenger, Congressman Tom Allen; she still leads him in the poll by more than 20 points.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:54 PM

People are judging Obama by the color of his skin, and not the content of his character!

Could that possibly include Rig?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 03:05 PM

Rig:

Your assessment of Obama's character has been shown over and over again to be misguided and inaccurate. It has led you to repeatedly make bitter, sometimes hateful-sounding remarks, some of which verge on racism, although I do not believe you are a racist. It is my impression that you are a thoughtful man, who understands the complex relationships between ideas and actions, and the clues of language to reveal character.

So I a little perplexed at your views. What I have seen of Obama is that he is practical, intelligent, idealistic and populist.

I would also add that he is not a simple person.

But what is it that leads you to these seemingly bizarre negative interpretations/?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 03:31 PM

To the Editor:

Thank you for your elegant, articulate and powerful editorial in support of Barack Obama. For many of us, this election has come to symbolize not only a vote for Mr. Obama versus John McCain, but also a vote for reason versus ignorance.

The blogs supporting Mr. McCain are filled with a rage and hatred so intense as to sear the page in front of me. The hatred whipped up at rallies and by some representatives has been truly appalling.

A vote for Mr. Obama is a vote for hope; a vote for Mr. McCain seems to have become a vote representing the worst of our extremists.

And I wonder why this should really be. They have been in power for 20 of the last 28 years.

Does anyone else wonder what the extreme right is so angry about?

Bonnie Rudner
Waban, Mass., Oct. 24, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 06:55 PM

Green Bay Press-Gazette endorses McCain

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Eight years ago on the eve of the presidential election, the economy was reeling from the collapse of the dot-com market. A recession either loomed or had already begun. The nation's voters had a chance to choose a moderate Arizona senator as their new president, but he didn't advance past the Republican primaries.

Now, another collapse, this time in the mortgage industry, has led to even greater economic uncertainty on election eve. It's no time to repeat past mistakes; this time voters must choose the candidate with the experience to lead us through the storm.

The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board endorses John McCain for president. There is nothing automatic or routine about this decision, even though this newspaper has usually picked the Republican candidate in recent decades. Our choice follows literally hours of the most heartfelt and deep discussions to accompany an endorsement in many years. In Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has its most compelling nominee in memory.

Strip away the politics, which seem to get nastier with every election cycle, and McCain is correct about Obama: "I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

In point of fact, both candidates are decent men who don't deserve the sordid attacks that have been launched against their records, their beliefs and their very characters. Sweep away the chaff, however, and the edge must go to McCain's long record of working for change and reaching across the aisle to achieve important results.

A senator since 1987, McCain was a major author of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. He opposed President Clinton's military intervention in Somalia, and he joined Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold in working for campaign finance reform.

He was one of only two Republican senators to vote against the 2001 tax cuts favored by President Bush, although he reversed that stance in 2006 when the cuts were extended — noting accurately that opposing the extension was the same as raising taxes.

McCain led a group of 14 moderate senators who preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances." Far from foiling the nomination of conservative judges, the compromise aided the confirmation votes for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, there is no doubt that the troop surge of 2007 achieved its goals of reducing violence and American casualties there, and McCain supported that action from the beginning, even when many senators and presidential candidates were resisting the idea.

McCain also stood for the ideal that America does not condone or endorse torture, and he has questioned the long confinement of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. We are disappointed that he has backed away from those principled positions during the campaign and fervently hope he will revisit them once in office. These positions reflect McCain's understanding of the President's solemn authority to commit troops to battle. Certainly McCain's personal biography — in the military and Congress — gives him the edge when it comes to the matter of national security. And what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, is one of the most compelling reasons that John McCain is the more attractive candidate.

"I'm not running for president to be somebody, but to do something; to do the hard but necessary things, not the easy and needless things," McCain said as he launched his campaign in April 2007, reflecting the philosophy he has followed for two decades in Washington. Sen. Obama may one day be able to point to a similar record of achievement, but the plain fact is that he has served barely more than half of one term in the Senate. He is an eloquent speaker with great promise as a future leader.

But we also see in McCain someone who shares the bedrock positions of the Press-Gazette — that the government that governs least governs best, that the best tax relief occurs when government spends less, that the American dream is within reach to anyone willing to put in the necessary hard work and commitment. And that, finally, is why we support John McCain for president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 07:21 PM

Thanks, Sawz. That is, at least, a coherent and articulate exposition of the virtues of a McCain presidency, and worth hearing.

I regret that in the last few months, my own impression of mcCain has not lived up to that reputation. This may just be the stress of the pressure-cooker lifestyale of a campaign. I don;'t know.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 07:42 PM

The Minneapolis Star Tribune also endorses Obama:

Editorial: Barack Obama for president
Last update: October 25, 2008 - 1:41 PM


Each presidential campaign is billed as more critical than the last. This election -- coming amid a global financial crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- truly finds the country at a crossroads.

Republican Sen. John McCain presents himself as a maverick, attempting to distance his agenda from the policies of the Bush administration. McCain is an American hero who has served his country with honor, often standing up for the causes he believed in despite intense political pressure.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama also promises reform and change. Since his passionate "Red State-Blue State'' speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama has staked out an optimistic vision of a more united America and a bipartisan approach to addressing problems in Washington.

With hope that he can deliver on that promise, Obama receives our endorsement.

This was a difficult decision because both candidates are flawed. Ideally Obama would have more experience and a long list of bipartisan accomplishments. Criticism that he has spent much of his time in the Senate running for the presidency is legitimate, and we were disturbed to see him break his pledge to abide by federal campaign spending limits.

McCain, whose campaign has lacked focus, made his most serious error in judgment with the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. McCain is well aware that the No. 1 qualification of a vice president should be readiness for the top job. Palin does not have the depth of experience to assure Americans she would be ready to run the country.

Obama's steady and analytical approach has stood out during the campaign. To make his vice presidential selection, Obama analyzed his own weaknesses and turned to Sen. Joe Biden, who offered deep foreign policy experience and the ability to assume the presidency if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 11:50 PM

Talk about elegant! The post before mine is Number 3333.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:57 AM

The attack on Sarah Palin makes the Obama campaign sound more elitist than ever, but the new ads coming out explaining how Obama wants to provide Social Security to illegal aliens ought to turn the tide.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:44 AM

Just who in the Obama camp is attacking Sarah Palin, Rigs??? The strategy is to leave the woman alone because she is her worst own enemy...

Okay, you might find a stray knoathead who supports Obama who hasn't gotten the memo but generalizing that the Obama camp is in the attack mode on Sarah Palin is just not part of the campaign... Period... And I should know because I am working in the campaign and Sarah Palin is someone we have been told to leave the heck alone when we are out canvassing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:50 AM

See, Bobert, Rig is talking about Palin's inadvertent attacks on herself. He thinks she ought to be stopped. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 12:07 PM

Rig:

Is there ANY substance to the claim that Obama wants to extend Social Security to illegal aliens? On what terms, if so. On what evidence?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:20 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/article447.html



"Summary
Republicans are tagging Democratic opponents across the country for wanting to "give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants." But nobody's proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens or are granted legal status.

"The charge is a mis-characterization of an amendment offered during debate of the immigration bill that passed the Senate last May with a healthy bi-partisan majority, 62-36. The amendment would change current law to prevent immigrants from getting credit toward future Social Security benefits from taxes paid before they have legal permission to work.

"The measure has become a popular campaign issue for Republicans, particularly incumbent House members who raise it against their Democratic challengers. We have counted 29 GOP ads attacking Democrats with various versions of this misleading claim. Similar misconceptions about the measure were spread as part of a chain e-mail last spring and summer."

Note the date: October 10, 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:20 PM

Operation Expose: Obama Supports Driver's Licenses for Illegals
Contact: Pamela Geller, www.atlasshrugs.com, [e-mail], 516-426-7630

OPINION, October 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- 77% of Americans oppose giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but not Barack Obama. In two Democratic debates, he unequivocally endorsed giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, empowering them with the gold standard of American I.D. cards. And as state Senator, he voted to train, license and insure illegal aliens to operate motor vehicles.

His stated reason? "To protect public safety." Apparently, Senator Obama was not impressed with the blow to public safety of 9/11. 13 of the 19 hijackers had driver's licenses, which were crucial to implementing their plot. Nor is he concerned about Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's warning that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens would undermine national security.

A new ad by The National Republic Trust PAC highlights Obama's radically out-of-the-mainstream position on driver's licenses for illegals. The ad notes that giving driver's licenses to illegals enables them to get government benefits, obtain a mortgage, board a plane, and even vote.

You can see the ad here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbyocX-9_mo

And read more about the issue here.
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/licensefactsheet.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:36 PM

this was the headline that didn't make the post


Obama Plans Tax Hike to Pay for Illegal Aliens' Health Care, Social Security and College Education

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 02:11 PM

Jaysus, RIg. What a bunch of arm-waving fear-mongering., Driver's licenses are the "gold standard of Citizen ID?" and are equal to admitting terrorists?

What happened to the notion that driver's licenses were issued when people demonstrated they were qualified to drive? Too old-fashioned an idea?

You guys are shouting from cloud cuckoo-land in my humble opinion, like a bunch of paranoids lined up at the balcony of a loony bin.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 02:34 PM

If 77 per cent of Americans really do prefer to have people driving round without licences or insurance, 77 per cent of American are, in this particular respect, nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:05 PM

Actually, come to think of it, the notion of uncoupling driver's license from approved identification papers is probably a healthy one. I remember as young lad how alien and bizarre the stories from Europe and Russia were of people being stopped and asked for their papers. It never occurred to me the time would come when it would be the rule in the US as well. Back then, the spirit of freedom was much less polluted in the land, and a human being was deemed innocent unless proven guilty--well, at least a white male human being in a small New England town.

It would be an honorable and fine thing to be able to return to such a state of innocence, but it is an unrealistic proposition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:06 PM

The Iowa Independent endorses Obama.

"Pointing to his “steadfastness in the face of uncertainty, his clear-eyed vision for a more just America and his potential for rallying the country to do great things,â€쳌 The Des Moines Register’s editorial board has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:08 PM

The Des Moines Register, I mean. I read it in the Iowa Independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:10 PM

Published in Sunday's paper, The Register said an Obama presidency would work to strengthen the struggling middle class and would "bridge divisions and tackle problems."

The paper also pointed to the campaign of Republican John McCain, calling it erratic and disappointing.

The Register also called into question McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, saying she was "utterly unqualified to ascend to the presidency."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:31 PM

"You guys are shouting from cloud cuckoo-land in my humble opinion, like a bunch of paranoids lined up at the balcony of a loony bin." Amos

I like "balcony", Amos, but I first read it as "the 'bedside' of a looney bin" and I like that even better. May its ideas wither away and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 06:48 PM

The Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News endorsed Obama on Oct. 25, 2008:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 06:48 PM

Alaska's biggest newspaper -Anchorage Daily News - has now endorsed Barack Obama. (No real surprise there - it is regarded as a liberal paper.)

As for McCain's running mate, it has this to say:

"Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation," the paper said.

"Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time," the paper concluded."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:21 PM

Shallow, very shallow!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:50 PM

Gee, Rig, you must be looking in the mirror again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:31 PM

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.


WaPO, 10-13-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 03:24 PM

Washington Post:

In W.Va., Lingering Doubts on Obama

By Ruth Marcus
Monday, October 27, 2008; Page A13

WILLIAMSON, W.Va. -- It's hard to find a place more Democratic than here in Mingo County, snug up against Kentucky in the southwestern corner of the state, where Mother Jones fought to unionize striking coal miners.

In 2004, when President Bush trounced John Kerry by seven points in this state, Mingo voted 56 percent for Kerry. Of 19,391 registered voters, just 1,741 are Republicans.

For Barack Obama, though, Mingo presents a decided challenge -- one that has implications beyond the West Virginia coal fields, implications that may linger beyond Election Day. Hillary Clinton beat Obama by 41 percentage points in the state primary, but by 80 points in Mingo, the biggest gap statewide.

West Virginia -- which voted twice for President Bill Clinton, twice for Bush -- is a long shot for Obama, but not an impossibility. Polls give John McCain the edge, but when vice presidential nominee Joe Biden stopped in Charleston on Friday, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller said his polling showed Obama a single point behind.


The AFL-CIO added West Virginia to its list of targeted states last week; the American Federation of Teachers, the state's largest union, has launched radio ads; and United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts joined the state's Democratic governor, Joe Manchin, on a bus tour through southern counties, including Mingo, this month.

"We feel like we can pull this one off," said State Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin, who represents Mingo. "It was tough going for a while. People were mad about Hillary losing this thing." Even now, he acknowledged, in places like Mingo, "there's probably not a lot of enthusiasm for [Obama]. It comes down to what's best for me and my family."

An Obama win is "a possibility, and a month ago I thought it was out of reach," said Judy Hale, president of the West Virginia AFT.

West Virginia Republican Party Chairman Douglas McKinney said he was unconcerned. "A minority of them have made their peace" with Obama, he said of Democrats who backed Clinton in the primary. "Obama's entirely too liberal. His positions on gun control and abortion are more than most people in West Virginia can overlook."

Indeed, hours of interviews with voters -- outside the Wal-Mart in Mingo, up the road in Logan County, and north of Charleston in the swing county of Jackson -- illustrate Obama's uphill climb and raise questions about similar voters in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. It does not take long to hear the worst rumors about Obama -- or to wonder how the people repeating them would deal with the fact of an Obama presidency, if it comes to pass.

"If I do vote, it will be Republican," said Charles Mount, a 31-year-old mechanic and registered Democrat. "There's just something about Obama. You hear so much about him being a Muslim. I don't personally believe that but I don't know that. I'm not going to take a chance on the leader of our country."

"If Barack Obama gets in, it basically will be giving our America away to whatever . . . ," said Jamie Willis, 42, who voted for Clinton in the primary. Her husband, Brent Willis, 37, a contractor and registered Democrat, filled in the blank. "To be brutally honest with you, if Obama goes in there the [blacks] are going to go crazy -- and I'm not a prejudiced person."

Terry Sanders, a court clerk, said he "wouldn't vote for Obama if he was running for dog catcher. His values are completely different from mine. Why's he got a problem with the flag? He wouldn't put his hand over his heart. It casts a lot of doubt about what kind of man is this fellow."

These are not incendiary quotes cherry-picked from among multiple interviews or cajoled out of people reluctant to express a view. They came from the first eight people who stopped to answer my questions -- of whom just one said she supported Obama, citing the backing of the mineworkers union.

In my interviews, Obama fared better among the swing voters of Ripley, in Jackson County, which has a slight majority of registered Democrats but voted solidly, twice, for Bush. At the local Kroger, many shoppers said they had voted for Bush, regretted it, and were torn this time around. "I voted for Bush last time and I don't feel like that turned out real well," said Teresa Cottle, 36, a registered nurse who is undecided. Voting for McCain would "be like putting Bush back in office," said Tonya Taylor, 46, who backed Bush but "might just" vote for Obama.

If Obama can convince enough such voters -- here, and in the growing eastern panhandle of the state -- he just might win West Virginia. But as the comments from voters in Mingo suggest, he would have a tough road ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 03:47 PM

Our local paper - The Ft Worth Star Telegram has only endorsed Democrats three times in their history. And they just came out for Obama:

Story Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 04:20 PM

West Virginia appears to tilt to the right, all right. Virginia, equally hard toward Obama.

The battleground states that have changed lately alls eem to be leaning toward Obama:

10/27 New Hampshire Solid Obama »»» Leaning Obama Obama 306 - McCain 157 Obama +7.3
10/27 Arizona Solid McCain »»» Leaning McCain Obama 306 - McCain 157 Obama +7.3
10/26 New Hampshire Leaning Obama »»» Solid Obama Obama 306 - McCain 157 Obama +7.6
10/24 New Hampshire Solid Obama »»» Leaning Obama Obama 306 - McCain 157 Obama +7.9
10/23 Montana Leaning McCain »»» Toss Up Obama 306 - McCain 157 Obama +7.5

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 04:36 PM

ATF disrupts skinhead plot to assassinate Obama
Monday, October 27, 2008 8:24:25 PM
By LARA JAKES JORDAN

The ATF says it has broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree.

In court records unsealed Monday, agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target an unnamed but predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 04:46 PM

You've got to wonder how many more of them are out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 05:02 PM

ANd who educates them,...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 05:21 PM

"...Republicans call Obama a radical, because he once met one, and a socialist, because he'd restore tax rates on the rich to about what they were under Bill Clinton, well below their historic highs under such other notable socialists as Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Obama is an incrementalist, an empiricist and a conciliator. The real question is not whether he is a closet radical but whether he'll move boldly and quickly enough to avert disaster. There are signs he will. We can only hope.

Apologists for John McCain say the economy derailed his campaign, but it isn't so. In just three months, McCain made three awful decisions. The first, and worst, was his choice of the unprepared and ethically challenged Sarah Palin. It cost him bunches of prominent Republicans and boatloads of lesser-known independent voters.

The second was not the financial crisis but his handling of it; the bellowing, the finger-pointing, the empty theatrics. Both candidates caved to the wretched bailout bill, but voters contrasted McCain's bombast with Obama's Buddha-like demeanor and drew their conclusions about whom they'd trust in a crisis.

McCain's third strike at bat was his central campaign message. Eight years have passed since the Bush machine brutally defamed him. What did he learn? To throw his lot in with Bush and then hire Bush's hatchet men to defame Obama. The result has been arguably the ugliest presidential campaign in living memory.

McCain may go down as the last man, for a while anyway, to do unto others as Bush did unto him. The old right wing has run out of issues. Such stalwarts as abortion, affirmative action and homophobia have lost their bite. It's why McCain needs his new running mate, Joe the Plumber, a poster boy for raw resentment.

It should be of more than passing concern to Connecticut voters the role played in all this by our junior senator, Joseph Lieberman, who was one of the first McCain acolytes to turn to the dark side, alleging Obama's opinions were "out of the mainstream" and feigning uncertainty as to whether Obama is a Muslim.

In Miami last week, Lieberman extolled the virtues of "Jose el Plumero." Earlier in Boca Raton, he called the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers smears "fair game" because "we don't know that much about Obama." Perhaps the politics of fear finds a receptive audience in Florida. Back in the Senate, and here in Connecticut, Lieberman will find it goes down harder.

Nineteen years ago, I was blessed to be in Berlin as the Wall came down. It was among the most exhilarating experiences of my life, walking among the throngs of window-shoppers as they tasted not only capitalism but freedom for the first time. No one knew exactly what the fall portended but all felt the sense of impending liberation.

In a way this election is like that. America has been victim of a historic political logjam. We don't know everything an Obama administration will bring, only that the logjam will explode and the river of the democracy will flow again. It has been a dismal election at times, but beyond a doubt it is the most important of our lives. ..."

From Bill Curry on this page.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 07:35 AM

The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee, or NRT PAC, has launched a new television commercial arguing Obama would both issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens and extend to them U.S. Social Security benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 07:43 AM

This late in the game the NRT PAC will say anything that it can think of... Problem is is that McCain is a hard act to follow when it comes to "fear 'n smear"...

BTW, unless someone can find where "fear 'n smear" has allready been coined, I think I'll just claim it and wait for the royalty checks to arrive...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 08:31 AM

"Fear n' Smear," I like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 02:44 PM

What Obama says:

"North Carolina, I've got two words for you: six days. And you don't even have to wait six days to vote – you can vote early right now. But this is important: when you do vote, you have to vote in two steps – one for President, and one for the rest of the ticket. If you vote for a straight ticket, you have not voted in the presidential election. You need to vote for president separately.

Six days.


After decades of broken politics in Washington, eight years of failed policies from George Bush, and twenty-one months of a campaign that has taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are six days away from change in America.


In six days, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.


In six days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy from the bottom-up so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.


In six days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope.


In six days, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need.


We began this journey in the depths of winter nearly two years ago, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Back then, we didn't have much money or many endorsements. We weren't given much of a chance by the polls or the pundits, and we knew how steep our climb would be.


But I also knew this. I knew that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics. I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics – one that favors common sense over ideology; one that focuses on those values and ideals we hold in common as Americans.


Most of all, I believed in your ability to make change happen. I knew that the American people were a decent, generous people who are willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. And I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 03:58 PM

"North Carolina, I've got two words for you: six days. And you don't even have to wait six days to vote – you can vote early right now. But this is important: when you do vote, you have to vote in two steps – one for President, and one for the rest of the ticket. If you vote for a straight ticket, you have not voted in the presidential election. You need to vote for president separately."


                Are there actually people voting in North Carolina who are so stupid they can't figure this out for themselves? If so, that's scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 04:02 PM

Sure, Rig. Just as there are people reading this site who are "stupid enough" to think that was the important part of the excerpt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 04:17 PM

Are there actually people voting in North Carolina who are so stupid they can't figure this out for themselves?

Not so stupid. From what I've read, North Carolina is the only state in the entire USA where they do it that way, requiring a separate vote for president even where someone votes a straight ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 07:02 PM

Obama shows bad judgment Obama Endorses Kwame Kilpatrick


Kilpatrick pleads guilty: 'I lied under oath'
Mike Wilkinson September 4, 2008 The Detroit News

DETROIT -- In four short words, Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick acknowledged his guilt Thursday morning, admitting he lied during a whistle-blower case brought by two former police officers who claimed they were punished for looking into wrongdoing by the mayor's staff.

"I lied under oath ... with the intent to mislead the court and jury and to impede and obstruct the fair administration of justice," Kilpatrick said after he pleaded guilty to two felonies -- a plea that will require him to spend four months in the Wayne County Jail, resign his office and pay $1 million in restitution.

Kilpatrick also will agree not to seek office during the five years he is on probation and will surrender his state pension to the county. And he will surrender his law license.


"The city of Detroit can now exhale," said Kwame Kenyatta, the City Council member who spearheaded efforts to force Kilpatrick from office. "It will go down in our history as a mayor who fell from grace."

The fallout from the guilty pleas was immediate. Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings announced her resignation as civic and business leaders sought to use the day to put a capstone on a scandal that has weighed upon the city since January....

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/METRO/809040440

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 07:20 PM

Yes, "Bad Judgement" seems to be Obama's middle name. No, wait, his middle name is something worse than that, it's, it's...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:53 AM

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor October 30, 2008 09:43 AM Boston.com


A new set of battleground state polls show Democrat Barack Obama ahead in Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Republican John McCain is holding on in his home state of Arizona.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. polls released this morning, Obama leads 52 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in Nevada, 52 to 46 percent in North Carolina, 51 percent to 47 percent in Ohio, and 55 percent to 43 percent in Pennsylvania.

In Arizona, McCain leads 53 percent to 46 percent.

The polls are the latest that show the potential for Obama making deep inroads into traditionally Republican states, setting himself up for a possible electoral landslide on Tuesday.

The surveys were conducted Oct. 23-28 and have margins of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in Arizona, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and 4 percentage points in Nevada and North Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 12:00 PM

PEter Bridges, U.S. Ambassador for many years to many countries, writes in the Huffington Post:

"Dear Friends and Relations,

A friend and former colleague of mine in the Foreign Service, Kevin McGuire, some time ago drafted a short statement of support for Obama and began to ask retired Foreign Service officers if they would sign it. So far 334 of us have done so, including by my count 66 former American ambassadors.

If you would like to know why we have done so and who we are, you can find our reasons and our signatures at Foreign Policy for Obama.Com: Declaration of Support by Over 280 Former Diplomats. (Ed. note: the number is now over 330.)

You can go to ForeignPolicyforObama.com and click on the link in the left hand column.

I will remind you that the Foreign Service of the United States is our country's career diplomatic and consular service. We staff both the State Department in Washington and our embassies and consulates abroad. Usually two-thirds or more of our ambassadors are Foreign Service officers, although both Democratic and Republican administrations have made a number of ambassadorial appointments for political reasons. Some of these Republican appointees and, by my count, two former career officers, have come out for McCain.

Our Service has sometimes been criticized by Republicans who label us a bunch of liberals. I cannot speak for my former colleagues, but as I said in a recent essay, if we must use labels I want to be considered a liberal conservative. I am a conservative because, among other reasons, I believe in a prudent course for the country, including a conservative fiscal policy and conservation -- two old Republican virtues that present-day Republicans have forgotten.

In the Foreign Service we serve the President and the Constitution faithfully -- I served under seven Presidents, finally as ambassador to Somalia under President Reagan -- and we do our best by our country. We do not speak lightly about national security. Five of my friends and colleagues were killed by terrorists. More American ambassadors have died violent deaths since World War II than our admirals and generals combined. Two other friends and colleagues were kidnapped by terrorists, but survived.

I have backed Obama since I wrote, in early 2007, the review of his second book that I hope you will read at The Cal Review. He is a prudent manager, a professor of constitutional law, and a moral and upright man with sound judgment. I agree with Colin Powell that Obama is fully qualified to be commander in chief. He understands the problems that we face at home and abroad, and he will begin -- though it will take years -- to resolve them. He has a sturdy and experienced running mate, Joe Biden, whom I have admired greatly since I first met him in 1981.

Obama is running against a man whose chief virtue seems to be that he withstood five years of arduous imprisonment and torture and, since he could not equal the Navy record of his father and grandfather, went into politics after he married a rich wife. McCain has changed his positions as the years have progressed, but he has always supported the super-rich through the years as our society has divided.

He is the candidate of a party whose last candidates for President and Vice President were George W. Bush and Richard Cheney -- who inherited a budgetary surplus, sent us to war under false pretenses, and ran the country into the ground. McCain has chosen as his running mate and possible successor a woman who backed hundreds of Federal millions for the "bridge to nowhere" before she opposed it (and then kept the money) -- whom an independent investigator in Alaska finds guilty of ethics laws in the Troopergate scandal--and who knows so little about our Constitution that she says the Vice President is in charge of the Senate. I will leave it to the Republicans to explain the new report that she spent $150,000 of party funds on clothing and cosmetics.

Barack Obama did not approve this message. It's all mine.

Regards to all--
Peter"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 12:48 AM

Presedent elect Obama has feelers out to Syria

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 01:01 AM

The arrogant President elect, Obama has the stars and stripes on his plane replaced with his own Logo.

Change we can believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 01:07 AM

Yeah, they're probably asking the Syrians to not respond to Bush's provocations. Good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 01:44 AM

Sawz:

You're acting like a jerk again. Just thought I would mention it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM

ELECTION 2008
Experts affirm: Ayers wrote Obama's memoir
Scientific analyses independently find radical's mark on 'Dreams From My Father'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 29, 2008
12:12 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily




Independent scientific analysis by a number of leading experts supports the literary detective work of WND columnist Jack Cashill that has led him to conclude unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers was the primary author of important sections of Barack Obama's highly acclaimed memoir and editor of the book as a whole.

Obama's 1995 book, "Dreams From My Father," won the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album and drew praise from Time magazine, which called it "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

But since July, Cashill has unveiled in a dozen columns, summarized here, his compelling evidence that the co-founder of the radical Weather Underground group – dismissed by Obama as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" – shaped and refined the book with his exceptional writing skill and radical ideas.

The evidence, Cashill says, "severely tests Obama's claim of a superficial relationship with the self-declared 'communist' Ayers. This appears to be a conscious and consequential deception."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 10:01 PM

How convenient for World Net Daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 11:04 PM

Well, I guess you have to know them...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:38 PM

Amos:

When I replace the US flag with something of my own, you can righteously call me a jerk. Until then you are protecting a jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: heric
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:22 PM

My middle-school-aged daughter says that Obama took drugs and drank alcohol when he was in high school. Apparently it's the talk of the school kids these days. He wrote it in a book.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:36 PM

Apparently it's ok for our presidents to have drugs and alcohol in their backgrounds. GW Bush does, and that didn't stop him from serving as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:47 PM

Yo, heric...

George Bush is an alcoholic... He has been arrested for DUI... As president he has has at least one major relapse which was blamed on pretzels??? Ended up in the emergency room... Pretzels won't get you into the emergency room...

Yo, Sawz,

What Amos said... Plus, as a former social worker dealing 90% with clients who came straight outta Central State Hospital (da nut house) in Pertesburg, Va., you are a sick person... Very sick... You need serious mnetal health help... This is beyond politics... You need to find some thelp... And quick... You are paranoid at the very least...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:59 PM

According to snopes.com, dear Sawznuttin', the flag on the tail of the plane is the copywrited logo of North American Airlines from which he had chartered the plane. After his nomination, Obama's campaign bought his own plane, outfitting it with his own logo.

You are pitiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 09:12 PM

I thought of telling my daughter about Bush and all the other Presidents but I saw myself on a downwards trajectory.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 09:30 PM

I had some of those difficult moments with my son when he was that age. Because of the "just say no" anti-alcohol and drug training he was getting in school, I made sure I didn't give him any mixed messages by ever drinking alcohol in his presence. Then one day when we were visiting with some of my friends at their house, he saw them drinking beer, and he was shocked!

I really didn't have any good answers for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 10:35 PM

I would think a kid would see all of that stuff on TV and in the movies anyway. It's seems funny he would be shocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 12:13 AM

Movies are fantasy, and kids know that. It's entirely different to encounter something disturbing or unexpected in real life. You will realize this as soon as a gunfight erupts on your street or a T-rex comes charging into your backyard... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:37 AM

My kid didn't watch any commercial TV. The only TV he had access to (because we lived in the boonies and it was all we could get) was Maryland Public Television. There's not a lot of beer drinking or drug taking on MPTV. He didn't see too many of those kinds of movies when he was that age, either, if any.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:26 AM

The last T-Rex who ran through my backyard didn't stop. He was late for a dental appointment!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:03 AM

"Ron Reagan Officially Supports Barack Obama: The Reagan Era Takes a Detour
Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 8:04pm. EditorBlog
MARK KARLIN'S EDITOR'S BLOG
November 1, 2008

Call it the final stake in the myth and destructive path of the Reagan era. On the evening of October 31, Ron Reagan -- son of the Gipper -- officially endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Reagan now has an evening program on Air America (and is quite good), and had withheld an "official endorsement," he said, because he figured that listeners knew by now where he stood. But you also sensed listening to him that he decided to make a clean break that began when he appeared at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He didn't endorse Kerry then; he spoke on behalf of sickle cell research.

I was there in Boston when he spoke in the convention center and the crowd didn't quite know how to react to the offspring of the Moses of the kooky right wing. Eventually, he received a warm but still restrained round of applause.

Since that time, Reagan -- as anyone who listens to his Air America program will learn -- has become a clear progressive, and if he had not formally endorsed Obama on Halloween Eve (on his radio show), you knew that he was going to vote for him.

But now it's on the record. The son of Ronald Reagan who bears his name is officially backing Barack Obama for President."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:04 AM

A list of Republicans supporting Barack Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:53 AM

The son of Ronald Reagan was traumatized by having to live with his father.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 11:50 AM

My favorite quote from the Republicans in that link...


"Obama has a brain, and he isn't afraid to use it."

--Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: heric
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:19 PM

They forgot me on their list:

"We are so sick and fucking tired of the neocons and all their shit."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:14 PM

You are pitiful. I need help. you are paranoid cause you don't smoke dope like me, I know better than you.

Yep, the elitists are in full bloom. Any body that disagrees with them or Obama is somehow an inferior human being. Maybe not even human.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/airtrade.jpg

The forward flags are copyrighted logos, not the flag on the tail.

The registration number is still N755NA. The campaign did not buy an airplane for Obama. The original one got a $500,000 refurb.

Need any more help?

Also in a typical arrogant Obama "tough decision", the reporters from 3 newspapers that endorsed McCain got booted off the plane because there was not enough room and somebody had to go.

Then all of a sudden, to everybody's amazement there was room for reporters from Ebony and Essence magazines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:17 PM

Like I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:29 PM

"Then all of a sudden, to everybody's amazement there was room for reporters from Ebony and Essence magazines."



                     Who was amazed?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:39 PM

Amos: "the Troopergate scandal" How about Biden's troopergate where the cop actually did get fired?

I was advised by my sergeant that I was to pull Ms. Biden out of the vehicle, perform the remaining field sobriety tests, and that if she was indeed found to be intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle then she was to be arrested and processed accordingly. Needless to say, when she performed the rest of the field sobriety tests she was barely able to stand let alone perform the tests. I looked to my sergeant for one final guiding point and he raised his arm as if to say "What are you waiting for, arrest her." I did.

From this point on, she became both belligerent, verbally abusive, and actually propositioned me several times in an effort to be released. I was told by her that her father was a great and powerful man and that she would have my badge! She was processed and blew a .16 on the intoxilyzer (twice the legal limit within the city limits at the time). She was treated with the utmost of courtesy â€" actually above and beyond while in custody because of who she was.
She was only handcuffed during the ride to the station and roamed freely about
the booking area with her nose up in disgust voicing complaints as to how dirty the place was and how displeased her father was going to be with all of us. She was released a short time later that morning....

Two weeks later I was fired without just cause which they could do because of my probationary status as a new officer. I was given reasons that you don’t fire for as being the reasons why I was being let go. It was very strange.

I went through two attorneys that once they got close to the case they mysteriously advised me that they had to drop the case.

What Joe Biden and the Newark PD did to me destroyed my life and has scarred me forever....

A few months ago it was brought to my attention that 3 Delaware State Troopers were fired for arresting Ashley Biden for being drunk and disorderly at a party recently (within the last year).

During the course of arrest she resisted and was dealt with accordingly. I know very few details about this other than what I have just written. I am going to reach out to the Delaware State Trooper’s Association and see if they can verify this and if true put me in touch with the 3 troopers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:51 PM

The media isn't interested in Biden's troopergate; it doesn't advance their agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 05:23 PM

Well Well Well. That is allegedly 4 policemen actually fired for a DWI arrest of the daughter of a vice presidential candidate and it is not even news worthy. Biden pulls some strings and it never goes to trial.

But the alleged attempted firing of a policeman that threatened to put "a bullet in the fucking brain" of a different vice presidential candidate's father is criminal, she is guilty by default.

Change we can believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:16 PM

That's a sad story, and it stinks. The n,y question un my mind is whether or not it is true, or rigged. Unfortunately, given the GOP propensity for dirty tricks, it is hard to tell, because it is simply not beyond their operatives to make up a story like that out of whole cloth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:58 PM

Amos:

Knowing your inability to differentiate truth from fiction, I can understand your quandary.

It seems a bit strange considering Joe was behind MADD. But if it is a lie, where is the lawsuit? Joe and I think his sons are lawyers.

Be a good fellow and check out the story. If it is untrue, I will retract it and apologize to Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:01 PM

There are dirty tricks on both sides. I don't think anybody has cornered the market on those.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:10 PM

This from the LA Times puts some meat on the bones of this scurrilous accusation:


Sen. Biden’s Daughter Arrested in Altercation

August 04, 2002 in print edition A-15

The daughter of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer outside a Chicago bar.

Ashley Blazer Biden, 21, of Wilmington, Del., was with a group of people on a North Side street where several bars are located when someone else threw a bottle at an officer, police said.

When police tried to arrest another person, Biden blocked the officer’s path and made intimidating statements, officer JoAnn Taylor said.

Biden was later released and is scheduled to appear in court Sept. 20.

Sen. Biden’s spokeswoman, Margaret Aitken, declined to comment, calling it a private, family matter.

Of course, GWB's daughter has done similar things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:20 PM

Jesus, you must be desperate. A scurrilous accusation from 2002.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:56 PM

This is what desperate people do, Amos, ol' buddy...

Sawz takes exception to me putting the "P (paranoid) label" on him... Says that even after 16-17 years working with mentally ill clients that seein' as I ain't a phychiatrist that I dodn't know jack from jack??? Ha!!! Yeah, okay, maybe sometimes I wished I didn't but 16 years of working with thousands of clients and with mental health professionals it comes down to, ahhhh, yeah, I know lotta about folks with all kinds of personality disorders and worse...

Sawz, I hate to say it, is a very angry and paranoid person... He/she also tends to "project" his/her own problems (issues) onto others around him/her... Sawz, for instance, has reinvented him/herself over and over here in Mudville... He/she has been been Old Guy... He/she has been Dickey... And there is at least one other handle that Sawz has used... Joe Offer probably knows but I really don't care... The fact is that, Amos, that Sawz is not a stable poster here... Quite the opposite... Okay, maybe not the scarey guy in the chiller flick but not stable... I know that... Sawz has stalked me here in Mudville thru his/her various handles... Might of fact, I have suspisions that Sawz has stalked me to another site in cyberspace...

(Well, Bobertz.... Maybe you are the paranoid one???)

LOL...

But nevermind the mental instability of Sawz... He/she will get worse because folks don't change, other than handles, they just get more so...

Just thought this might be a good place to call Sawz for his little ball game he has going here...

Sorry for the thread drift...

Now back to Barack Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:19 PM

The 2001 altercation that led to an arrest of Biden's daughter amongst a group of people is unrelated to the DWI allegations. The latter is only reported and a handful of anti-Obama sites. Here's a surprising tidbit, though: The purported author, one Bryce Priggemeier, Sr., is a real person, with a BA in Criminal Justice from Lycoming College in Williamsport, PA.

Although we expect Senators to do this stuff (or for others to do it for them), I thought the mainstream media loved such stories. So . . . . I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:46 PM

I sent that Biden troopergate story in to Snopes, and they haven't posted anything about it yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:16 PM

The Cellphone effect -
interesting polling results when cell phone users are included compared to polls of land line users only.
Obama ahead by an average of 9.4 points when cell phones included.
Land line only polls, he is up by 5.1 points.
from www.FiveThirtyEight.com

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:37 PM

Does that tell us that people who can afford cell phones support Obama, and poor people do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:40 PM

What it does is count the younger voters in with everyone else, many of whom have only a cell phone and no land line. My son is one of those. He's hardly rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:52 AM

Obama for Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:28 PM

Dick Cheney's Hometown Paper Endorses Obama Today

By Greg Mitchell
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/
Published: November 03, 2008 10:00 AM ET

NEW YORK For the past six weeks, we have chronicled the landslide in newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama (see tally on our site, with an update to come today), now about 250 to 110. Included in this have been well over 50 daily papers that have switched from backing Bush in 2004 to supporting Obama this year. Then there are the embarrassments such as the largest paper in Alaska, The Anchorage Daily News, also endorsing Obama.

Now comes another signal: This morning, Dick Cheney's hometown paper in Wyoming, the Casper Star-Tribune, switched to Obama.

Yes, we said the Casper Star-Tribune, not the Minneaspolis Star Tribune.

Just this past Saturday, Cheney campaigned in Casper for three local Republicans and John McCain. A video of his McCain endorsement was then distributed by the Obama campaign.

Here is a revealing excerpt from the newspaper editorial supporting Obama. Once again, a key factor in the GOP defections: McCain showing "poor judgment" in picking Sarah Palin.

It is a foregone conclusion that Wyoming's three electoral votes will go to Sen. John McCain. It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.

But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.

What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming ...

Two of the best ways to judge presidential candidates is by looking at how they conduct their campaigns and who they select as vice president. On both fronts, Obama wins impressively.

We may not always agree with Sen. Joe Biden's decisions, but Obama tapped him to bring valuable foreign policy experience to the ticket. There is no question that the longtime senator is capable of serving as president if needed.

McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however, shows extremely poor judgment. She has shown repeatedly that she is simply not ready to fill McCain's shoes.

Obama's advisers are extremely capable leaders. It's good to know that he turns to the likes of Warren Buffett for financial matters and retired Gen. Colin Powell on military issues. With his emphasis on diplomacy along with a commitment to protecting America, Obama gives us our best hope of regaining the respect of other nations.

If the John McCain of 2000 saw today's counterpart, he wouldn't recognize himself. McCain is no longer a GOP maverick, or the war hero whose principles were unwavering. He has flip-flopped on issues ranging from tax cuts to torture in an effort to win over the conservative base of his party. He has waged a dismal campaign based on fear and divisiveness.

We don't agree with Obama on several issues. There is no evidence that raising taxes on any segment of the population has ever stimulated the economy. He should reject this part of his economic plan.

But his campaign has been an honorable one that has focused on inclusiveness and hope. The three presidential debates showed Obama to be a calm, thoughtful leader with a unique vision of the future. The contrast with his opponent, who seemed angry and erratic, could not have been more stark or more telling.

We endorse Barack Obama for president."

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:47 PM

"Obama for Obama" is a nice story.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:23 PM

Obama surges ahead as US prepares to vote
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Monday, 3 November 2008



Barack Obama is entering the home stretch of the race for the White House with an aggressive foray into traditionally Republican states, a sure indication that his campaign is in far better shape than the doomed efforts of his Democratic predecessors.

Senator Obama's final sprint took him from Colorado and Nevada on to the industrial battleground of Ohio, where the latest Mason Dixon poll shows him leading by47 per cent to 44. Accompanied by Bruce Springsteen, Mr Obama was making a final pitch to white blue-collar voters who make up 45 per cent of the electorate. Ohio is also a make-or-break state for John McCain, since no Republican has won the White House without capturing it.

In Ohio, Mr Obama chided his opponent in a television ad that mocked the Republican's endorsement by the deeply unpopular Vice-President Dick Cheney. "I'm delighted to support John McCain," Mr Cheney said in his home state of Wyoming before praising the vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In the Obama ad, the announcer says: "That's not the change we need." Today, Mr Obama begins a final dash for votes in the delegate-rich state of Florida. He then heads to the Republican bastion of North Carolina and intends to bring his epic campaign to a close with a late-night rally close to the Civil War battlefield of Manassas in Northern Virginia.

Mr Obama's confidence seems to be well justified by the polls. The latest Washington Post/ABC national tracking poll gave him a 9 percentage-point lead over John McCain. He is far ahead in enough states to capture more than the 270 electoral votes that he needs to win. In the Senate, Democrats are within reach of winning 60 seats for a filibuster-proof majority and in Congress they could double their 2006 wins to have the largest majority since 1990. In the dying hours of the campaign, Mr McCain has only one viable path to victory left. He needs to hold on to every battleground state and pick off a delegate-rich Democratic state such as Pennsylvania as well. However, the polls put his opponent so comfortably ahead there, that Mr Obama is not even bothering to campaign in person in the final countdown.

Another tactic the Republican side is employing is to warn wavering voters that a victory by Mr Obama will give Democrats unfettered control of the White House and Congress. They will use it to raise taxes, expand the government and fly the flag of surrender in the war on terror, at a time of crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:37 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The day before the presidential election, Sen. Barack Obama's grandmother, a woman he called "Toot" and someone who helped raised him, has died.

Obama's campaign reported the death of Madelyn Dunham, 86, this afternoon as he and the media traveling with him landed here for the second of two campaign rallies he has scheduled today.

Aides said the Democratic nominee learned of her death about 8 a.m. Eastern time and that she passed at her home in Honolulu between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Eastern time.

Obama's grandmother, who had been gravely ill, was a rock of stability, giving him the American roots that would ground his teenage years as well as his career in politics....(CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: John O'L
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:43 PM

I don't mean to be insensitive, but does it strike anyone else that this is just too bizaare for words?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM

It's sad, even for a non-supporter!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:42 PM

Kindly said, Rig.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:55 PM

"Recent public opinion polls show continuing faith in President Barack Obama, despite a daily drumbeat of bad economic news. But political experts warn that the public will not remain patient forever.

Americans cannot get away from the bad economic news - whether it's on television, the Internet or radio.

It is a daily barrage of people losing their jobs.

"All of a sudden one day, they walked in [and] said, 'Come on down here, gave us our blue packet.' And we got about two months severance pay, and that was it," said a woman.

And in other cases, people losing their homes.

"The only thing I need right now is to get an apartment," said a man. "Get a place of my own where I have my own keys and everything. That way, I can call it home."

Responding to this daily drumbeat is a new president about to enter his third month in office.

"The American people sent us here to get things done," said Mr Obama. "And at this moment of enormous challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead."

Recent public opinion polls show President Barack Obama with a positive approval rating of between 59 and 65 percent.

CBS News survey director Sarah Dutton says most people believe it will take a while to turn the U.S. economy around.

"Fifty percent of Americans say that it will take President Obama one or two years to fix the economy," she said. "Another third say it is going to take three years or even longer."
..." (Voice of America News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 12:31 PM

It should probably pointed out, to dispel some of the FUD being generated by some extremists, that President's first budget has been presented to Congress.

He spoke about the principles behind the budget in his weekly address. (BTW, does anyone know why Bush never did weekly addresses?)

Anyway, among other things he made these points:

"Finally, this budget must reduce that deficit even further. With the fiscal mess we've inherited and the cost of this financial crisis, I've proposed a budget that cuts our deficit in half by the end of my first term. That's why we are scouring every corner of the budget and have proposed $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.

In total, our budget would bring discretionary spending for domestic programs as a share of the economy to its lowest level in nearly half a century. And we will continue making these tough choices in the months and years ahead so that as our economy recovers, we do what we must to bring this deficit down.

I will be discussing each of these principles next week, as Congress takes up the important work of debating this budget. I realize there are those who say these plans are too ambitious to enact. To that I say that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation - I came here to solve them.

The American people sent us here to get things done, and at this moment of great challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead. Let's show them that we are equal to the task before us, and let's pass a budget that puts this nation on the road to lasting prosperity."

---

I think this guy is way cool.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:44 AM

Joe the Fumbler:

"give me a fucking break"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:45 PM

Bonuses for Freddie and Fannie Fat Cats

Fannie Mae reported a loss of $58.7 billion for 2008 and has requested another $15.2 billion from the U.S. Treasury. Freddie Mac reported a loss of $50.1 billion for 2008, and has requested an additional $30.8 billion from the U.S. Treasury.

According to a report in USA Today, "In securities filings, Freddie said it will pay a retention award of $1.5 million to Executive Vice President Michael Perlman by March 2010. Perlman, whose base salary is $500,000, already collected $300,000 of his bonus. Interim CFO David Kellermann will get an $850,000 bonus, and Senior Vice President Michael May will get $700,000."

Top Two Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions:

Christopher Dodd.....$165,400         
Barack Obama.........$126,349

Top Two Recipients of AIG Campaign Contributions:
Senate        Obama, Barack        $104,332
Senate        Dodd, Chris        $103,900

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:24 PM

"It's easy being vice president you don't have to do anything."

"I've been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that"

"The surge isn't going to work either tactically or strategically"

"My impression is Obama thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. I've seen zero evidence of that."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:34 PM

I gather, though, that you are in favor of Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan?

Remember this: partisan politics determines that prior to an election one criticizes everything that the other party is doing. That's probably why Obama didn't support the Iraq surge. Just standard partisan politics playing itself out at the time. If it had been an Obama administration, he'd have been all for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:43 PM

Biden was right about "the surge" if "the surge" just meant more tropps... It wasn't at all about more tropps but a combination of tactics (embedding tropps in neighborhoods) and strategy (paying Sunis not to kill US)... That's the problem here that gets overlooked... But I understand why it get's overlooked because it's not as easy and simple (think simple minds here) to sell to Joe Sixpack... Yeah, ol' Joe Sixpack to this very day thinks "the surge" was about troop levels??? But there's a reason for this... It's the name: ****The Surge****.... Yeah the name was put together to mislead... The Bush people wnated something that appealed to Joe Sixpack... The term ***blitz*** was too footballish so they used focus groups and tried various names out and "The Surge" won out...

More troops would not have achieved any more positive goals then in times befofre when troop levels were increased... But this part of history somehow gets ignored... Why??? Becuase the Repubs have controlled that narrative... Doesn't change the facts about the components of the new strategy that worked... It wasn't at all about more troops... That's just the convient ***Big Lie***... Military scientists and historians understand what worked and why it worked...

And Joe Biden, for the record, hasn't taken the time amke the argument correctly.... He knows the components of "The Surge" but there are too many other things on his and Obama's plate to get bogged down in a converstaion where 90% are so brainwashed that even if you pointed out what "The Surge" was all about would argue with you... It was sold heavily, just like alll the reasons for going into Iraq... A year later, even after it was determined that Iraq had no WMDs, you still had over 50% believing that Iraq had WMDs... That's how brainwashing goes... It awfully hard to get folks to change their thinkin' once they have made up their minds, regarless of facts and the truth...

And in the words of Walter Cronkite; "That's the way it is..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 02:04 AM

Keep on 'splain' it away Bobert.

We lost. The terrorists won just like you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

The easiest way to get Sunni commanders to stop their people fighting you is pay them off! And that's what was done. You have to keep paying them off, of course, which is expensive, but it might be less expensive on the whole than fighting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

Actually, seems like the terorists may very well be in the process of winning, Sawz...

Look at the intolerance and violence being preached by the right wing in this country... This is exactly what the Taliban does... What, are you confused enough to think of the Taliban as being leftists??? If so, you need to spend more time reading up on what they believe and what they are willing to do to impose thier beliefs on the general population... Not all that unlike what I have seen from your side right here in the "land of the free"...

Land of the free, my butt!!! Land of the the loudest and most bullying... Ain't nothin' free about that at all... This is right outta the Taliban playbook...

As for my assessment on "The Surge"??? That's what it was... It wasn't this bullshit that the ignorant Tea Party people think it was but, hey, they are so barinwashed that I'd bet that 80% of them still think that Saddam was hooked up with al qeada... Okay, maybe 90%... Shoot, Sawz, I ain't too sure that you don't believe that... I donno...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:58 AM

The leftists in Afghanistan are, and always have been, the Northern Alliance warlords who are presently working cooperatively with Karzai and the Americans and fighting against the Taliban and the Pashutuns in the South...who are anything but leftists! Russia's old leftist allies in Afghanistan are the same people who are now allied with the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:00 AM

Bobert is the one telling people to buy guns, talking the hate speech and making the racist remarks.

The lefties are the ones shooting up the place, them and the dope dealers.

Ever watch the TV show Cops? They see car weaving around on the road so they make a traffic stop.

Lo and behold there's are hand guns in the car, pot, a pipe, some crack or meth, a wad of cash. Out on bail or parole. Obama supporters. Do you think they would vote Republican?

You have fallen prey the Astroturf Anti Tea Bag campaign buy professional DC lobbyists paid for by union donations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:02 PM

What the heck are you talking about??? Have you lost your bearings, man? Look, come up to Canada...relax for a bit...calm down. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM

I agree, Sawz. You should go to Canada for a spell, unwind, enjoy the SPring in the north. Yer frying yer circuits around here arguing with us dyed-in-the-wool liberals, man, it'll shorten your life if you don't let up and give yourself a break.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:46 PM

Pot ain't what it used to be, Sawz... Yeah, I'm an ol' hippie so I likes my toke now and then... But most of the pot, at least in the South, is being smoked by good ol' corn-fed rednecks... That's why I grow my own so I don't have to get it from rednecks... Now ol' hillbillys is a different story... They ain't rednecks... They drenk their shine and they couldn't care less about no Cragers. er dumbass rebel flags...

(Oh, Boberdz... That's sounds like hate speech...)

Bullshit... That's just reality in the rural South... If anyone don't believe me then bring yer butt on down fir a tour... A couple hours standing arounf Valley Exxon in the morning's 'ill eran ya'lls a PHD in both redneck and hillbilly...

As for the Taliban??? Kinda rednecky... Not too hillbillyish, tho... Reckon it'd be that moonshine that'd turn them off...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:56 PM

Seems to me that the Taliban are the rednecks of their particular neck of the woods, so to speak. Archconservatives and God-fearing right-to-lifers, all of them! The only problem is they're on the other side of the front line. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

Bill Clinton Bests Former Presidents to Handle Crisis Today, Newsmax/Zogby Poll Finds

By: Jim Meyers

If Americans could have a former living U.S. president run the country and deal with the problems facing the nation today, they would pick Bill Clinton by a wide margin, a Newsmax/Zogby poll reveals.

Former President Jimmy Carter came in last, garnering just 5 percent of support for his taking charge.

The exclusive Newsmax/Zogby poll also found that, if an election took place today between Barack Obama and George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton, Obama would beat both handily.

The Newsmax/Zogby poll asked respondents: ÒOf the current living former presidents, which do you think is best equipped to deal with the problems the country faces today?Ó

Bill Clinton got 41 percent of the vote, trouncing the others in the field of four. George W. Bush received just 15 percent, George H.W. Bush got 7 percent, and Jimmy Carter, just 5 percent. (Only 7 percent of Democrats surveyed opted for Carter.) But 26 percent chose Ònone,Ó and 5 percent were Ònot sureÓ (figures are rounded).

Clinton finished first among Democrats with a solid 69 percent, and among independents (40 percent). George W. Bush far outpaced Clinton among Republicans, 37 percent to 8 percent, although 33 percent of Republicans chose Ònone.Ó

Clinton also finished first among all age groups, all races, all religions, and both sexes, with a stronger showing among women (46 percent) than men (36 percent).

Pollster John Zogby said: ÒBill Clinton is an interesting choice among Ôliving former presidentsÕ because arguably he is the only one listed who did not face a huge national crisis. The Clinton years were dominated by peace and prosperity Ð unlike the Carter, George H.W. and George W. Bush years Ð and that is certainly part of the charm.

ÒBut Clinton maintains the reputation of being the smartest guy in the room and exudes that kind of confidence. He was re-elected and had significant crossover support in 1996 and Americans appreciate his post-presidency as well.Ó

When all living presidents, including Obama, were listed as choices, Obama Ñ despite his current low approval ratings Ñ finished first with 29 percent of the vote, followed by Clinton with a strong second (19 percent), George W. Bush (18 percent), George H.W. Bush (8 percent), and Carter (2 percent). "...(NewsMax)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:15 PM

He couldn't sell watermelons on the highway if you gave him if you gave him a State Trooper to flag down traffic

This is particularly ironic and amusing because of Rathergate.

Dan Rather on the Chris Matthews Show:

"When you talk about a triumph though, part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership and the Republicans are making a case, a lot of independents will buy this argument, listen he just hasn't been...look at the health care bill, it was his number one priority, it took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death and a version of ...listen, he's a nice person, he's very articulate, this was going to be used against him. But He couldn't sell watermelons on the highway if you gave him if you gave him a State Trooper to flag down traffic..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:28 PM

I'd take Alfred E. Newman over Bill Clinton... What a weizel Clinton is and was... He di one right thing and alot of wrong things... He got the tax increases right but had to have Alan Greenspan explain it to him over and over and I'm not sure that Willie ever really got it but, hey, he get's credit for that...

"Don't ask, Don't tell" was Slick Willies slap at gays...

"Welfare reform" wasn't reform at all... It was Boss Hog throwin' poor people out in the cold and added to the poverty rate...

The Bosnian War was uncalled for...

Clinton played games with the Isreali/Palestinian situation with the end game being that he'd look like he was tryin' to do somethin' but that's all he wanted, you know, to look like he was doing something... Better than Bush but still a D- in my book...

And then there was Monika... Like what was that about???

So ya'll get all warm and fuzzy thinkin' how nice it would be to have Clinton back... Sheeet fire, I'll take Ike... I'd definately take Jimmy Carter, who IMHO, was the best president we have had since FDR... Not all that good with dirty tricks but overall, the best...

But forget Clinton... What a bozo... Heck, his nose is even big and red, just like Bozo...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:42 PM

Guns, bombs, body armor, pot, all the essential things a jailbird could desire.

A 49-year-old Farwell man accused of having a homemade bomb was charged Monday in 80th District Court in Harrison.


Mark Edward Connelly was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of body armor and possession of an explosive without a permit, Clare County Sheriff John Wilson said.

Connelly has a felony record dating back to 1989, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections. He has previous convictions on weapons charges and felony charges of resisting and obstruction a police officer.

The Farwell man was arrested Saturday after police were called to his home in the White Birch subdivision.

Clare County Sheriff's officers were called to the subdivision at 3:12 p.m. to investigate a suspicious situation, Sheriff John Wilson said.

Police seized multiple marijuana plants and several firearms, Wilson said.

They also found a homemade explosive device, he said. Deputies called in the Michigan State Police Bomb Squad from Lansing to dispose of the explosive device, Wilson said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:25 PM

They's jest good 'ol boys, never meanin no harm.
Just duckin' taxes like any red blooded American scofflaw.

In 1952, the Internal Revenue Service consolidated the internal enforcement responsibilities of alcohol and tobacco under one unit, which became known as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division.

Pursuing illegal liquor operations proved to be hazardous work. From 1934 through the 1960s, 17 investigators were killed and hundreds injured in hostile actions ranging from gunfire, to assault by violators, to high-speed automobile chases.

Moonshiners posed their own set of challenges. These small, independent distillers operated outside syndicate groups and supplied whiskey to primarily local populations. The 1950s Preventative Raw Materials Program allowed agents to arrest moonshiners for possession of large quantities of sugar. A parallel campaign urged merchants to deny bulk sugar supplies to suspicious persons.

Moonshine's poisonous punch is reflected in its nicknames: white lightning, head-buster and popskull. A Georgia ATF agent observed that illicit producers sometimes add manure to make moonshine ferment faster, and we've found dead possums, rats, and vermin floating in mash vats. Moonshine related deaths became a nationwide health issue in the 1960s, prompting a government-funded public service announcement campaign.

One hundred and fifteen suspected moonshine samples seized by local law enforcement between 1995 and 2001 were voluntarily submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' National Laboratory for lead analysis using flameless atomic absorption spectrophometry. Samples originated from 9 states: 5 southeastern states, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Lead levels ranged between 0.0 μg/dL and 53,200 μg/dL (median 44.0 μg/dL). Median percent alcohol by volume was 44.75% (range 3.85-65.80%). Thirty-three samples (28.7%) contained lead levels > 300 μg/dL, the limit designated potentially hazardous by the FDA. Percent alcohol by volume did not predict lead content. Consuming lL/d of moonshine contaminated with 400 μg/dL of lead would result in a blood lead level of approximately 25 μg/dL. At a high level of consumption, 25% of the samples could produce blood lead levels > 25 μg/dL. Moonshine production and consumption is an under-appreciated toxicologic and public health concern and is not restricted to the southeastern US.

    Even exposure to amounts of lead too low to cause symptoms in the short term may increase the risk of high blood pressure and mental decline in the future. Symptoms in adults may include:

    * Pain, numbness or tingling of the extremities
    * Muscular weakness
    * Headache
    * Abdominal pain
    * Fatigue
    * Irritability
    * Unexplained changes in mood or personality
    * Changes in sleep patterns
    * Inability to concentrate
    * Memory loss
    * Mood disorders

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:52 PM

Elevated blood lead levels in urban moonshine drinkers

Of 49 patients reporting consumption of moonshine within the past 5 years, 25 (51%) of 49 had elevated blood lead levels (>15 μg/dL), with 15 (31%) of 49 having extremely elevated blood lead levels (>50 μg/dL). Recent moonshine consumption (within the past month) was reported by 38 (78%) of 49 patients. Of these 38 recent consumers, 23 (61%) had elevated lead levels compared with only 2 (18%) of 11 of those reporting more remote consumption (risk difference 42%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 70%).

Conclusion: A high percentage of patients who reported moonshine consumption had elevated blood lead levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:20 AM

DEAR GAWD, SAWZ!! Whatever are you DOING? You keep this up we'll have another stab at Progihibitioning. There's virtue for you.

Life is lethal, 's a fack. Best you can do is seek to spread little tolerance and lighten the load a bit. This will require a sharp rotation on your part, but hell, I figger yer overdue for some of that anyway...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:22 AM

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground Rate this story

By Joseph Curl

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin -- 51 percent to 41 percent -- Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama's presidency.

"This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office," said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

"The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin," the pollsters said in their findings.

A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

The Democrats' gap on national security has widened on several other fronts:

• "Keeping America safe": Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008.

• "Ensuring a strong military": Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.)

• "Making America safer from nuclear threats": Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) "despite the president's strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers," the pollsters said.

The poll, conducted late last month, found "the administration's response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion."

"While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama's response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration's handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident," the pollsters said.

In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president's approval ratings.

"Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects," the pollsters found.

Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people." It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster.

Third Way calls itself "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement."

here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:23 AM

Dan Rather: 'Articulate' Obama Couldn't Even 'Sell Watermelons'
By Geoffrey Dickens (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 14:41 ET   

HDNet's Dan Rather stepped on one mine after another in the racial minefield that exists when talking about the nation's first black President as the former CBS anchor, on the syndicated Chris Matthews Show over the weekend, uttered the following take on the President's ability to get health care passed and how the GOP and independents would view it. [audio available here]

DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

While Rather may not have been being intentionally racist one has to wonder what the reaction would be if a conservative had used similiar language on the show.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons#ixzz0hg51S6SH

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:49 AM

Well, the problem with signaling out moonshine as doing this or that leaves out two factors: First, what does the crap you buy at the government run ABC stores do to ya and second, how much ya' drenkin', son??? Sure nuff, if you are a heavy drenker than na matter what you drenk you is gonna have problems...

As for the Dems??? Hey, Bill Clinton once said it's a matter of who has the microphone and it used to be the party in power had it... No more... The ritghties, with gobs of corporate backing from the drug and insurance comapanies, along with FOX are out-shouting the Dems 10 to 1 in terms of media time... That's what this is all about... Not Obama, as Dan Rather would have us believe...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:37 AM

Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling'
By JAY REEVES (AP) – 11 hours ago

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama's address.

Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.

Asked about the Senate's method of confirming new justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of the limitations of judicial ethic rules.

"I think the process is broken down," said Roberts.

While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.

"Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:44 AM

Well, yeah, Roberts would think that Obama's criticism of the court's decision to allow corpoartions unlimted access to media buys troubling...

The problem with Roberts is that he lied during his confirmation hearing in saying he would repsect precidence and not legislate from the bench... Judical activism is judicial activism no matter how one looks at it and now that he has been called to the carpet on it he doesn't much like it...

Tough!!!

If he's gonna run the court like it is the most powerful barnch of governement he's gonna get some push back, not only from the executive branch but also the legislative branch which is allready at work trying to fix the damage that Roberts and his other 4 idealogues have created...

Think it's about time that someone stood up to these arrogant thugs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:34 AM

"Think it's about time that someone stood up to these arrogant thugs...'

I agree- it is GOOD to see Roberts calling out Obama for his inappropriate comments. The SCOTU is an EQUAL branch to the Executive, and Obama's choice of venues was a deliberate attack.

NOT that Obama should not make his comments, but Obama's choice of the SOTU, where the Justices are prohibited by protocol from responding, and Obama's mis-charectorization of the decision are not what ** I ** would expect of someone with the constitutional scholarship that Obama has claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:56 AM

Oh horsepucky, Bruce. The Constitution does not abridge anyone's right to voice an opinion. And the SCOTUS will have to take the stink of their own excreta, I'm afraid.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:23 AM

You miss the point. Amos. The president looked bad when he dissed the SCOTUS when they could not, by protocol, respond. THAT is not the same as abridging Obama's right to be an asshole, and misinterpret the decision- which he has NO excuse for, given his background.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:26 AM

Final 'reform' push: twisting arms
By MICHAEL TANNER

Last Updated: 1:57 AM, March 10, 2010

Posted: 1:21 AM, March 10, 2010


President Obama's attempts to ram health- care reform through an increasingly reluctant Congress are starting to resemble a really eventful episode of "The Sopranos."

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa's bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

They've already bought votes with pork and special deals -- the "Louisiana purchase" ($300 million to bolster that state's Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the "Cornhusker kickback" ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida's "Gator Aid" (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

Nor were the Obamans willing to let a little thing like election laws stand in the way. They rewrote Massachusetts law to allow for an appointed senator to hold office for several months, hoping to get the bill through before the special election that Scott Brown ultimately won. Their plans spoiled, they even considered holding up Brown's seating to let the appointed senator continue to vote on health care -- until public outrage forced them to back down.

And, of course, there has been an unprecedented willingness to ignore congressional rules -- from the failure to appoint a "conference committee" to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills, to their current plans to use the reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster.

Expect the tactics to get even dirtier now.

Those who support the president can expect favors. No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship.

Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) is also on the undecided list. And, purely by coincidence no doubt, the Justice Department just announced that it is dropping an FBI investigation that has been swirling about the congressman. Gosh, if only Charlie Rangel were one of the undecideds.

Those who oppose the president can expect the political equivalent of a horse head between their sheets.

Some of this is just traditional electioneering: On-the-fence Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln is getting a primary challenger with some backing from the national Democratic machine.

But some of it is much nastier. Massa's story may have credibility issues, but other opponents of the bill are also starting to feel the heat. For instance, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose opposition to abortion funding has become one of the bill's biggest hurdles, is now seeing attacks on his ethics.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently questioned the legality of the low rent that a conservative Christian group charges Stupak for his DC apartment. She even noted ominously that disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford stayed at the same building. The liberal blog Daily Kos has picked up on the charges and suggested that both the IRS and the House Ethics Committee investigate.

"Politics ain't beanbag," as Mr. Dooley noted. Presidents have always twisted arms and made deals. And when two-thirds of voters are opposed to your plans, you may have no choice but to play hardball.

But when Obama promised to change the way Washington does business, we didn't think he meant making it a "family" business.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/final_reform_push_0pwRMzHMNshlHQZg8LWmcJ#ixzz0hmfPZoKl

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:31 AM

Amos,

If anything, thois is a further example that the Obama administration is leading the way in increasing division and attacks on opponanyts- contrary to Obama's campaign promises.

If you want to allow Obama to get away with what you criticised Bush for, you are stating that Obama is to be judged by different rules, and is somehow " special". Hardly fair, to him OR to the country.



"Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:35 AM

Amos,

Care to justify the present attacks on those who do not agree with the president??? I know that you are in full approval of giving payoffs to his supporters from your previous comments.




"And, of course, there has been an unprecedented willingness to ignore congressional rules -- from the failure to appoint a "conference committee" to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills, to their current plans to use the reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster.

Expect the tactics to get even dirtier now.

Those who support the president can expect favors. No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship.

Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) is also on the undecided list. And, purely by coincidence no doubt, the Justice Department just announced that it is dropping an FBI investigation that has been swirling about the congressman. Gosh, if only Charlie Rangel were one of the undecideds.

Those who oppose the president can expect the political equivalent of a horse head between their sheets.

Some of this is just traditional electioneering: On-the-fence Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln is getting a primary challenger with some backing from the national Democratic machine.

But some of it is much nastier. Massa's story may have credibility issues, but other opponents of the bill are also starting to feel the heat. For instance, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose opposition to abortion funding has become one of the bill's biggest hurdles, is now seeing attacks on his ethics.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:57 AM

If free speech must needs yield to decorum, I am sure the SCOTUS will have no trouble putting the Phelps tribe in their place for desecrating a funeral with garrulous demonstrations. It will make for an interesting test of their even-handedness.

I object to the bald-faced assertions and generalities you post. Without specifics to support them they take on the air of frothing ill-mannered rants.

I don't think Obama misinterpreted the SCOTUS decision. The conflation of rights of speech as a basic human freedom and the rights of corporations to buy media exposure is disingenuous, whether in you or in the SCOTUS.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM

Care to justify the present attacks on those who do not agree with the president???

Jeezis, Brucie- take it up with Karl Rove, why dontcha?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

Well, Greggie,

You seem to approve of it when liberals do it- are you claiming that liberals should operate under different rules than you wanted conservatives to live under???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 12:40 PM

Given all the outright SCREAMING in our faces that the left and moderates have had to put up with from the SCREAMING RIGHT I thought that Obama's response to Roberts was rather reserved...

I mean, lets get real... The right have become like mentally ill with their SCREAMING and then get highly and righteously indignant when they are criticised for their behavior... There is gonna come a time when the left has had just enough of this immature and borish behavior... But until then, ya'll just keep it up if it make's ya'll all warm and fuzzy...

Robert's and Alito both lied in the confirmation hearings... Both promised to respect precidence but are now Hell-bent on becoming the new US Congress!!! That's bullshit and their ain't enough protocol paint in the world to either cover it up or remove the stench...

I don't recall the righties here gettin' all huffy-puffy when Congressman Wilson tried to shout down the president when he was addressing a joint session on Congress... That, on top of the righteous indignation we are now hearing, is hypocrisy in spades...

Ya'll want some protocol??? Learn some friggin' manners and practice them... Ya'll mama's didn't raise ya'll to be borish crybabies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 02:48 PM

"the crap you buy at the government run ABC stores"

What percentage of people get lead poisoning from the booze bought from the ABC Store?

Where does the tax money on booze bought at the ABC Store go to?

Does it support social programs like feeding kids amongst other things?

I suppose you think ducking taxes is an honorable thing to do.

You must be a teabagger with that attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:05 PM

You could just draw up lines around the country and have another civil war...

If you do, we Canadians promise not to get involved, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:39 PM

I'm willing to let 'em go this time. Iowa for free.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:17 PM

Me, too, mouser and that would mean sellin' my farm. leaving my gardens an all... But if the rednecks want out that bad then don't let the door hit ya'll on the way out... Ya'll allready have the highest divorce rates, the highest obesity rates, the highest health care costs, the dumbest people, the most per cpaital federal tax dollars returend to ya'll so ya'll becoming a drain on the rest of the country.... Yeah, if ya'll want out then fine with me... I rather live in an ara where people ain't brought up thinking that the government owed them everything while criticizing the hand that feeds 'um...

I mean, these people couldn't survive 30 days without the northweat and west coast paying in the bigass $$$s that in turn got dooled out to them... Bunch of ungratefull crybabies as far as I can see...

BTW, the US now is 18th in high school graduation rates in the top 24 industrialized countries... Come to where I live an' you'll understand in about 10 minutes... I mean, I never thought I'd see our country so dumbed down... I mean, eat up with stupidity and ignorance and the worst part about it is that the Repubs have lived at the "Elitist (eductaed) plate" for so long that there are entire regions that think that education is stupid????

Wait a minute... Education stupid????

See what I mean???

Yeah, let the loser states go... They will be like Haiti in 30 days... And build a bigass wall to keep them gone 'cause they gonna be doing everything they can to escape the Hell-hole once the federal $$$s quit coing their way... I mean, a BIGASS WALL!!! No, that ain't screaming... Just the size of the wall it's gonna take to keep a bunch of self righteuos rednecks outta civilized people's neighborhoods...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM

There ya go with the hate speech again Bobert.

What kind of gun should we buy to kill those self righteous, dumb, obese, divorced, crybaby, uncivilized r******s with when they try to climb over your wall Bobert? Are they the ones with the kids that go hungry at night? The ones that are below the poverty line?

Now if they was illegal aliens, you would be handin' out ladders and hugs and kisses when they made it over the wall. Here's your free medical care, welfare, child support, food stamps, education and let me know if you need anythin' else cause I'm here to serve my fellow man.

If they were convicted murderers on death row you would be wailing to save them from the death penalty.

If they were unborn fetuses you'd be sayin' hell with them, they ain't even human yet, just some kind of bug to be squashed so fire up the Roto Rooter.

If they were drug dealers, you would be sending business their way sayin' real men smoke pot.

If they were moonshiners selling poisioned goods, you would be advertizing for them. Sayin' that legal stuff they sell at the ABC store is crap. Who needs to pay taxes anyway? Real men drink 'shine.

Man, you got one big ass, serious anger management problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:58 PM

This is a hoot. ;-) Better than old reruns of "All In The Family", that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:41 AM

Yeah, Sawz... Rather than me got thru my litiny of things I hate maybe you can go back and reread it...

Ain't hate speech at all, son, but you wouldn't know hate speech if it bit you on yer as... No offense, mind you, but hate speech is all about hatin' someone for their race, national origin or sexual preference... Hey, that ain't me... Yeah, sho nuff alot of dumbass things that I hate (see list allready posted) but I don't hate people... I don't hate no-body...

Ya' see, son... I was brought up to "hate the sin but love the sinner".... Yup, that's the way my "Commie Mommie" (lol) brought me up... We both purdy string Christains, too, and Jesus ain't into hating folks but He sho nuff hated dumbass stuff that some folks do...

But you won't get this at all 'cuase it's like a square peg 'an you ain't got no round holes in yer thinkerator...

Gotta go...

B~