 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views on Obama
|
|
|
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 concessionBarack 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 |
|
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 |
