BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:24 AM

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama rocketed to a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire one day before their showdown in the state's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Monday.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona also began to pull away from rival Mitt Romney, opening a five-point lead on the Massachusetts governor as what had been tight races in both parties began to open up.

This is the first of the rolling New Hampshire polls taken entirely after last week's caucuses in Iowa, where Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee scored breakthrough wins that left Clinton and Romney reeling.

Obama, an Illinois senator bidding to make history as the first black U.S. president, gained 11 points on Clinton to lead the one-time Democratic front-runner 39 percent to 29 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was third with 19 percent.

"This is a breathtaking movement in Obama's direction," said pollster John Zogby. "It's a surge for Obama and movement away from Clinton."

(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:44 AM

Ron - I've read where other Republicans are trying to convince the Democrats to nominate Obama as well. You're not alone out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM

So your position, Riginslinger, is that in a Presidential election the number of people who would vote to keep out Obama would be larger than the number who would vote to keep out Clinton?

Seems to me that Clinton's got a combination against her of people who'd be hostile to her as a women and people who'd be hostile to her as an individual. Not that that's necessarily a fatal combination - Maggie Thatcher survived it. But Obama doesn't seem to have that second hurdle of people disliking him as an individual, rather than because they don't like the idea of anyone "black" in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

I'm only trying to speculate as to which candidate the Republicans would rather run against. I think it has a lot to do with how their political operatives are able to damage the opposition candidate in the general election.

               You make a good point, though, McGrath. It could be that more people are more frightened about having a woman in the White House than having a black in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:44 AM

One of the reasons Clinton is faltering against Obama is that her voice is tense, even shrill, and resonates in the annoying higher frequencies of mosquito flight, while his is relaxed, has a calming overtone, and resonates in bass frequencies that make it sound stable and certain.

Although people have to talk tot he issues, I think their final decisions also hinge on things like this, sensory apperceptions and associations that contribute to the impression of the person as a whole.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

Yes. Also, Hillary's age is working against her a bit, I think. I think there's an appetite out there for someone a tad younger this time.

Worst of all, though, consider this: It would be just like having the Clinton presidency (of the 1990s) all over again, because Hillary and Bill would be back in the White House...and I'm sure that they would both play a significant role in shaping policy. They both played a significant role last time. Bill was the chief executive, but Hillary was very much involved. Now Hillary would be the chief executive and Bill would be very much involved. That's just a rerun of a previous democratic presidency. It would be nothing more than Round 3 for the Clinton dynasty, and I don't think most people want that. I wouldn't! I'd want something brand new, not a rerun of the past.

Bush Jr., after all, was in a sense Round 2 & 3 of Bush senior (although a whole lot WORSE)...and that hasn't turned out to be such a great idea either, has it? ;-)

I wonder to what extent the Republicans can damage Obama...? I'm sure they will try like hell to do so if he runs against them, and what will they pull out of the hat of dirty tricks, and how effectively will he deal with it?

As for McCain!....the man strikes me as a purblind militaristic fanatic when it comes to US foreign policy. He repeats every pathetic myth concocted by the neocons to justify pre-emptive war on small nations of Muslim people. Pre-emptive war is totally unconstitutional, and it is an international crime, a blatant violation of the laws that govern sovereign nations. It is the Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo method of dealing with achieving political objectives outside one's own borders. That makes McCain a closet fascist, in my opinion.

Ron Paul has the guts to call pre-emptive war what it is...but none of the other Republicans do. That's pretty shameful.

It amazes me that a majority of Republicans could want John McCain for president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:30 PM

The Republicans take advantage of the reality that people are stupid. We've heard rumblings already that they are beginning to make the case that Obama is Muslim. If he gets the nomination, they'll go into high gear with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

Yeah. It's pitiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:38 PM

'Beginning' ?! They've been trying that particular smear for quite a while now. The only people who believe it are those who WANT to believe it and who ignore facts. There ARE those people out there, but most of them wouldn't vote for him anyway. If that particular smear campaign continues, it will backfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM

YEah, that smear was dead in the water two months ago, AFAIK.

As for McCain, he is actually a smart and personable guy who just happens to have a certain amount of his attention locked into the military mindset -- understandable after his 'Nam tribulations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM

For the left: Obama's victory speech in Iowa was the most powerful address since Robert Kennedy of MLK.

For the right: Barak Hussein was cocky* after the Iowa caucus.

*means uppity

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:52 PM

I don't think it's dead. His Democratic opponents won't go there, but in a general election the Republicans will bring in the clergy and make the accusations from the pulpit. That will make in holy, and it will stick.

                Look at all the people who still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM

I hope he is more prepared for it than Kerry was for the Swifties.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

The thing is, that kind of stuff would only matter if it takes in people who would otherwise be voting for the Democratic candidate (probably Clinton), or if it motivates people who would otherwise not be voting into getting up and voting for the Republican.

And at the same time if those people outnumbered those for whom the effect of those kind of blatant lies might be to make decent people less likely to vote for the Republican and stay-at-homers likely to get out and vote Democrat.

Sounds like a very risky strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

First of all, the candidates themselves would never do it. They'd let Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the 527 groups, and the preachers do it. None of it could ever get traced back to the other candidate.

                It sure worked wonders against John Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM

Ahhhh, I'd just like to make an observation about the concern that the Repubs would use Obama's admitted drug use -- which, BTW, was a long time ago -- agsinst him in the campaign...

First of all, one only neds to look at the current guy... He's an alcoholic and a cokehead...

Secondly, the Dems never tried to "politcize" this in either 2000 or 2004 so for the Repubs, in these tuimes when voters are sich of nasty polictics, the Repubs would be shooting themselves in the foot if they so much as whispered anything about it...

And if they were stupid enough to bring it up, I'm sure there would be campaign ad people lickin' their chops to write the rebuttal ad...

I could write a few good one's myself that would turn this back on the Repubs in spades...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

One problem the Democrats seem to have is: they don't have these ready-made attack mechanizims already in place. There really aren't any liberal Sean Hannitys or Rush Limbaughs out there.
                   To begin with, you'd have to have a day-to-day audience listening to them, and stupid enough to believe what they say. The fact that SH, RL, and the others are there, and broadcasting every day of the week makes it all possible. All they have to do is switch the topic from the "Public Screwells" or Creationism, or the teacher's union, and talk about the election for a few months.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:09 PM

I think Amos is absolutely right when he says, "I think their final decisions also hinge on things like this, sensory apperceptions and associations that contribute to the impression of the person as a whole."

Hillary the cynical, old shrew.

Obama the young, charismatic politician.

Richardson the experienced, hard worker.

Edwards the legal brain, willing to fight corporate greed.

I actually think they are all capable. If the Dems can put together the right combination, they will definitely win the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:26 PM

In the US, artbrooks, the term 'race' may only be used to refer to skin color, hair texture, and eye, nose and lip shape, but in much of the world it can be applied to groups that are defined in other ways. Racism is a behavior. I don't see the appropriateness of only using it in reference to that particular behavior as directed toward people based on the physical characteristics that I just listed. The behavior is just as heinous regardless of whom is on the receiving end of it, and we do not have any suitable words to describe that behavior when it is directed towards groups that you don't consider a race. It is perfectly appropriate to use the term when that behavior is being directed at Muslims by people who are not Muslims, and that is what I will continue to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM

CarolC, please feel free to redefine words to fit your own personal desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:30 PM

Edwards would make a great Attorney General... Hillary, on the other hand, is best off where she is...

As fir progressives/liberals not havin' the will to attack??? I don't know... Edwards sho nuff looks like he could kick some butt...

But Obama will neeed someone in his campaign, other than himself, to do some of the dirty work... Kinda like Clinton had James Carvelle... But his people, I am sure, have given this a lot of consideration...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

Bobert - I agree Edwards could certainly take care of himself in a dispute. The probelm for the Democrats, as I see it, the Republicans have all these henchmen to do the attacking for them. That way the candidate himself/herself can never be accused of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

As I said before, artbrooks, and apparently you neglected to read it, I'm not creating that definition myself. It is used by much of the world. You many not agree with their definition, but it is a commonly used one, nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

Dianavan, you said... "I actually think they are all capable." (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson...AND Kucinich)

Yes! They are. That's right. And it would be far better if they were working together as a united coalition for their party going into this election, rather than jockeying against one another in the usual programmed manner for the one top spot of presidential candidate.

But the system as it exists forces them to compete with...and inevitably to attack one another.   That's not such a good system.

Now here's a theory that's been percolating around in my head in the last few days...just as a matter of interest. I think the Founding Fathers of the USA made one key error when they designed their tripartite system of government, and based it on the Constitution. They selected something very similar to a king...a temporary one...to rule it at the top! Why did they do that? Well, simply because people at that time were so completely accustomed to being ruled by one monarch, one man, that they couldn't even imagine a system that did not have one supreme leader at its top! Accordingly, they created an executive office that imbued a single leader, the President, with powers that in my view are too great and too dominant...and they created a political system that is based on the cult of that one single personality. That's not such a good idea, because a single personality is usually in truth not adequate to effectivelty and wisely lead a country (with some rare exceptions here and there, and we've seen those now and then).

It is better for a number of well-informed heads to reach a final decision on vital matters of national policy than it is for one to do it. That's my opinion. A large number of professional people are more likely to reach a decision which is not flawed by their own personal foibles, weaknesses, etc....because they all act as a check on one another.

But a president, ultimately, decides alone. Bush: "I'm the decider."

Well, dictators ultimately decide alone too, don't they? No one can gainsay a dictator's final decision on policy.

Thus what I am suggesting is that the USA would have been wiser to form a dual system of government....Congress and the judicial branch...Congress with a prime minister, no doubt, or a central committe to lead it....rather than creating such a powerful executive office as they did in the President.

There were many in the first Congress at the inception of the USA's independence who wanted to crown George Washington the first King of the USA!!!!!!!! That's a historical fact. Washington did not want that, and he told them so, and that speaks well for him, but it shows the mindset at the time. People were used to having kings.

A US president has powers considerably greater than a parliamentary prime minister in countries like Canada, Great Britain, etc....he's basically in for 4 years almost no matter WHAT he does, and he exerts an enormous personal force on the agenda if he is inclined to....and that can be a disaster if he's out of touch with reality or on a destructive course, as some of them certainly have been. He ends up creating damage that a prime minister would never get away with, because a prime minister's government would lose its credibility and immediately have to call a new election....they would face, in effect, a plebiscite. The US President doesn't have to do that. He's practically like a god for the 4 years that he's in office. He's almost untouchable.

Not good. It lends itself to abuse of power by men who are inclined to abuse it...and many are.

I think the founders of the USA fell into this error precisely because they were so used to being ruled by kings. They thought they were being very progressive, and they were, but they could only see just so far out of the box they grew up in.

Our prime minister does not get voted for as an individual across the whole country, he runs in a single local riding somewhere (and his party will be careful to pick one where they're quite sure he won't lose....although he still might!). We vote for the party whose policies we like the best AND whose leader we like the best (hopefully) but we don't vote for the leader HIMSELF directly except in one local riding...and he does not have the tremendous executive powers once elected that an American president does to personally veto the acts of the parliament.

The American system is geared to leadership by one strong man, and that attracts...or creates absolutists, people who assume almost the mantle of a monarch once elected. It does not benefit democracy to do that, it endangers it.

Now all the Democratic candidates (and the Republican ones) are caught up in the usual dynamic...first they attack one another, to get the top spot...then they attack the other party...all so that one single person among them can become the new "god in the White House" for 4 years, and no one can do diddly about it if they go berserk once they're in there.

Not good at all.

I'd rather see a system where Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich could ALL run equally for their party, cooperatively with one another, running as candidates in their own regions, and present a united front on behalf OF their party to the public, and discuss and work out policy together with the rest of their party and the other party after being elected (assuming they were). I'd like to see the same for the Republicans.

I'd like to see an end to this personality-cult/single leader approach to politics. It produces people who can't handle the load, and it also produces, on occasion, tyrants.

The Founding Fathers did not go quite far enough in distancing themselves from the Absolute Monarchies of their day, in my opinion.

There. ;-) Now, it's just theory. I know it ain't gonna happen. But I am always interested in what could be as well as what is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM

So is bigotry racist when it's directed at Catholics or Protestants?   How about when it's gay people? Or Democrats or Republicans? Or longhairs? I'm not questioning that what is involved is essentially the same way of thinking - but drift the term too far and it blurs things.

Except perhaps in some pretty limited contexts the term should perhaps always be kept in inverted commas. Otherwise it seems to indicate a degree of acceptance of the notion that it's all actually about something that can properly be described as "a race", which is very rarely the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM

Well, Rigs... I realize that attack ads still do work but if the Repubs try to Swiftboat Obama I think the Dems have had enough time to figure out how to counter...

Actually, John Kerry had opportunities to counter but never did...

If I had been John Kerry I would have just looked into the camera with a steely look and said plainly, "The men who say they know what went on that day weren't there... I was... My crew was... And so was that Viet Cong soldier who fired upon my boat just before I shot and killed him... Now if any of you can prove it didn't happen this way, fine... Step up to the plate just as I did on that June day in 1969..."

That's the way you deal with it... End of story...

By not doing that Kerry allowed doubt to set in... The way to deal with Swiftboaters is put it back on them and do it "swiftly"....

No, what I see the Repubs doing is attacking Obama's strenghts... One of the best things he has going for him is that he is convincing voters that he can end partisanship do I see the Repubs demanding that Obame tell the vioters how he plans on doing this and then attacking Obama's responses and try to get the fight into the corner... That is what the Bush apologists do here in Mudville... They try to control the converstaion by constantly changing the subject...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

LH - Sometimes you need fast and immediate decisions that could only be issued by one man/woman. And sometimes, when you have a committee trying to run something, they aren't capable of reaching a decision. Look how hopeless the US Senate becomes at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:31 PM

Well...Canada, England, and a great many other modern democracies seem quite able to reach important decisions quickly, Rinslinger, despite not having a chief executive with veto powers over his own assembly. We have not been hamstrung at all in that sense by having a weaker chief executive office than in the USA.

You Americans are used to your imperial presidency because you take it for granted, but you don't have the basis of comparison that many others have when it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

I guess I just always assumed that people like Harper and Gordon Brown had similar authorities to an American president.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:17 PM

No, indeed. They are chief executives, but they do not have the extraordinary powers and untouchability of an American president. They are there to make the hard decisions in an emergency...which decisions must, of course, be ratified at some point by the sitting parliament.

Here's the difference. If our prime minister screws up really badly on a major policy issue, and the public loses confidence really badly in his government, he is simply going to be forced by parliament itself within a reasonable amount of time to call an election over it. He doesn't get to wait till a 4-year interval passes. He has to face the music then and there.

He can't veto legislation that has been legally passed by the parliament, he can only use his (considerable) persuasion to influence that vote before it is cast...and he gets, like any other member of parliament, one vote on the bill...but he undoubtedly influences the other members of his party by persuasion, because that's how a party works in concert with its party leaders.

When we do have an election in Canada, it doesn't last a solid year! It lasts 6 weeks. That's plenty enough time for the politicians to harangue the public, get their message out, and bombard the airwaves, and generally put the government and society in a state of confusion. Who the hell needs more than 6 weeks to have an election campaign???

Look at what happens in the USA in comparison. An election there basically throws your whole society into a frenzy that lasts almost a year. That isn't good for running your government efficiently. But it's great for professional people who get highly paid to do all the promo stuff they do during an election, isn't it?

No Canadian prime minister's government could possibly have survived the idiocies in foreign policy perpetrated by George Bush in the last 7 years. He'd have been thrown out a long, long time ago. But the imperial presidency is almost unassailable if your president decides he just won't give in. Nothing short of impeachment can stop him then, and impeachment is a national trauma almost equivalent to civil war. The odds against it ever being carried through are astronomical, and if it is carried through it gives the country a nervous breakdown. (that's because your president is like a god, in effect...or a symbolic father figure for the whole nation...and that's just out of proportion)

In comparison, kicking an unpopular Canadian prime minister out of office is a very moderate and accessible exercise, as it well should be, and it has been done many times, I can tell you. Just normal political stuff. No national nervous breakdown.

This means our prime ministers have to keep in mind that they are not unaccountable for their actions. They are public employees with a job to do, and they can get fired! They have to remain just a tad humble...or pay the price. ;-) All to the better, if you want good government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

Actually, artbrooks is incorrect in saying that the definition I am using is wrong. Even Websters dictionary supports my usage...

2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary

However, I most often see or hear people from your side of the pond using the term in the way I am using it, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:40 PM

Well - LH - That does sound like a better system. I'd have to think about the veto thing a bit.

                What about those folks in the US who want to give the president a Line-Item-Veto. That would give him more power than ever, wouldn't it? And what do you think about all of the power that George W. Bush has simply usurped over the years. That seems destructive as well, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:00 PM

True enough, that definition would indeed allow the term "race" to be applied to the range of groups I mentioned, Catholics, Protestants, gays, Republicans, Democrats. Even wider - to cover "women", "men", "children", or morris dancers.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary's equivalent sub-definition is clearer in indicating the kind of context in which this meaning can be properly used: class of person etc with some common feature (eg race of poets, of dandies, etc.)

But I think that moving on from there to use the word racism to cover prejudice against any and every "class of person with some common feature" is extending it a bit too far. And I doubt if there's a dictionary definition of that word which would recognise that use.

People do use the term racism in relation to prejudice against religious groups - for example, Catholics and Protestants in the Northern Irish context, or Muslims or Jews more generally. I'd see them as using it in an analogistic way. Making a point of enclosing the word in inverted commas is a way of representing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

Very theoretically the Queen as Head of State has a veto on legislation - and that's really where the President as elected Head of State, inherits it - it got carried over into the US Constitution as the kind of things Heads of State were supposed to be able to do.

However so far as the Queen goes it's not a real power - the last time it was used was in 1708.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:02 PM

Yes, again, that's my point. The President's king-like powers are that way precisely because all the people in that society in the 1770's were accumstomed to the idea of a monarch wielding those sort of powers. The American revolutionaries attempted to liberalize things and spread the power around, they just did not take that iniativer quite far enough...in terms of what has happened since in liberal democracies.

Now most of the rest of the western world has, in fact, become more progressive in that sense than the USA has, because the USA is resting its governmental structures on an old model that stems from way back in the 1770's, and it's become a bit out of date in the interim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:33 PM

Well, we are being pretty Eurocentric, post-Vatican II on this question of whether he is a Muslim. I think it would be wonderful if he were, and do not think it is a negative thing at all or should be an insult. Nowadays we think we are whatever religion we want to be or declare ourselves to be. That is not certainly how it used to be, even when I was growing up...my father broke the Catholic chain by marrying a Protestant, so I consider myself only half Catholic, but nevertheless that is the religion I inherited. Obama's father was raised Muslim and became an agnostic I believe. Obama has declared himself a Christian. To our way of thinking that is what he is. To his father's culture and religion, his father was a Muslim and therefore so is he as you are what your father was (for male and female? DOn't know.) So it is not far-fetched to at least wonder if he is one. It should not be a problem for him at all, but of course it is...We shouldn't necessarily insult those who wonder, and we shouldn't consider it anybody's business but his if he is and it would add to his already impressive multicultural heritage. Being a Mormon should not be a problem for Romney, but of course it is...but people are always making it sound like the other people are the problem....don't go making him deny his father's heritage now..no one should have to do this. He is in sort of a pickle but supposedly educated tolerant people making it sound like being associated with a Muslim family history is somehow tainted are certainly part of the problem themselves. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM

If only Obama would have become an agnostic like his father he'd be a lot more attractive politically.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:43 PM

Well said, mg, I applaud your thinking, but the fact is that in the present American society no presidential candidate can afford to be indentified as having been "Muslim". Why? Because there's too much prejudice out there against Muslims, too much fear of them, and it would be a death blow to his candidacy.

Obviously, that is unjust...that form of prejudice...it's irrational...and it's wrong...but the political reality is that it's there and it's a factor which cannot be gotten around.

Kennedy was hurt (some) by being Catholic. Romney is hurt by being Mormon. Obama would be hurt a lot worse by having been "Muslim".

It would be great if the general public were wholly rational and free of prejudice, but they are not.

So what is one to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:43 PM

Well, as a member of the race of liberals and the race of Mudcatters, I suppose I can accept that not everyone is as literal and pedantic as I. I, however, maintain my own right to believe that the words "prejudiced" and "racist" do not mean the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:59 PM

They certainly do not!! A man can be prejudiced about any number of things besides race!! He can hate poor people, redheads, or gimps without a trace of racism to it!! He's still guilty of blind prejudice, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

Carol was obviously referring to generic and blind prejudice against Muslims, and she used the term "racist" in her statement. So what? She was talking about prejudice. It works the same way, regardless of what word you call it by.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:32 PM

"Obama Ahead of Clinton Before New Hampshire Primary
By Meredith Buel
Bedford, New Hampshire
07 January 2008


Large crowds of supporters are cheering Barack Obama as polls show the Illinois senator is poised to win a significant victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary. It would be Obama's second come-from-behind triumph in a week over New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who displayed rare emotion as she campaigned on the eve of the election. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details on the Democratic candidates running in the primary in this report from Bedford, New Hampshire.


Several recent polls show Obama leading Hillary Clinton by a double-digit margin less than a week after the one-time front runner came in a disappointing third in the Iowa caucuses.

At a rally in Lebanon, New Hampshire, Obama urged his supporters not to be overconfident.

"I know we had a nice boost over the last couple of days, but elections are funny things," said Obama. "You actually have to wait until people have voted and counted the votes before you know what is happening."

About 45 percent of New Hampshire's voters are independent and can participate in either the Republican or Democratic primaries."...


Hmmmm.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:18 PM

Obama Moslem or not. Obviously not. But look at how Rig phrased it--not "Moslem"
but "Islamic ties". It's the nebulous phrasing which is particularly damning--allows all sorts of speculation. I suspect that in some minds it's worse than "Moslem"--and that is exactly why that phrase is used.

And of course totally without foundation--especially the sinister "ties" which are meant to be raised. As I've already pointed out. It appears his father was Moslem. Obama himself went to school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. Not a madrassa. In fact it may be an advantage for him--he still speaks a bit of Indonesian. End of "Islamic ties".

Another item:

Rig: "Ron, I've read where other Republicans are trying to convince the Democrats to nominate Obama as well. You're not alone out there."

Gee, Rig, if I didn't know better I might possibly think , that, as the master of the deft smear--Bush may still have a place for you even in his last year-- you're trying to smear me by implying that I want Obama so the Republicans can beat him. Good thing we know you'd never stoop to anything so low. Heaven forbid.

And of course your theory, as usual, shows less than perfect logic, shall we say. In fact Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate--especially for his willingness to reach out to non-Democrats. And you've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you're unaware that there are such things as sensible Republicans--moderate to liberal--not of the Bush-Cheney-Rove stripe. I assure you we do exist. Sen. Lugar is good example. McCain is sensible on some issues, but nobody who imagines we can achieve "victory" in Iraq gets my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:19 PM

"Sen. Lugar is a good example."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:36 PM

Bobert--

Just wanted to compliment you heartily on your 7 Jan 2008 4:25 PM post--especially your idea for Kerry's response to the Swift Boaters for Character Assassination.

Just perfect--too bad Kerry didn't have you advising him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:16 PM

I don't think they mean the same thing, either, artbrooks, which is why I insist on using the term 'racism' to indicate racist behaviors against Muslims. The kind of hate mongering that is being waged against them as a group as well as against them as individuals cannot in any way be called 'prejudice'. Prejudice is far too mild a word to use in this context. It's racist hate is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:16 PM

"Perhaps you're unaware that there are such things as sensible Republicans..."


                      You got that right!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

mg,

By standard Church rules, it is the religion (and denomination) of the MOTHER that determines the religion of the children. A child of a RC mother and an Eastern Othodox ( of whatever denomination) is RC UNLESS the child converts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:52 PM

CarolC, you should, of course, feel free to use whatever word you are most comfortable with, as a member of the Mudcat race (which is, according to your definition, "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"). BTW, you might, just for the fun of it, put "racism" into the dictionary site to which you linked earlier.

And does anyone have anything to say about the Obama supporter race or about Senator Obama? Personally, I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that he is presently 3 years older than was JFK when he was elected President, without a great deal more experience as an elected official than Sen. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 12:59 AM

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

Seeing as how one of their definitions of race is perfectly consistent with the way I am using it, when they use the word race in the above context, it can most certainly mean what I am intending it to mean when I use it.

You're right. That was fun.