DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on October 16, 2008, 06:17:04 PM
-
from www.huffingtonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com)
Massive Robo-Call Campaign across state lines to link Obama and Ayers
McCain's dirtiest yet, and just a day after the debate where he assured the nation that he was not running a negative campaign. How desperate IS that?
<<The Republican National Committee launched a massive robocall campaign on Thursday designed to alarm voters about Barack Obama's past association with former radical Bill Ayers. The committee may be violating state law in the process.
<<The call begins: "Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC," before telling recipients that they "need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans."
<<More remarkable than the message (coming after a presidential debate in which John McCain said he didn't care about a "washed up terrorist") is the reach of the campaign itself. The Huffington Post received dozens of emails from voters who had either received the call or gotten a voice mail with a recording. Reports came from Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, Texas and Maine.
<<A reader in Minnesota also reported receiving the call, which could be a violation of that state's laws. Explains Shaun Dakin, CEO & Founder of the National Political Do Not Contact Registry:
<<"Most robocalls are supposed to have two things, "paid for by X" and a phone number of the group making the call. Most do that. Now, that being said, there are some states that have their own robocall laws and they are much stricter. Minnesota pretty much bans robocalls entirely unless they are introduced by a human voice. And that pretty much never happens because it defeats the point."
<<The RNC did not immediately return request for comment.
<<The majority of responses from the Democratic and independent readers who received the Ayers robocall were sharply (perhaps not surprisingly) negative.
<<Vic from New Mexico wrote: "l just received [a robocall] from McCain and the RNC, calling Obama a 'terrorist' after McCain's claim last night that he's not running a negative campaign.">>
-
McCain is spending a fraction as much on negative commercials as BHO.
If these calls are the same thing in a cheaper format , they are the same thing but with thrift.
-
The point is not what's being spent on the Robocalls, but that the content has hit a new low in dirty politicking and trafficking in guilt by association. This is certainly lower and dirtier than anything in the Obama campaign's arsenal. But since it's so obviously a tactic of desperation, I don't think Obama should retaliate in kind.
I think Obama should go hard on certain legitimate themes that will resonate - - McCain is old, out-of-touch, choleric, foolish ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong" should be played against a backdrop of collapsing markets, "greatest crisis since WWII" clips, dated for comparison with original statement) or the "100 years in Iraq" foolishness. There was great video of McCain attempting to exit the stage and being turned around from the wrong exit - - fantastic body language of a befuddled old man, one still photo with his tongue actually protruding - -
And a whole different theme, Palin the ditz, clips and voice-overs, speculation on how soon she could be called to take over the reins.
Obama can hit back hard - - and should - - but can always stay well above the new low established by the McCain campaign. This is a great time for the gloves to finally come off.
-
The point is not what's being spent on the Robocalls, but that the content has hit a new low in dirty politicking and trafficking in guilt by association. This is certainly lower and dirtier than anything in the Obama campaign's arsenal. But since it's so obviously a tactic of desperation, I don't think Obama should retaliate in kind.
I think Obama should go hard on certain legitimate themes that will resonate - - McCain is old, out-of-touch, choleric, foolish ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong" should be played against a backdrop of collapsing markets, "greatest crisis since WWII" clips, dated for comparison with original statement) or the "100 years in Iraq" foolishness. There was great video of McCain attempting to exit the stage and being turned around from the wrong exit - - fantastic body language of a befuddled old man, one still photo with his tongue actually protruding - -
And a whole different theme, Palin the ditz, clips and voice-overs, speculation on how soon she could be called to take over the reins.
Obama can hit back hard - - and should - - but can always stay well above the new low established by the McCain campaign. This is a great time for the gloves to finally come off.
The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one and betrayed by the other , that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.
-
Ayers with influence in the White House
is scary as hell to most Americans!
(http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/features_ayers1.jpg)
"No Regrets"
-
<<The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one . . . >>
What kind of rival votes 91% of the time in favour of his rival's projects?
<< . . . and betrayed by the other >>
Keating didn't betray McCain, it was the other way round. When the shit hit the fan, McCain ran like hell, put as much distance between he and Keating as was humanly possible.
<< that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.>>
These guys are pikers compared to Keating and Bush. Bush is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 4,000 American lives, Keating defrauded thousands of their life savings. Ayers and Rezco were really small-time by comparison.
-
<<The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one . . . >>
What kind of rival votes 91% of the time in favour of his rival's projects?
<< . . . and betrayed by the other >>
Keating didn't betray McCain, it was the other way round. When the shit hit the fan, McCain ran like hell, put as much distance between he and Keating as was humanly possible.
<< that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.>>
These guys are pikers compared to Keating and Bush. Bush is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 4,000 American lives, Keating defrauded thousands of their life savings. Ayers and Rezco were really small-time by comparison.
What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?
Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.
So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?
Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.
-
<<What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?
<<Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . >>
Sorry, I'm not buying. Get back to me when you have a source, otherwise 91% beats 85% and 85% will do nicely to explain routine housekeeping bills that are non-controversial.
I will say that there's probably something to what you say and it is a kind of laziness on Obama's part to leave it as a percentage; what he needs to do is nail down the specific votes that McCain made in accordance with a Bush program - - war with Iraq springs to mind right away, Patriot Act stuff is another.
<<McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.>>
What's your point here?
<<So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?
<<Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.>>
What does that mean, "helped him buy?" Helped him how? Specifically?
-
<<What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?
<<Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . >>
Sorry, I'm not buying. Get back to me when you have a source, otherwise 91% beats 85% and 85% will do nicely to explain routine housekeeping bills that are non-controversial.
Leaveing only 5% of diffrence in policys and voteing record between the main rivals in this election , that I cannot caruntee is accurate , but it makes my point, and I think its accuracy is likely.
I will say that there's probably something to what you say and it is a kind of laziness on Obama's part to leave it as a percentage; what he needs to do is nail down the specific votes that McCain made in accordance with a Bush program - - war with Iraq springs to mind right away, Patriot Act stuff is another.
BHO is an extremely good politicial operative, if the real numbers served him he would use them and no need to say he is lazy , that is the last accusation I would make twards him.
<<McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.>>
What's your point here?
That McCain was a maveric enough to please the press who hate Bush , but not diffrent enough to trump Obama who is a conformist , but a Democrat.<<So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?
<<Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.>>
What does that mean, "helped him buy?" Helped him how? Specifically?
Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.
Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.
-
>Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.<
You lose Keating & McCain helped create a national crisis nearly as bad as this one that the Bushidiot caused. O getting a good price on his home hurt no one but the seller.
-
<<Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.>>
<<Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.>>
Sorry, this still isn't clear. Rezco seems to have owned two identical houses side-by-side. He sold one to Obama for less than what he paid for the other? This is just meaningless crap. The fair market value of any property would fluctuate over time. You need to lay this out logically if there's a case against Rezco. When did he buy House A and what did he pay for it? HOW did he buy it, sale in the open market, auction sale, power of sale, foreclosure? When did he buy B? same other questions? Were both properties appraised at the same amount? Were the realty (municipal) taxes on both the same? What was the fair market value (appraised) of each house at the time of purchase and at the time of sale?
You come back with some kind of logical case and I'll buy it, otherwise you ain't got nuthin.
-
>Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.<
You lose Keating & McCain helped create a national crisis nearly as bad as this one that the Bushidiot caused. O getting a good price on his home hurt no one but the seller.
That isn't the crime that has Rezco in jail. I am not even sure that graft is a crime inm Chicago at all.
-
<<Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.>>
<<Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.>>
Sorry, this still isn't clear. Rezco seems to have owned two identical houses side-by-side. He sold one to Obama for less than what he paid for the other? This is just meaningless crap. The fair market value of any property would fluctuate over time. You need to lay this out logically if there's a case against Rezco. When did he buy House A and what did he pay for it? HOW did he buy it, sale in the open market, auction sale, power of sale, foreclosure? When did he buy B? same other questions? Were both properties appraised at the same amount? Were the realty (municipal) taxes on both the same? What was the fair market value (appraised) of each house at the time of purchase and at the time of sale?
You come back with some kind of logical case and I'll buy it, otherwise you ain't got nuthin.
The sales were highly entangled, but...
Why take my word for it?
Your Google broke?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article)
7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.
-
Without the Rezko's buying the adjacent lot Obama never would have been able to afford the home.
The Doctor demanded that if he split the property that both lots close on the same day.
If the mortgage was originated by the Broadway Bank, Obama has even bigger problems.
-
The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000 words
by hwc, Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
The question is whether Rezko did a $925,000 favor for Obama by paying for part of his home? A picture is worth a thousand words, so take a look at this NBC news feature with extensive photos of the property:
(http://)
1) As you can clearly see from the overhead photos in the video, this was clearly NOT an "adjacent" piece of property. This was quite obviously the yard for the Obama house. The only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel. The intent here was clearly for Rezko to purchase the land and continue making it available for the exclusive use of the Obama family. A $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator.
2) Why did Obama buy a strip of "Rezko" land and build a fence? Simple. Obama knew that eventually somebody would photograph the property and the sham nature of the arrangement would be instantly obvious. Thus, he had to do something to give the appearance of Rezko's land actually being separate from the Obama house. Thus, building a fence (with a gate providing the only access). Obviously, the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land and a fence on the original lot line would have been absurd. Pause the video and note the SUV parked on Obama's driveway immediate to the rigth of the fence (the new lot line). This indicates that, initially, Obama's driveway was actually sited on "Rezko's" piece of the property...a strong indication that Rezko intended the use of the land as a gift to Obama. To even site a plausible fence required transfering part of "Rezko's" land to Obama, even though Obama already had full use of, and was maintaining "Rezko's land.
3) Rezko has since transfered title to his land to his attorney. Is this one of the land transactions that landed Rezko in jail yesterday?
Why is this important? Obama has long suggested that voters should ignore his lack of experience and consider only his superior "judgement". The entire rationale for his qualification to be President is his "judgement". Does this sham property purchase, regardless of its legality, seem like good "judgement" to you?
-
BT, the link is pointless. It shows a postage-stamp photo of a 3-storey house beside some vacant land, the line between the two being almost totally obscured by a "start video" button with an arrow which does nothing but enlarge the picture somewhat but any "forward" or "Start video" buttons if pushed just reduce the picture frame back down to its original size. Nothing will start the video.
Be that as it may, there is nothing to show the size of the back yard. If the house has a decent back yard, there is no need at all for a side yard, which is what the vacant lot beside the house would be.
<<1) As you can clearly see from the overhead photos in the video, this was clearly NOT an "adjacent" piece of property. This was quite obviously the yard for the Obama house. >>
That is ridiculous. If Obama's mansion had a back yard, it would not need the side yard at all.
<<The only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel. >>
I can't toggle back and forth to your photo once I start to compose this message, but IIRC, BOTH parcels front on the same street. It is absurd to claim that the only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel, unless the Rezco parcel can't be accessed from the street directly in front of it.
<<The intent here was clearly for Rezko to purchase the land and continue making it available for the exclusive use of the Obama family. A $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator.>>
Could also be an intent to have Rezco build a smaller place beside Obama for himself or a family member. Or just hold the vacant land as an investment.
<<2) Why did Obama buy a strip of "Rezko" land and build a fence? Simple. Obama knew that eventually somebody would photograph the property and the sham nature of the arrangement would be instantly obvious.>>
More likely he just wanted a wider side yard and once he got it, he fenced it in. Most people fence their side yards. Other possibilities are the doctor had muncipal permission to sever the land into two parcels as shown but Obama wanted the house with a wider side yard - - if both Rezco and Obama saw the entire property in various possible configurations as a valuable investment and the doc was anxious to sell without delay, they could have agreed with each other - - You (Tony) take the vacant lot and I (Obama) will take the house on the understanding that later, when there's more time available, Tony will sell Obama the strip at a predetermined rate so that Obama can have the side yard without which he wouldn't have wanted the house.
<<Obviously, the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land and a fence on the original lot line would have been absurd.>>
That's far from obvious. On the contrary, the fact that title was allowed to be severed prior to the purchase by Obama and Rezco indicates that whatever municipal authority authorized the severance obviously considered the vacant land to be sufficient for the erection of a fully-detached single-family residence or other structure compatible with neighbourhood zoning by-laws.
<<Pause the video and note the SUV parked on Obama's driveway immediate to the right of the fence (the new lot line). This indicates that, initially, Obama's driveway was actually sited on "Rezko's" piece of the property...a strong indication that Rezko intended the use of the land as a gift to Obama.>>
Or the drive could have been a mutual drive with each side having an easement over half the drive, or there could have been laneway-accessed parking behind the house. Or, less likely, the Obama side could have had a driveway easement over the Rezco side. Besides, if both parties had planned the investment but Obama wanted more side yard, they could have just agreed to do the deal as I suggested before, using the existing severance permissions and agreeing to make a further application to sever an "Obama side yard" after the purchase closed.
<<3) Rezko has since transfered title to his land to his attorney. Is this one of the land transactions that landed Rezko in jail yesterday?>>
Maybe it would be if it's a crime to transfer property to your attorney. Is it? And how could Obama have stopped this horrendous crime? How is any of it Obama's fault, what Rezco does with his property? Besides, I thought the parcel belonged to Rita Rezco, Tony's wife.
This whole thing is bullshit. I don't even see any appraisals suggesting that somehow Obama got the property below fair market value. Getting the property below asking price? It's asinine to even mention it. Only a schmuck buys property at asking price. It's always negotiated down, often by substantial amounts. Nobody even knows how long the doc had the property on the market, whether it was bought subject to liens or work orders . . .
This is the shoddiest case anyone could imagine. It's bulllshit. A crude smear by lying bastards hoping against hope to perpetuate a criminal Republican administration for four more years of lies, war and torture, illegal detentions and outsourced torture and murder, continuing corporate rip-offs of the citizens and further exorbitant "bail-outs" or as they are now designated by the fraudsters in charge of the U.S. government, "rescue plans." The desperation of the criminally insane. And it won't help one bit. Because no sane American voter would give a shit about any of this crap. They've had it with the lies and the bullshit and they want to see some new faces.
-
October 16, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
Obama maintains lead, but falls under 50%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx?version=print (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx?version=print)
-
October 16, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
Obama maintains lead, but falls under 50%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx?version=print (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx?version=print)
=========================================================================
That can't be good. I hope people here understand that if Obama loses the election, it's NBD for him; he'll go back to being a law professor and probably have a lot more time for Michelle and their two lovely daughters.
Who it will be a tragedy for is the country, and by extension, the world. Putting this confused, stupid and angry man into office will result in the greatest single fucking-over this country has ever received, unless he dies in office, letting in Palin, who will be even worse - - the victim of every slick-talking con man, Zionist agent, mid-East con artist and European trickster that can gain access, personally or through their American agents and reps. Simple words of advice - - don't do it guys. I can't believe you don't know in your hearts that what I just wrote here is true.
-
That can't be good. I hope people here understand that if Obama loses the election, it's NBD for him; he'll go back to being a law professor and probably have a lot more time for Michelle and their two lovely daughters.
Why would he quit the senate?
-
Ayers with influence in the White House
is scary as hell to most Americans!
No, it isn't.
Hell is many times scarier.
-
<<Why would he quit the senate?>>
It never occurred to me. I guess he just, in my mind, I see him more as a law professor than as a Senator. I wasn't really thinking. Senator isn't a permanent job, really. But if that's his last job, you're right, that's probably what he'd go back to, at least till his term is served out.
-
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-home.jpg)
-
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-home.jpg)
Some college professors have some nice houses as well:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:c-rz0ZHQlpeGfM:http://www.syracusecoe.org/images/2007/4/26/frontweb.JPG%3Fid%3D111)
http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2007/05/21/monday-leedoff-syracuse-prof (http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2007/05/21/monday-leedoff-syracuse-prof)’s-skaneateles-home-earns-new-york’s-first-leed-h-gold-rating/
Not everyone is into greed all the time like you Repubes.
-
The Rezco parcel seems to be a corner lot, therefore accessed from two streets, so it's doubly absurd to claim it can only be accessed from the Obama property. Can't really tell if there's a laneway behind the lot and the house, but it does not look like there is. No indication of the original property line, although I assume it's parallel to the fence but closer to the house. Be interesting to know what the original side yard clearance was, also if there was a prior fence. Hard to tell if the Rezco lot, or what's left of it now, is buildable, but I would assume it is, otherwise the city would never have permitted the slicing off of more side yard for Obama.
I don't see any evidence of anything suspicious here, but I guess if Obama purchased at substantially under fair market value at the time, that would raise a few red flags, especially if Rezco simultaneously overpaid.
-
Both lots were for sale by the owner. The only way he would subdivide is if both purchases closed on the same day.
The Rezko's by buying the adjoining lot helped Obama close the deal on his house because he couldn't qualify for both.
My guess is Obama needed the additional land so that his house qualified with zonng setbacks. And the Rezko's were happy to help by selling the potion at below market value.
Meanwhile Obama had directed millions to Rezko's Section 8 housing investments.
Quid pro quo.
And unethical as hell.
-
<<Why would he quit the senate?>>
It never occurred to me. I guess he just, in my mind, I see him more as a law professor than as a Senator. I wasn't really thinking. Senator isn't a permanent job, really. But if that's his last job, you're right, that's probably what he'd go back to, at least till his term is served out.
Could you think of him as a "senior lecturer"? Not quite a Professor but almost?
I don't think he was seriously makeing that his carreer , every job he has ever held has been a stepping stone to a better one.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html)
Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."
Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.
The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."
We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.
Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.
Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.
-Joe Miller
Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school "confirms that Obama was a professor." We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school's news release.
-
Obama has a J.D. degree, which means he is qualified to teach any postgraduate courses tat the department wants him to in his field. Lecturer is not a permanent title. It means that the individual does not have tenure, or is teaching in a position that is a "non-tenure track". Universities often pay lecturers by the course. Other ranks, such as assistant professor, associate professor and full professor, are paid by contract, usually to teach somewhere beteen two and five courses per term, and to do a certain amount of research and to publish the results.
Everyone who teaches in a university is called "professor" out of courtesy, just as dentists and podiatrists and chiropractors are called "doctor". Obama could also be addressed as 'doctor' because he has a JD degree.
In any university, this academic rank stuff is considered 'quibbling', unless it involves asking for a raise.
-
Obama has a J.D. degree, which means he is qualified to teach any postgraduate courses tat the department wants him to in his field. Lecturer is not a permanent title. It means that the individual does not have tenure, or is teaching in a position that is a "non-tenure track". Universities often pay lecturers by the course. Other ranks, such as assistant professor, associate professor and full professor, are paid by contract, usually to teach somewhere beteen two and five courses per term, and to do a certain amount of research and to publish the results.
Everyone who teaches in a university is called "professor" out of courtesy, just as dentists and podiatrists and chiropractors are called "doctor". Obama could also be addressed as 'doctor' because he has a JD degree.
In any university, this academic rank stuff is considered 'quibbling', unless it involves asking for a raise.
You would certainly know better than I , University life is not my baliwick.
So we can call him Dr.?
Hmmmmmmmm...
That might be worse than "Hussein":>
-
If Obama were teaching in any university, he would be called "Dr Obama" by the students and his colleagues. The title Dr outranks the title 'professor', since any member of the faculty is addressed as "Professor" plus his/her surname. Those that have an earned doctorate are addressed as Dr., plus the surname.
Being as the US is an anti-intellectual country, it is probably true that "Dr Obama" would not get so many votes as 'Senator Obama". George McGovern had a Ph.D. in history. Woodrow Wilson also had a PhD, as do Colin Powell and Condi Rice.
On the other hand, Barry Goldwater was never addressed as "General Goldwater", and I think McCain is a Colonel, but again, neither military nor academic titles are used in politics, because the average congressman and senator normally has nothing beyond a BA or BS degree.
I notice that medical doctors, such as Howard Dean and Ron Paul are more often addressed as "Dr." than people with doctorates in non-medical fields.
And oh, yes, it would be "Dr. Bill Ayers".
-
If Obama were teaching in any university, he would be called "Dr Obama" by the students and his colleagues. The title Dr outranks the title 'professor', since any member of the faculty is addressed as "Professor" plus his/her surname. Those that have an earned doctorate are addressed as Dr., plus the surname.
Being as the US is an anti-intellectual country, it is probably true that "Dr Obama" would not get so many votes as 'Senator Obama". George McGovern had a Ph.D. in history. Woodrow Wilson also had a PhD, as do Colin Powell and Condi Rice.
On the other hand, Barry Goldwater was never addressed as "General Goldwater", and I think McCain is a Colonel, but again, neither military nor academic titles are used in politics, because the average congressman and senator normally has nothing beyond a BA or BS degree.
I notice that medical doctors, such as Howard Dean and Ron Paul are more often addressed as "Dr." than people with doctorates in non-medical fields.
And oh, yes, it would be "Dr. Bill Ayers".
McCain was a member of the Navy, you might be the first to ever call him "Colonel".
-
McCain was a member of the Navy, you might be the first to ever call him "Colonel".
Okay, so the Navy does not have Colonels. I don't think he made Admiral. Maybe he's a captain or a lieutenant or an adjutant or a peacoat.
-
Okay, so the Navy does not have Colonels. I don't think he made Admiral. Maybe he's a captain or a lieutenant or an adjutant or a peacoat.
Captain.
-
I see that the Navy has Commanders, but no Commodores.
Is that a British rank? Or rate?
-
http://www.answers.com/topic/commodore (http://www.answers.com/topic/commodore)
-
I see that the Navy has Commanders, but no Commodores.
Is that a British rank? Or rate?
The US navy has Commodores sometimes , it is left as room to expand , unused most of the time.
-
Ami, who knows all, has found the answer to the use of Commodore. It is as you say, a spare rate, or rank, to be used in times when a spare rate is needed.
A captain is in charge of a ship, an admiral supervises more than one. A commodore must do something in between. The Navy tries so hard to be different from the army. But then there are Marines, and they try to be different from both.
They have lance corporals, and yet they no longer carry lances. It must have been a long tie since a Marine has used a lance, other than on a boil.
-
Ami, who knows all, has found the answer to the use of Commodore. It is as you say, a spare rate, or rank, to be used in times when a spare rate is needed.
A captain is in charge of a ship, an admiral supervises more than one. A commodore must do something in between. The Navy tries so hard to be different from the army. But then there are Marines, and they try to be different from both.
They have lance corporals, and yet they no longer carry lances. It must have been a long tie since a Marine has used a lance, other than on a boil.
In one of the comedic parts of "A Conneticut Yankee in King Authors Court" the king expounds on the planting of turnup trees.