BS: Popular Views on Obama

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.