DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 22, 2008, 09:03:17 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080722/pl_politico/11939 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080722/pl_politico/11939)
McCain is more used to extemporanious speaking and will make Obama look slow and poorly breifed .....
In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.
.... or not?
-
extemporanious
thank you plane
The 1st and last time I heard of this word was at the anita hill hearing
I always wanted to know how it was spelled
that case was interesting to the public because we get to hear those $12 dollar words getting used.
despite what people publicly say,we love hearing those high faluten words
-
Kimba
Has anyone ever told you that your humor is extremely subtle?
extemporanious
thank you plane
The 1st and last time I heard of this word was at the anita hill hearing
I always wanted to know how it was spelled
-
extemporaneous
Now you know. It means "outside the limits of time", but refers to an unprepared, unrehearsed speech.
It seems to me that Obama is a lot better at this sort of thing than McCain, who confuses Shia with Sunnis and the like.
-
It gets worse. McCain apparently thinks there is a Pakistan-Iraq border, when he discusses the security situation in Iraq today.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/mccain_appears.html (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/mccain_appears.html)
You are going to see WHY McCain graduated 5th last in his class at Annapolis if he gets into any extended debates with Obama. Or you'll learn first-hand what the early stages of Alheimers are all about. Which is why you are NOT going to see any extended John Insane-Barak Obama debates in this campaign.
-
Which is why you are NOT going to see any extended John Insane-Barak Obama debates in this campaign.
Yup, no extended debates in any of the 57 states...
-
<<Yup, no extended debates in any of the 57 states...>>
I'm down wid dat. I think most people will figure out that Obama really knows how many states there are and somehow just mis-spoke himself. Everything else he says sounds on the ball, hip and contemporary. You've got to be really dumb to think there are 57 states, and nothing else about Obama appears to be even remotely dumb.
McCain isn't so fortunate. His repeated references to "Czechoslovakia" are explained as force of habit, but that's an old man's excuse. His mind is too tired and dug in to change with the times, habit takes over from thought, and so the Czech Republic is still "Czechoslovakia" in John Insane's mind, regardless of how long ago the break-up occurred. That's better than thinking he's dumb, but it's still not too impressive to voters looking for someone who may hold their lives in his hands.
The Pakistan-Iraq "border" is on a whole different order of magnitude. This betrays real ignorance of the basic issues and shows a guy who is just firing from the hip, speaking by rote and getting his Iraq - Afghanistan cues mixed up. He either doesn't know, gets tired and confused even in a friendly environment or just doesn't give a shit. None of them qualities sought in an applicant for the job as President and Commander in Chief.
-
He said Iraq when he meant Afghanistan. The other guy said 57 when he meant 50.
So what.
-
<<He said Iraq when he meant Afghanistan.>>
Exactly. But up to that point the whole discussion had been about Iraq, and he thought he was still talking about Iraq when he made a remark that actually applies to Afghanistan. If I'm talking to someone for public consumption about Iraqi issues and his mind wanders into Afghanistan during the discussion - - a relatively friendly, low-pressure discussion - - that's not a very encouraging impression. It evidences senility, inability to keep up, and raises questions about how the guy's brain will function under pressure.
Obama simply made a slip of the tongue. It didn't indicate in any way that he had lost track of the discussion or where he was in it.
-
Exactly. But up to that point the whole discussion had been about Iraq, and he thought he was still talking about Iraq when he made a remark that actually applies to Afghanistan. If I'm talking to someone for public consumption about Iraqi issues and his mind wanders into Afghanistan during the discussion - - a relatively friendly, low-pressure discussion - - that's not a very encouraging impression. It evidences senility, inability to keep up, and raises questions about how the guy's brain will function under pressure.
Obama simply made a slip of the tongue. It didn't indicate in any way that he had lost track of the discussion or where he was in it.
He was asked a question about Afghanistan, and made a slip of the tongue when he said Iraq instead of Afghanistan in his response about Afghanistan. It didn't indicate in any way that he had lost track of the discussion or where he was in it.
-
I think that it is rather silly to criticize candidates for misspeaking when each is followed around 24/7 and every word they say is recorded and all possible misstatements are magnified.
None of these has been as bad as Gerald Ford saying that Poland was not in the Soviet orbit. But even that would not have resulted in any likely change of policy had Ford been elected.
This sort of story is just flack.
The big issue is the sort of fascists that could be appointed to the Supreme Court, how long we will have troops (and worse, mercenaries making triple) in Iraq, costing us tons of money, and how financial crises such as the subprime mess will be avoided in the next four years.
-
<<He was asked a question about Afghanistan, and made a slip of the tongue when he said Iraq instead of Afghanistan in his response about Afghanistan. It didn't indicate in any way that he had lost track of the discussion or where he was in it.>>
That's patently ridiculous. If it were just a slip of the tongue, the rest of his sentence would have been applicable to Iraq, not Afghanistan (which had not been mentioned at the time.) In fact, he did speak about the "progress" in Iraq and then he mentioned the Pakistani border. Obviously either not knowing that there was no Pakistani-Iraq border or losing his train of thought and believing that they had been discussing Afghanistan. Either way, not good.
-
That's patently ridiculous. If it were just a slip of the tongue, the rest of his sentence would have been applicable to Iraq, not Afghanistan (which had not been mentioned at the time.) In fact, he did speak about the "progress" in Iraq and then he mentioned the Pakistani border. Obviously either not knowing that there was no Pakistani-Iraq border or losing his train of thought and believing that they had been discussing Afghanistan. Either way, not good.
If it was a slip of the tongue and he said Iraq instead of Afghanistan, the rest of the sentence would have applicable to Afghanistan. Which it was. He WAS discussing Afghanistan, because he was ASKED about Afghanistan. Saying Iraq was therefore a slip of the tongue.
For your claim to be correct - "the rest of his sentence would have been applicable to Iraq, not Afghanistan" - then he would have to say "Iraq" instead of "Afghanistan."
Again, your claim is the one that is patently ridiculous.
-
Ouch. You're right. I watched the tape again and it was Afghanistan that they were talking about in the first place, not Iraq. So it could well have been a slip of the tongue. Sorry.
Doesn't matter much though, because McCain just pulled another gaffe. He's the gift that keeps on giving. The so-called "Anbar Awakening" began many months before the surge - - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html) - -
yet we have McCain crediting the surge with the "Anbar Awakening." Proving he either doesn't know what the hell is going on there or he'll say anything to get elected.
-
subtle
no
but It has been accused of being so specific only that only I know it`s funny.
i really do want to know how to spell extemporanious
despite impromtu is a much easier word to use
my niece hates my sense of humor
in fact all the females in my family hate my humor.
and still they keep visiting
-
Doesn't matter much though, because McCain just pulled another gaffe. He's the gift that keeps on giving. The so-called "Anbar Awakening" began many months before the surge - - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html) - -
yet we have McCain crediting the surge with the "Anbar Awakening." Proving he either doesn't know what the hell is going on there or he'll say anything to get elected.
As was pointed out in the other thread, the "An-bar Awakening" idea was first formed during discussions between various sheiks and the US military in November of 2006, and the "Iraq Surge" was being discussed by the US military around the same time. Both became "official" in March of 2007. I don't see how either one began "months" before the other. I'm not privy to the contents of the talks between the sheiks and the military (which McCain would be...) but it doesn't sound far fetched to me to that the military said "if you form a group to fight Al Qaeda, we'll send in more military to help." And there was born both ideas.
-
<<As was pointed out in the other thread, the "An-bar Awakening" idea was first formed during discussions between various sheiks and the US military in November of 2006,>>
There's the problem - - as I posted in the other thread, in SEPTEMBER of 06, Col. MacFarlane was publicly on record boasting about the success of the Anbar Awakening in deed if not in name. At that time, according to him, they already had al Qaeda up against the ropes. The surge hadn't even been decided on at that time, was decided about two months later and wasn't announced to the public until about three months later. It was pointed out in the article I posted or another one that Col MacFarland's troops were being deployed out of Al Anbar at the same time as the first troops of the "surge" were arriving.
-
Yeah, and they were talking about increasing troop levels via a surge in early 2006 as well, but it was shelved until after the elections.
Just because a few sheiks were fighting back then doesn't mean it was a coordinated movement - that didn't come until very late in the year, well after al-Rishawi was assassinated. And we increased our troop levels early in 2006 anyway, kind of a "pre-surge" surge.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080722/pl_politico/11939 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080722/pl_politico/11939)
McCain is more used to extemporanious speaking and will make Obama look slow and poorly breifed .....
In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.
.... or not?
Consider also his reference to the Iraq/Pakistan border.
-
Consider also his reference to the Iraq/Pakistan border.
That was a slip of the tongue, like Obama's 57 states. He had been talking about Iraq, he was asked a question about Afghanistan, and when he replied, he said Iraq instead of Afghanistan.
-
<<Just because a few sheiks were fighting back then doesn't mean it was a coordinated movement - that didn't come until very late in the year, well after al-Rishawi was assassinated.>>
But al-Rishawi was assassinated in Sept. of 2007. Your time-line is fucked up. That's a year AFTER Col. MacFarlane was publicly boasting that the local sheikhs had al Qaeda "against the ropes." Read the article. It had taken MacFarlane a year of work before he got the results he was boasting of.
<<Yeah, and they were talking about increasing troop levels via a surge in early 2006 as well, but it was shelved until after the elections.>>
Too bad McCain doesn't know that. HE was boasting that "the surge" which HE had recommended - - not "talk about" a surge in 2006 - - was responsible for the so-called "Awakening." Maybe he can tweak his bullshit machine a little bit and claim that his "talking about" the surge in "early 2006" somehow got back to the Anbar Sheikhs and goaded them into awakening - - ideally, before MacFarlane and his men even GOT to Anbar Province.
<<And we increased our troop levels early in 2006 anyway, kind of a "pre-surge" surge.>>
Oh, now I get it. There were TWO surges, one early in 2006 and one, known as "the surge" to all but the cognoscenti of this war, which Bush announced in January of 2007. Kinda like two "Missions" one "Mission Accomplished" being the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the other, "Mission Unaccomplished" being the complete subjugation of Iraq, expected any day now due to the great success of Surge 2.. I think McCain better explain pretty quick that when he says "the surge" which he recommended was responsible for the "Anbar Awakening," he means the surge of 2006, of course. That makes a lot of sense.
Too bad McCain didn't make himself clear in the first place. Now it'll just sound like he's grasping at straws and sophistry. Not that such a fine and noble man would ever . . . uh, ever stoop to . . . uh, would . . . ? Naaah! Not John Insane. Not OUR John Insane!
-
i really do want to know how to spell extemporanious
EXTEMPORANEOUS .
There!
With an E, not an I.
Actually three E's, and no I's.
-
So in a debate that allowed a lot of freedom of discussion ,...
Which canadate would come off better?
Which Canadate is trying to avoid such a thing?
-
<<So in a debate that allowed a lot of freedom of discussion ,...
<<Which canadate would come off better?>>
Obviously, Obama, IMHO. McSame makes lots of gaffes and he's not very smart. Fifth from the bottom of his class, in fact. Obama was a law professor. You gotta be kidding. The longer they talk, the dumber McSame will appear and the smarter Obama will appear.
<<Which Canadate is trying to avoid such a thing?>>
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that factors other than "Who's gonna do better?" would be important in the decision. For example, if one candidate is way out in front of the other, regardless of his debating skills, he's not going to want the debate because when things are going well, you don't want any change at all. You also have to worry about dirty tricks - - as for example, when George W. Bush showed up for a debate with a radio in the back of his suit, so answers could be fed to him. If you're already ahead and the other Party has a reputation for dirty tricks, where is the incentive to debate?
-
<<So in a debate that allowed a lot of freedom of discussion ,...
<<Which canadate would come off better?>>
Obviously, Obama, IMHO. McSame makes lots of gaffes and he's not very smart. Fifth from the bottom of his class, in fact. Obama was a law professor. You gotta be kidding. The longer they talk, the dumber McSame will appear and the smarter Obama will appear.
<<Which Canadate is trying to avoid such a thing?>>
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that factors other than "Who's gonna do better?" would be important in the decision. For example, if one candidate is way out in front of the other, regardless of his debating skills, he's not going to want the debate because when things are going well, you don't want any change at all. You also have to worry about dirty tricks - - as for example, when George W. Bush showed up for a debate with a radio in the back of his suit, so answers could be fed to him. If you're already ahead and the other Party has a reputation for dirty tricks, where is the incentive to debate?
I think it is interesting that Obama is the one trying to avoid such a debate , his lead is not wide really but he may be afaraid that McCain would make him seem slow and eliminate the lead altogether.
-
I think that maybe he's afraid that McSame's macho posturing could put him on the defensive, making him look weak and effeminate.
One thing I noticed is that white males seem to have the monopoly on acceptable expressions of the will to do violence. When McSame talks tough, he's fitting himself into a culturally acceptable pattern, along the lines of John Wayne movies.
If Obama wants to talk tough and stay true to who he is, he'd have to come nearer than McSame to the language of the black ghetto, painting himself as a "scary black man" and turning off a lot of his white suburban base.
Expressions of anger and belligerence from a white male following a military model are, sadly, viewed as acceptable conduct in public discourse. A black man's expression of similar sentiments, if echoing the inflections and delivery of McSame or any white other military man would run the risk of appearing inauthentic, but if Obama wants to be more authentic and sound black while talking tough, he'll scare off some of his white voters.
So McCain may have the poor guy boxed in - - he talks tough and if Obama declines to follow, he appears effeminate and weak; following in a "black" delivery scares off the whites; and following in a "white" delivery mode sounds inauthentic. In such circumstances Obama might be wise not to appear on a platform where he can't control the presentation of the message 100%.
-
If Obama wants to talk tough and stay true to who he is, he'd have to come nearer than McSame to the language of the black ghetto, painting himself as a "scary black man" and turning off a lot of his white suburban base.
When was Obama living in a "black ghetto"?
-
<<When was Obama living in a "black ghetto"?>>
Far as I know, never. But you don't have to live in a black ghetto to talk like you live there. Look at P. Diddy for example. It's a matter of style. How many urban accountants drive SUVs even though 99.9999% of their driving is done on city streets?
Obama, if challenged to talk tough by McSame, regardless of his background, can "talk white" pleasing some white listeners, pissing off others for lack of "authenticity," or pissing off black supporters for talking "too white." Or he can opt for the more "authentic" black sound, keeping his black supporters on board but scaring off some whites.
-
Far as I know, never. But you don't have to live in a black ghetto to talk like you live there.
Then how is that "staying true to who he is"?
-
<<Then how is that "staying true to who he is"?>>
It's a subjective feeling. Sorta like hippies in the Sixties trying to get away from their "materialistic" or "plastic" home environments and getting back to the land.
Maybe "being true to who he is" isn't the best way to put it. Maybe it's more like "getting back to who you were supposed to be."
Maybe he feels, or a lot of urban, up-scale blacks feel, they sacrificed too much of their "selves" to get to where they are now and they need to get back to their roots.
Maybe a lot of blacks "recognize" something in the ghetto, something that the more assimilated world of the black suburbanites have had to lose, but that reminds them of home, or grandparents or elderly aunts and uncles.
I can recognize a cadence in Obama's voice that is not there in the voices of white suburbanites, usually in the way he says "y'know," the "y" sound followed closely by the "o" in know together almost making a "yo" as in, well, as in "yo muthafucka." Maybe he just wants to be able to say "yo" without evoking scary gangsta images in white imaginations.
All I know, bottom line, is that there's a comfort level for folks who have to assimilate into a larger society, where they keep enough of what they were raised on or are familiar with to be comfortable, and not too much which would mark them as an outsider. And if they keep on too much of the old stuff, they are just never going to fit in, and if they leave too much behind, they are just phonies. So a black always has a comfort zone where he knows he's not "acting white" and he's not embarrassing himself in the larger society. And a black can usually tell if he feels another black is "acting too white."
My guess, and it's based on some of those "y'know's" that I heard, is that Obama, whether raised in the ghetto or not, has a comfort level that includes some of the ways of speech of the less assimilated black community and could easily and very comfortably lapse into it. And there is some degree of discomfort when he's out of it.
-
<<Then how is that "staying true to who he is"?>>
It's a subjective feeling. Sorta like hippies in the Sixties trying to get away from their "materialistic" or "plastic" home environments and getting back to the land.
Maybe "being true to who he is" isn't the best way to put it. Maybe it's more like "getting back to who you were supposed to be."
Maybe he feels, or a lot of urban, up-scale blacks feel, they sacrificed too much of their "selves" to get to where they are now and they need to get back to their roots.
............................................
It seems simpler than this , he is driven by ambition and is performing triangulation.
-
<<It seems simpler than this , he is driven by ambition and is performing triangulation.>>
That explains the tactic, and I agree with that. You are right. But we were really talking about why he might be disadvantaged by McSame, and I felt he might be pulled into talking the talk of the less assimilated blacks. Ami asked why, since he had never been raised in the ghetto. What I was explaining was not the tactic of triangulation, but the emotional pulls that might make Obama WANT to revert somewhat to a language and manner of expression that could make a lot of whites uneasy.
Even if Obama has a relatively simple tactic he is still a very complex man. He's white AND he's black, he's got white AND black followers to please, he's American and he's Kenyan and Indonesian. This is a very complex individual and I was talking more about where his comfort zone is than about his campaign tactics.
-
<<It seems simpler than this , he is driven by ambition and is performing triangulation.>>
That explains the tactic, and I agree with that. You are right. But we were really talking about why he might be disadvantaged by McSame, and I felt he might be pulled into talking the talk of the less assimilated blacks. Ami asked why, since he had never been raised in the ghetto. What I was explaining was not the tactic of triangulation, but the emotional pulls that might make Obama WANT to revert somewhat to a language and manner of expression that could make a lot of whites uneasy.
Even if Obama has a relatively simple tactic he is still a very complex man. He's white AND he's black, he's got white AND black followers to please, he's American and he's Kenyan and Indonesian. This is a very complex individual and I was talking more about where his comfort zone is than about his campaign tactics.
AS voters should we be concerned whith what he really is or is his projected image suffecient?
Who really knows what he is like ?
Most of us began to get aqquanted with him quite recently.
-
<<AS voters should we be concerned whith what he really is or is his projected image suffecient?>>
As a buyer, are you concerned with the merchandise or with its projected image? As a seller, is Obama more concerned with total disclosure, warts and all, or with projected image? You and Obama are buyer and seller, with different interests and different viewpoints.
<<Who really knows what he is like ?>>
Who knows what any of them are really like? Who knows what McCain told his captors? Who knows what he broadcast for them? Who knows how many times he called his wife a cunt and a trollop in public?
<<Most of us began to get aqquanted with him quite recently.>>
Most of us got acquainted with JFK in 1956 and there are still revelations coming out about him. to know who the guy is is an impossible task. It's like reading the Racing Form and "knowing" which horse is gonna win the race. You'll never know any of them. It's not their job to tell you. It's their job to sell you.
-
Simply put, inchoate doubts about Obama won't lift McCain to victory; specific attacks may. This afternoon, I called the Arizona senator's current anti-Obama onslaught more harmful than helpful. Today's mismatched pair of Gallup polls may be an early sign that I was wrong--and that McCain won't be cutting back on the swipes any time soon.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/28/poll-position.aspx (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/28/poll-position.aspx)
-
<<Simply put, inchoate doubts about Obama won't lift McCain to victory; specific attacks may. This afternoon, I called the Arizona senator's current anti-Obama onslaught more harmful than helpful. Today's mismatched pair of Gallup polls may be an early sign that I was wrong--and that McCain won't be cutting back on the swipes any time soon.>>
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/28/poll-position.aspx (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/28/poll-position.aspx)
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, thanks, plane. I read the article you linked to, but I was very surprised to find that it did not even mention one possibly major factor in the results. Although it spoke of "energized" Republican voters, nowhere did it mention "de-energized" Obama voters. At this point I don't give a shit if Obama wins or loses and I bet a lot of people who CAN vote (unlike me) will feel the same way. WHY? a lot of us feel very disappointed in the gap between Obama's actions and his words. We realize that there are certain things a candidate has to do or say in order to get elected. We had a certain tolerance for Obama's attempts to rope in some of the "mindless fascist" or "mindless militarist" voters and say things that would appeal to the moron vote, OK. But the combination of Pelosi's spineless approach ("Impeachment's off the table,") continued funding for the war by a "Democratic" Congress, and Obama's move from apparent "end the war now" to "move the war to Afghanistan" is very disheartening and disillusioning.
So if anyone wants to explain yesterday's Gallup/USA Today results without mentioning left-of-centre disillusionment with Obama, good luck. I think that is the main problem Obama now has to face and he'd better do something about it. To XO, I'd have to say that apparently Obama's base was a lot more about the war than it was about Roe v. Wade. If the only choice the American public is offered is between New Bush and Bush Lite, they'll go for the real thing. Why buy an imitation?
-
The store is all out of Bush.
We can have an old Bush rival equally centrist, or a pretended centrist with a very liberal voteing record.
NO Bush on the menu.
But why arn't there any real rightist canadates ?
Why is a serious leftist putting on a centrist facade?
Getting elected seems to ba about scientific polling , and being guided by the poll result more than any internal compass.
If the Left feels let down , they arn't alone , on the right ,we feel your pain.
-
But why arn't there any real rightist canadates ?
There is Bob Barr. Perhaps Ron Paul will turn out to be a liar and run as well. Fake rightist candidates get more votes than "real" ones do.
Why is a serious leftist putting on a centrist facade?
Because it will get him more votes. Why do they wear neckties in big cities and take them off when they visit the yokels? Same reason.
Getting elected seems to ba about scientific polling , and being guided by the poll result more than any internal compass.
Getting elected is about doing what you need to do to make voters like you more than the other guy, or even better, to hate the other guy more.
If the Left feels let down , they arn't alone , on the right ,we feel your pain.
-
Getting elected is about doing what you need to do to make voters like you more than the other guy, or even better, to hate the other guy more.
Ok, but the wires are showing!
-
<<Why is a serious leftist putting on a centrist facade?>>
Serious leftist? Do you see any serious leftist? I don't see any serious leftist.
-
<<Why is a serious leftist putting on a centrist facade?>>
Serious leftist? Do you see any serious leftist? I don't see any serious leftist.
You might have better in the Canadian Legislature , but as far as I know there is no US Senator more leftist than B.H.O.
Thus his run so far to the right in order to find the center, he looks like a phony as he feels his way to the top of the bell curve , but that seems to be where the votes are.
So if his pretense gets him elected , will he still pretend to be centrist once elected?
-
Could John McCain benefit from Barack Obama's much-publicized foreign trip? Several observations from the just-completed USA Today/Gallup poll suggest that this is a possibility.
Americans' overall reaction to the trip was muted, as shown in the accompanying results.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109132/Assessing-Impact-Obamas-Trip.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109132/Assessing-Impact-Obamas-Trip.aspx)
Not surprisingly, there were highly partisan reactions to the trip. Notably, Democrats are slightly less likely than Republicans to have an opinion on the trip at all.
The slightly higher degree of attention Republicans paid to the trip could in part reflect the fact that Republican leaders -- including McCain himself and, in particular, conservative commentators -- were highly vocal in their efforts to blunt the impact of the trip and were quick to criticize and politicize it, finding fault with Obama for a number of reasons at almost every stop.
The heavy coverage of the trip may have fueled speculation (or reinforced pre-existing attitudes) about news media bias in Obama's favor. A separate set of questions in the weekend poll asked Americans about their views of the news media's coverage of the two major-party candidates. Americans are more than twice as likely to say media coverage of Obama is unfairly positive as to say it is unfairly negative. For McCain, the opposite is true, with many more seeing coverage of him as unfairly negative than as unfairly positive.
-
<<So if his pretense gets him elected , will he still pretend to be centrist once elected?>>
What would be the point? Why bother to be President if he can't do it HIS way? I just hope you're right, that he's leftist on the inside and rightist on the outside, but really I can't see it. I gotta tell you I am not exactly thrilled when an "antiwar" candidate suddenly morphs into someone who just wants to move the war from Iraq to Afghanistan. I think the American people deserve a straight-up choice, not two clowns each trying to impersonate the same composite person.
-
<<So if his pretense gets him elected , will he still pretend to be centrist once elected?>>
What would be the point? Why bother to be President if he can't do it HIS way? I just hope you're right, that he's leftist on the inside and rightist on the outside, but really I can't see it. I gotta tell you I am not exactly thrilled when an "antiwar" candidate suddenly morphs into someone who just wants to move the war from Iraq to Afghanistan. I think the American people deserve a straight-up choice, not two clowns each trying to impersonate the same composite person.
You hope he is a phony?
Is B.H.O. harvesting a liberal vote he doesn't deserve or a centrist vote he doesn't deserve?
Say hello to the new Boss there is a reason he is the same as the old boss , he wants to be elected the same way , then reelected again the same way.
-
Obama seems like a leftist to some people because ANYONE seems like a leftist to them. It has always been the strategy of the reactionary conservatives to paint everyone as leftists. Their core belief is that government is inherently evil and incapable of solving any problems, except those caused by foreigners: the latter can be resolved with guns and bombs.
Strangely, they wish to be elected to office, even though they believe that government can do nothing useful. I suppose the plan is to prevent anyone else from even trying.
The last several days have been deeply strange: first, McCain, a geezer so antiquated that he cannot even use a computer, claims that Obama does not know enough about foreign policy to be president. Curious how this didnlt stop the old fart from endorsing the entirely foreign-policy ignorant Juniorbush twice. Juniorbush's ignorance was such that given a foreign poicy expert like Colin Powell, he not only ignored him, but disgraced him as well.
So Obama goes on a trip. He goes to Israel and makes the appropriate sucking sounds, and everyone likes him. He goes to Berlin and they love him. So what does McCain do? He goes to a German RESTAURANT (why? to impress the hassenpfeffer?) somewhere in Palookaville and says that he'd only go to Germany when (when?) he's elected. Lame beyond belief. Then he arranges an interview in the cheese aisle in some supermarket and pretends to know something about economics.
Obama is right about Afghanistan. That is where Al Qaeda really is, and the Taliban is still around. I doubt that it would take anywhere near the number of troops to eliminate the Taliban, and so far, most Afghanis do not mistrust the US. After all, they have no oil to be suspicious about.
If McCain does get elected, he will have only good old racism to thank. Even as we speak, hacks like Karl Rove are dutifully trying to come up with excuses for how you can say you want change from the absolute WORST president in history and still elect his party without being an overt crossburning, noose-knotting racist.
-
Obama seems like a leftist to some people because ANYONE seems like a leftist to them.
All right ,how many Senators are further left?
-
If McCain does get elected, he will have only good old racism to thank. Even as we speak, hacks like Karl Rove are dutifully trying to come up with excuses for how you can say you want change from the absolute WORST president in history and still elect his party without being an overt crossburning, noose-knotting racist.
This is prejudice , your shame, no one eleses.
-
All right ,how many Senators are further left?
Kerry was said to be the furthest left in 2004.
Is there actually valid ranking that everyone agrees on?
Being as I think the country needs what the left offers, and needs nothing of the warmongering crap the right offers, I see this as a plus. But it's done as a part of the oligarchy's ongoing propaganda blitz to enlist the yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies to ignore their own interests and support the oligarchy. as always.
-
<<Being as I think the country needs what the left offers, and needs nothing of the warmongering crap the right offers, I see this as a plus. But it's done as a part of the oligarchy's ongoing propaganda blitz to enlist the yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies to ignore their own interests and support the oligarchy. as always.>>
If the left weren't so cowardly and began to defend themselves for what they are, instead of running away from it, the yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies would have a different model to look up to. Put the blame where it belongs - - not on the yokels, etc., not on the RW, but on the so-called left, and its lack of balls.
If they gave it a real effort and the yokels-rube-hick-fundie gang decided to stick with what they have, then America would deserve to suffer under the Republicans but at least (a) the liberals could look in the mirror for once without flinching and (b) the American people would have had a genuine chance to make a real choice presented to them.
In a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve. Liberals whine that the Republicans stole two elections. That's true, but I still blame the libs. The Republicans can only steal an election when the margins are small. The aim of the liberals has always been to steal votes from the centre and eke out a narrow victory. They should be moving the centre to the left, far enough to ensure large, theft-proof majorities. But to do that would require some courage and some frank speaking. They shouldn't be afraid to call their opponents tools of the rich, they shouldn't be afraid to engage in overt class warfare, because that's what the rich do all the time, 24/7, only they do it under the table, and they shouldn't be afraid to call the military what it is, a bunch of ignorant, murdering thugs, because as long as the military enjoys a quasi-sacred status, an untouchable status, the War Party will always have a huge advantage - - they will always be able to wrap themselves in the flag and claim that their opponents do not "support the troops" or are "the party of retreat and defeat," etc. It's an unbreakable formula because even if the Democrats win, they have to wrap themselves in the same flag and embrace the same militarism in order to do so.
-
<<yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies .>>
the yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies
the yokels-rube-hick-fundie gang
Resolved ^ the Left holds the common man in contempt.
-
Resolved ^ the Left holds the common man in contempt.
Resolved ^ the common man often does contemptible things, like elect puppets of the oligarchy who bugger the currency, start useless wars, and wreck things for those who do not elect said puppets.
One of the unwritten laws of the Universe is that he who does what everyone else does will get what everyone else gets, and that is always the dirty end of the stick.
This nation's economy is founded on people buying crap they cannot afford with money they do not have to impress people they do not know. Those who behave in this fashion will always be screwed.
There are fewer people at the right side of any bell curve. There are people who are elites in every field, and as a rule, it is always better to find out who they are before you assign any job to anyone.
You can take your lawnmower to the shop, or you can get the neighbor's kid to fiddle with it. When you take it to the shop in recognition that the odds are that the professional will fix it faster and better, you are engaging in the process of identifying and employing the elite.
When you vote for someone to serve in your government whose attitude towards government is that the nature of government is always to screw things up, then you have done the opposite, for how is someone who does not even believe that a government CA be competent be expected to aspire to competency?
Do you ask the neighbor to do your root canals? Do you employ the butcher to replace a kidney?
Recognizing that the dentist and the surgeon are better qualified than the neighbor or the butcher is a recognition that elites exist and are useful.
Would you hire a person who believed that dentistry and surgery were impossible to perform at all, and that such things should be left to witch doctors, shamans, and faith healers?
-
If the left weren't so cowardly and began to defend themselves for what they are, instead of running away from it, the yokels, rubes, hicks and fundies would have a different model to look up to. Put the blame where it belongs - - not on the yokels, etc., not on the RW, but on the so-called left, and its lack of balls.
Boy oh boy.....how in such agreement I'm in with Tee on this is staggering. How I do wish the left would truely run on their hard left platform. Let the people REALLY see how much they despise this country, it's military, and people that don't agree with them in general. Alas, they continually placate just enough of the rationally minded to still try and stay in power. The bastards
-
Resolved ^ the Left holds the common man in contempt.
Resolved ^ the common man often does contemptible things, like elect puppets of the oligarchy who bugger the currency, start useless wars, and wreck things for those who do not elect said puppets.
One of the unwritten laws of the Universe is that he who does what everyone else does will get what everyone else gets, and that is always the dirty end of the stick.
This nation's economy is founded on people buying crap they cannot afford with money they do not have to impress people they do not know. Those who behave in this fashion will always be screwed.
There are fewer people at the right side of any bell curve. There are people who are elites in every field, and as a rule, it is always better to find out who they are before you assign any job to anyone.
You can take your lawnmower to the shop, or you can get the neighbor's kid to fiddle with it. When you take it to the shop in recognition that the odds are that the professional will fix it faster and better, you are engaging in the process of identifying and employing the elite.
When you vote for someone to serve in your government whose attitude towards government is that the nature of government is always to screw things up, then you have done the opposite, for how is someone who does not even believe that a government CA be competent be expected to aspire to competency?
Do you ask the neighbor to do your root canals? Do you employ the butcher to replace a kidney?
Recognizing that the dentist and the surgeon are better qualified than the neighbor or the butcher is a recognition that elites exist and are useful.
Would you hire a person who believed that dentistry and surgery were impossible to perform at all, and that such things should be left to witch doctors, shamans, and faith healers?
So it is resolved that at least yourself as a leftist does hold the common man in contempt , that you do not understand the disadvantage in this is difficult to understand.
I would no more hire a butcher to change out my kidney than I would hire a doctor to shingle my house , the skill sets are not overlapping enough, unfortunately due to government regulation , I am forbidden from hireing someone qualified to wire the space shuttle to wire my house , the pidgionholeing of skills is not always based on competance.
I don't think that study of the law is necessacerily bad training for a lawmaker or executive in government , but to make it such a closed shop seaprates the people from the govbernment and leads to people being in power who do not respect the people s wisdom to decide the course of their own lives. People seem to be returning the favor and are paying little respect to the Congress and presidency , even the judicary nowadays.
It isn't that they are poorly qualified to be in government , it is their contempt itself for the people who choose to raise food or drive trucks for their liveing.
-
<<Resolved ^ the Left holds the common man in contempt.>>
I think I've been properly rebuked. I shoulda shown more respect. These are the guys that fix my car, roof my home, watch over us while we sleep, etc. and if they ever went out on strike, they'd be a lot more missed than if the intellectuals ever went out on strike. Thanks, plane.
They're ripped off and exploited by the ruling class and its "conservative" political apparatus and I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the left-wing intellectuals, who have failed to lead. I've already posted on where, specifically, they have failed.
-
<<Resolved ^ the Left holds the common man in contempt.>>
I think I've been properly rebuked. I shoulda shown more respect. These are the guys that fix my car, roof my home, watch over us while we sleep, etc. and if they ever went out on strike, they'd be a lot more missed than if the intellectuals ever went out on strike. Thanks, plane.
They're ripped off and exploited by the ruling class and its "conservative" political apparatus and I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the left-wing intellectuals, who have failed to lead. I've already posted on where, specifically, they have failed.
Lead?
-
<<Lead?>>
Yes, lead. Like Lenin. Like Trotsky. Lead. Take charge. Communicate to the masses. Teach them. Energize them.
-
<<Lead?>>
Yes, lead. Like Lenin. Like Trotsky. Lead. Take charge. Communicate to the masses. Teach them. Energize them.
Needed?
-
<<Needed?>>
Probably not. I've got to distinguish my private peeves and irritations at cruelty and stupidity from whether the people have been misled into a truly desperate and intolerable situation. Things have to get a LOT worse before they can start to become better.
I'd say, America's Third World victims DESPERATELY need a regime change in America but the American people don't need it all that badly, unless they are the morally sensitive types who suffer when atrocities are committed in their names. Would they be better off with regime change? Definitely, yes, but they're not all that badly off yet. It'll get worse, but it'll have to get a lot worse to set a revolutionary chain of events in motion.
-
<<Needed?>>
Probably not. I've got to distinguish my private peeves and irritations at cruelty and stupidity from whether the people have been misled into a truly desperate and intolerable situation. Things have to get a LOT worse before they can start to become better.
I'd say, America's Third World victims DESPERATELY need a regime change in America but the American people don't need it all that badly, unless they are the morally sensitive types who suffer when atrocities are committed in their names. Would they be better off with regime change? Definitely, yes, but they're not all that badly off yet. It'll get worse, but it'll have to get a lot worse to set a revolutionary chain of events in motion.
Since the lifetime of Marx , what has gotten worse?
-
<<Since the lifetime of Marx , what has gotten worse?>>
Pointless exercise comparing now with then. I would imagine some places got better, some (Africa) worse, but what's the difference? The real question isn't "What's got better since the time of Marx?" you might as well as "What's got better since the fall of the Roman Empire?" The real issue is what's wrong NOW and how can we fix it in the shortest time.
-
I would no more hire a butcher to change out my kidney than I would hire a doctor to shingle my house , the skill sets are not overlapping enough, unfortunately due to government regulation , I am forbidden from hireing someone qualified to wire the space shuttle to wire my house , the pidgionholeing of skills is not always based on competance.
I don't think that study of the law is necessacerily bad training for a lawmaker or executive in government , but to make it such a closed shop seaprates the people from the govbernment and leads to people being in power who do not respect the people s wisdom to decide the course of their own lives. People seem to be returning the favor and are paying little respect to the Congress and presidency , even the judicary nowadays.
It isn't that they are poorly qualified to be in government , it is their contempt itself for the people who choose to raise food or drive trucks for their liveing.
============================
If you pick the surgeon instead of the butcher to operate on you, you are an ELITIST, since you prefer to have a member of a small, qualified group to do the job.
I do not think that liberals discriminate against small farmers or truckers nearly as much as the Republicans, who favor the large farmers and the lower-paid non-union, non independent truckers every time. Republicans favor "right to work" laws, which certainly make improving wages more difficult for non-independent truckers, and also favor paying owners of huge agribusiness enterprises to benefit the most from soil bank, subsidies and other sorts of government aid. If they favored family farms, then every year there would be more, not fewer of them. But the reverse is true.
I do not hold anyone in contempt, but if I choose a qualified professional for any job, I realize that this is by definition being an elitist. I am afraid that your definition of elitist (people Hannity and Rush dislike) is not an accurate one.
If your space shuttle engineering buddy wanted to wire your house, all he would need to do is take an exam. I have PhD and am not qualified to teach in public schools except with a provisional certificate, because I have not taken a methodology course in the last ten years. Same difference, and you can't blame that on just liberals, either. I also would have to pay $150 to be fingerprinted to do practice teaching before I could enter a classroom, because somehow the fingerprints I submitted in 1986 have "expired". In this case, a specific right-wing idiot on the MD County School Board is responsible. It really means that they threw out my records because I have not worked there, but they won't admit this. Fortunately, I have no desire to work there.
Your NASA friend could wire your house. You just couldn't get the county to certify it as being up to code. Big Deal.
The main point is that elitism does exist, and much of the time is is a GOOD idea.
Elitism is similar to professionalism. It can be a GOOD thing.
People who vote against a candidate because he is accused of "elitism" by Rush are your basic yokels, rubes, hicks, and fools. I do not oppose giving them the right to vote, but I do favor educating them.
I would say that Obama, as a law school graduate, is certainly more academically qualified to run the country than McCain, who is probably better qualified at flying jet aircraft and enduring pain in a POW camp. Probably not as good at managing banking, either. He is qualified for Medicare, so he might cost slightly less in medical payments, but then he is older and has more health problems.
Lots of places would not hire McCain because he is too old, can't raise his arms above his head and has a history of cancer, which means that the group insurance wouldn't approve him. Ironically, it is the GOP that would be most likely to support the employer on all these policies.
-
The dumbing down of America - - JFK and his entourage were repeatedly referred to as an elite, the graduates of elite Ivy League universities, authors of renowned books, lovers of opera, not of Grand Ole Opry, etc.
Now in the days of the worst President ever, "elite" (like liberal) has become a bad word that everyone has to run from. Dumb (mediocre to abysmal grades) is good, elite is bad. Elite is bad, but the meaningless "pursuit of excellence" is on everyone's lips. The U.S. has become the Republic of Bullshit.
-
How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?
Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?
-
How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?
Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?
e-lit-ism
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
While I try to be the best professional I can be in my career, I don't use that excellence to try and dominate others, nor do I think that I deserve favored treatment because of that excellence. You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.
-
Here here. Well summized, Ami 8)
-
Well, what "favoured treatment" has Obama claimed for himself by virtue of his own persona or the class to which he belongs?
I believe the charge of "elitism" leveled against Obama refers not to any claim he has made for "favoured treatment" (he hasn't, as far as I'm aware) but to his alleged contempt for the ability of the masses to manage certain aspects of their own affairs. It's the old "pointy-headed intellectuals" argument against government regulation, where "elites" try to regulate a market best self-regulated (allegedly) by its participants, letting the goldfish swim with the sharks on the theory that the goldfish don't need any protection from the sharks but should be allowed to compete with them mano-a-mano.
-
You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.
============================================================
This is total nonsense.
I have never proposed voting on behalf of anyone else. That is clearly untrue.
If I were ignoring anyone, I would not be responding to them.
The entire right wing schpiel on "elitism" is easily recognized bullshit.
-
How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?
Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?
e-lit-ism
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
While I try to be the best professional I can be in my career, I don't use that excellence to try and dominate others, nor do I think that I deserve favored treatment because of that excellence. You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.
I was going to say this , maybe not as well.
-
<<Since the lifetime of Marx , what has gotten worse?>>
Pointless exercise comparing now with then. I would imagine some places got better, some (Africa) worse, but what's the difference? The real question isn't "What's got better since the time of Marx?" you might as well as "What's got better since the fall of the Roman Empire?" The real issue is what's wrong NOW and how can we fix it in the shortest time.
I think all of history is instructive , man has not changed his basic nature since the retreat of the ice. The oldest known musical instruments date from about that time and it resembles the Recorder your kid learns on in school. The oldest painting and sculpture known date from that time and were admired by Picasso.
To consider our era peculiar is a sort of provincialism. People were not dumber before writeing was developed , if anything they probly had better memorys , people are not smarter after the development of the calculator , if anything we suffer loss of internal capability fro constant use of the crutch.
Shakespere inspires copycats much as Shakespere himself took ideas from older classics , really good ideas never die , even bad ideas have long spans.
-
Obviously there are lessons we can learn from history, but there are major changes in the social and the geopolitical environment that did NOT always exist, for example, the threat of nuclear war, to pick only the most obvious.
Learning from history is no substitute for addressing current problems on their own terms and analyzing them in real time. The big danger of course in over-stressing history is that you can't find exact parallels. For example, if I told you that no foreign power has subdued the Afghans in recent history, citing the British and Russian experiences, you would not roll over and agree with me, you would search for and find the relevant differences.
What I said about the need for regime change in America, which kicked off this sub-thread, seems to me to be self-evident. A re-examination of history since the birth of Karl Marx, in view of the huge number of variant factors that would have to be covered and the numerous distinctions that would have to be drawn, would be a huge enterprise of minimal benefit since the conclusions themselves would be subject to endless disputation all about times and places of little direct relevance to the particular problems of Afghanistan today.
-
Obviously there are lessons we can learn from history, but there are major changes in the social and the geopolitical environment that did NOT always exist, for example, the threat of nuclear war, to pick only the most obvious.
Learning from history is no substitute for addressing current problems on their own terms and analyzing them in real time. The big danger of course in over-stressing history is that you can't find exact parallels. For example, if I told you that no foreign power has subdued the Afghans in recent history, citing the British and Russian experiences, you would not roll over and agree with me, you would search for and find the relevant differences.
What I said about the need for regime change in America, which kicked off this sub-thread, seems to me to be self-evident. A re-examination of history since the birth of Karl Marx, in view of the huge number of variant factors that would have to be covered and the numerous distinctions that would have to be drawn, would be a huge enterprise of minimal benefit since the conclusions themselves would be subject to endless disputation all about times and places of little direct relevance to the particular problems of Afghanistan today.
OK, more to the cetnter theme of the thread , when asked only one senator was pointed out who might be to BHO's left in voteing record.
There are one hundred Senators chosen as representing every state.
Why should the American people choose a cheif executive that leads to the left of 97% of us? That is like eightysix degrees off center line .
-
First of all, I'm not sure who measured how far to the left Obama had tilted or what measuring technique was used.
Secondly, I have to note that only two of the U.S. Senators are in the race, not all 100 of them, so it's natural to expect that the two opponents would not be both from the exact centre of the spectrum, but that one would represent a left-of-centre and one a right-of-centre constituency. Then the question is, not which one is closer to the centre, but how far is each from the centre, ideally using the same standard of measurement for left-of and right-of politicians. If measured that way, I doubt that there would be all that much difference in where they stand.
And third, if being centrist were the be-all and end-all of Presidential qualifications, why have an election at all? Why not just use the measurements and every four years pick the guy who's been most consistently closest to the centre to be the next President?
-
First of all, I'm not sure who measured how far to the left Obama had tilted or what measuring technique was used.
I asked here a cupple of days ago , I got one answer , I am content with the expertise availible here.
Secondly, I have to note that only two of the U.S. Senators are in the race, not all 100 of them, so it's natural to expect that the two opponents would not be both from the exact centre of the spectrum, but that one would represent a left-of-centre and one a right-of-centre constituency. Then the question is, not which one is closer to the centre, but how far is each from the centre, ideally using the same standard of measurement for left-of and right-of politicians. If measured that way, I doubt that there would be all that much difference in where they stand.
Most of the nation defines the center, the far frindges are where Teddy Rosevelt warned us to look for the kooks
And third, if being centrist were the be-all and end-all of Presidential qualifications, why have an election at all? Why not just use the measurements and every four years pick the guy who's been most consistently closest to the centre to be the next President?
It isn't , being wise , coragious and intelligent is better than being in agreement with the majority, but why is BHO pretending very hard to be centrest and playing down his connections to the extreme bomb tossing left?
-
<<but why is BHO pretending very hard to be centrest and playing down his connections to the extreme bomb tossing left?>>
I think the answer is (a) he wants to get elected and (b) his "connections" to the "extreme bomb-tossing left" are marginal to non-existent, and probably weaker than John Insane's connections to the abortion-clinic bombings and the White Citizen's Councils.
-
The competence and the vision of a president is far, far more important than this arbitrary "left-right" stuff. A good leader can convince the people that his course is the proper one.
McCain was somehow unable to convince the voters in the GOP primaries that he was a superior choice to Juniorbush, although this was clearly the case.
Obama managed to defeat Hillary Clinton despite her formidable experience in the Senate and her knowledge of how Washington works. I would say that this indicates that Obama is a superior leader.
As a rule, we have these think tanks who decide who is more to the left or the right based on their votes in the Senate. But any voter with half a brain does not decide every issue based on whether the Cato Institute or the Progressive Coalition or whoever opposes or favors it, he decides what he believes on his own.
Some require the help of Rush to decide. This is so everyone can play. It's a bit like the Special Olympics.
-
<<but why is BHO pretending very hard to be centrest and playing down his connections to the extreme bomb tossing left?>>
I think the answer is (a) he wants to get elected and (b) his "connections" to the "extreme bomb-tossing left" are marginal to non-existent, and probably weaker than John Insane's connections to the abortion-clinic bombings and the White Citizen's Councils.
No his connection was strong while he was getting elected in Chicago.
But Rezco is no help anymore and Ayers is a natiowide negative even more than he was a positive for the Chicago set.
-
The competence and the vision of a president is far, far more important than this arbitrary "left-right" stuff. A good leader can convince the people that his course is the proper one.
McCain was somehow unable to convince the voters in the GOP primaries that he was a superior choice to Juniorbush, although this was clearly the case.
Obama managed to defeat Hillary Clinton despite her formidable experience in the Senate and her knowledge of how Washington works. I would say that this indicates that Obama is a superior leader.
As a rule, we have these think tanks who decide who is more to the left or the right based on their votes in the Senate. But any voter with half a brain does not decide every issue based on whether the Cato Institute or the Progressive Coalition or whoever opposes or favors it, he decides what he believes on his own.
Some require the help of Rush to decide. This is so everyone can play. It's a bit like the Special Olympics.
Obama has more experience with machine politics than Hillary , Presidential Elections are not held in Washington (thank God).
The Obama organisation is quite well organised , If I were forced to say something positive about BHO's abilitys I would start there.
-
Obama has more experience with machine politics than Hillary , Presidential Elections are not held in Washington (thank God).
You don't think the people of DC should be able to vote for a President? Why not?
Hillary started out in Illinois, in Chicago, just like Obama. She grew up there. She was a Goldwater Girl, by the way.
Then she lived in Arkansas for many years. They have politics there, too.
Now she represents the State of New York, both NYC and upstate. They have very serious politics there, I have heard.
Plus, Hillary has been around longer than Obama. So I don;t think your conclusion is actually true.
-
Obama has more experience with machine politics than Hillary , Presidential Elections are not held in Washington (thank God).
You don't think the people of DC should be able to vote for a President? Why not?
Hillary started out in Illinois, in Chicago, just like Obama. She grew up there. She was a Goldwater Girl, by the way.
Then she lived in Arkansas for many years. They have politics there, too.
Now she represents the State of New York, both NYC and upstate. They have very serious politics there, I have heard.
Plus, Hillary has been around longer than Obama. So I don;t think your conclusion is actually true.
Well ,I might be wrong .
What is Obama's comprable experience?
-
What is Obama's comprable experience?
He has written two books. You might at least read the reviews of them.
-
What is Obama's comprable experience?
He has written two books. You might at least read the reviews of them.
In his books he doesn't talk about the mechanics of his rise to power , the new Yorker Article is better about that.
"He tends to underplay his knowledge, acting less informed than he is. He rarely accuses, preferring to talk about problems in the passive voice, as things that are amiss with us rather than as wrongs that have been perpetrated by them. And the solutions he offers generally sound small and local rather than deep-reaching and systemic.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar)
May I suggest that the reason for the essay’s lack of substance regarding Barack Obama’s ideas is that his campaign feels more like a pleasant horoscope than like a run for the Presidency? (The kind that anyone can read and think, Yes! I want change, too! It’s amazing how well he knows me.)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2008/02/11/080211mama_mail2 (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2008/02/11/080211mama_mail2)
Best article I have found so far anywhere-
One day in 1995, Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle, on Chicago’s South Side, where politics had been upended by scandal. Mel Reynolds, a local congressman, was facing charges of sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. (He eventually resigned his seat.) The looming vacancy set off a fury of ambition and hustle; several politicians, including a state senator named Alice Palmer, an education expert of modest political skills, prepared to enter the congressional race. Palmer represented Hyde Park—Obama’s neighborhood, a racially integrated, liberal sanctuary—and, if she ran for Congress, she would need a replacement in Springfield, the state capital. Obama at the time was a thirty-three-year-old lawyer, university lecturer, and aspiring office-seeker, and the Palmer seat was what he had in mind when he visited Alderman Preckwinkle.
“Barack came to me and said, ‘If Alice decides she wants to run, I want to run for her State Senate seat,’ ” Preckwinkle told me. We were in her district office, above a bank on a street of check-cashing shops and vacant lots north of Hyde Park. Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza
-
So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.
=====================================
And why was that? That would be the useful part of the article: the rest is just background.
Is she now stumping for McCain?
-
<<No his connection was strong while he was getting elected in Chicago.>>
I'll believe it when I see evidence of it. "Strong" is a highly subjective word. What objective evidence have you of a strong connection to Ayers?
<<But Rezco is no help anymore and Ayers is a natiowide negative even more than he was a positive for the Chicago set.>>
Tell me why Obama's connection to Rezko was "stronger" than McCain's to Charles Keating. Tell me who drew the stiffer sentence, Rezko or Keating.
-
<<No his connection was strong while he was getting elected in Chicago.>>
I'll believe it when I see evidence of it. "Strong" is a highly subjective word. What objective evidence have you of a strong connection to Ayers?
<<But Rezco is no help anymore and Ayers is a natiowide negative even more than he was a positive for the Chicago set.>>
Tell me why Obama's connection to Rezko was "stronger" than McCain's to Charles Keating. Tell me who drew the stiffer sentence, Rezko or Keating.
Rezco gave more money and not on just a few occasions , some directly to the canadate who bought a house next door (t a Rezco discount).
Keating gave indirectly on a single occasion to McCain , who gave it back when it started to smell.
Please do keep the comparison between the Rezco affiliation and the Keating five up frount , McCain looks like a saint in comparison when all of the details are examined.
For one thing Obama actually asked Rezco for money.
-
Please do keep the comparison between the Rezco affiliation and the Keating five up frount , McCain looks like a saint in comparison when all of the details are examined. For one thing Obama actually asked Rezco for money.
OUCH....he DID? That egregious judgement abyss of Obama's, just keeps getting deeper and deeper.