BS: Popular Views on Obama

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!