312 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

That would be ideal. Unfortunately we've been having TV and publicity/celebrity driven elections for almost 50 years. With that first Nixon-Kennedy TV debate the map of politcal campaigning was forever changed.

Well, the format of debate has never been constant through time. It usually adapts to the best medium for dialog. Before TV, there were newspapers, and public talks at local fairs and other events. Before TV, there was radio. TV was adopted because it allowed the politicians to spread their message much more efficiently. Now, I would argue that the Internet is better because it allows everyone to see written responses directed towards some issue. Of course, the Democratic and Republican parties would not like this idea because it would be too easy for independents to compete. Such a format would not require a candidate to have money which is what political parties use to reduce competition. I look at the parties the same way as I look at a corporation. There needs to be more competition, more ideas and viewpoints. Right now there are two parties which basically just follow the polls. If there was concern that the majority candidate might not win, then the debates could be a knockout process. Right now though the political system is broken, it does not work. Same with the legal system in the US, but that's another story.

By the way, I thought of that idea last night, had not heard it before. However, I bet many others have thought of it as well, besides Lazarus and I.

Edited by Ghostrider, 11 February 2008 - 07:43 PM.

[biknut]

Texas is starting to fall away too.

Rep. Pete Gallego endorses Obama

By Steve Taylor

McALLEN, February 9 - State Rep. Pete Gallego, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, has announced he is endorsing Barack Obama for president.

The Alpine Democrat had earlier supported his near neighbor, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

“I made a determination that it’s time to pass the mantle on to a new set of folks at the national level,” Gallego said.

“I do not really remember the Kennedy years but from everything I am told, this is a similar situation. Obama urges us to be our best and make our community a better place. He is dynamic.”

The non-partisan Mexican American Legislative Caucus comprises most Hispanic members of the Texas House of Representatives. Gallego said he was in the process of contacting other Democrats in MALC to see who they are lining up for in the presidential election.

“I have been somewhat surprised at the number of folks that have contacted us. We have not had to call them. They have jumped up and asked to be on the Obama team,” Gallego said.

Gallego said he had seen Obama speak many times and had never left disappointed.

“I just think he has this ability, an almost unnatural ability. His cadence, is very, very, good. He can really excite the mind. I have never left one of his speeches thinking he was flat,” Gallego said.

In the California primary on Super Tuesday, Latino voters broke 2 to 1 for Clinton. Gallego said he saw no reason why, as voters get to know Obama better, that ratio would not shrink in Texas.

“Obama’s life story and his values are so much closer to the Latino community than any candidate other than Bill Richardson,” Gallego said.

“Part of what drives me is his life story. It’s a fascinating life story. It’s more than just the issues, it’s his values. I think Hispanics and South Texas should really be able to relate to him.”

Gallego pointed out that Obama’s black father was an immigrant and his mother was Anglo.

“You had the clash of cultures, just as you do in our community,” Gallego said. “I really think his life story, getting to Harvard and getting to the U.S. Senate, shows us that this really is a land of immigrants and the land of opportunity that our forefathers and foremothers wanted to create.”

Gallego said the biggest drawback for Obama along the border and South Texas is that his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is a household name.

“Clinton is a known brand. The last time our community really voted was during the Clinton years,” Gallego said.

“It’s a natural advantage for Hillary, but it is not insurmountable. I just think the Obama folks have to work twice as hard to make sure people know who he is, what he stands for, and once that is put forward he does very, very, well.”

Gallego said he hopes to get an opportunity to play a big role for Obama in Texas in the run-up to the March 4 primary. “There’s a lot of work to be done. It’s a fascinating time because there is so much at stake. And, because of the enthusiasm for that race, I think it will help Texas Democrats,” he said.

http://www.riogrande...asp?story_no=26

[Lazarus Long]

There needs to be more competition, more ideas and viewpoints. Right now there are two parties which basically just follow the polls. If there was concern that the majority candidate might not win, then the debates could be a knockout process. Right now though the political system is broken, it does not work. Same with the legal system in the US, but that's another story.

By the way, I thought of that idea last night, had not heard it before. However, I bet many others have thought of it as well, besides Lazarus and I.

I have approached this notion as a grassroots effort because I think it is vastly easier to implement in a trustworthy manner. However I must say that while the basic idea has been around and goes back to the digital democracy movement and is almost two decades old, I was inspire in great measure from the high standard of informative debate I was able to participate in here at Imminst as motive to bring the idea forward repeatedly to the Town Board.

Now try and visualize this, I live in a rural area not all that far from NYC but in our roughly 150 square miles of area we only have a about 4500 households and about 2/3'rds that number of registered voters. We have good turn out in national elections (above 50% average) and poor turnout in local elections except when we vote the School budget. I live in an ideal community to test the digital village ideal because the people on the forums would personally *know* the candidates, live nearby the other side, and inevitably have neighbors with them or with the opposition.

There are only two bars and five or six delis and bagel shops in the whole town where everyone meets and most influential residents wear multiple hats by serving on various councils and community groups. We have volunteer fire and ambulance depts who serve at no pay yet have dozens of members that responsibly serve as first responders. If digital debates can't work here they won't work anywhere because moderation is very feasible without any basic violation of free speech.

The idea has fallen on deaf ears in both parties as they are not inclined to give up their close control of all politics in the town and the ability to micromanage the debate and dissemination of information but the time they are a changin'.

Aside from a contentious political season guaranteed to garner interest I have been weaving the idea into the energy saving plan as a way to improve educating the residents on critical issues impacting us and as a money saving measure to reduce printing/mailing costs.

I have also been insisting that the approach allows us to measure resistance and support for various proposals and receive swift feedback to refine the measures. If the town itself does not do this I will be working to build a forum modeled much on what we do here at imminst on a smaller scale. I am also preparing to present the proposal later in the year to the entire Town Board in formal session (as every member of our town can) if the idea continues to be buried.

I have a few issues to address first involving not compromising my position on the Energy review board I am in but I think I will be pushing this proposal forward in a very serious manner by summer to encourage online debating of the national elections. I see it as giving voice to the younger members of our community.

When we move this to another thread I will be asking for advice on the software aspects for cost and quality of performance, as well as organizational ideas for how to implement the most user friendly environment while protecting the community from spammer and security abuse and balancing free-speech and moderation demands.

[missminni]

That would be ideal. Unfortunately we've been having TV and publicity/celebrity driven elections for almost 50 years. With that first Nixon-Kennedy TV debate the map of politcal campaigning was forever changed.

Well, the format of debate has never been constant through time. It usually adapts to the best medium for dialog. Before TV, there were newspapers, and public talks at local fairs and other events. Before TV, there was radio. TV was adopted because it allowed the politicians to spread their message much more efficiently. Now, I would argue that the Internet is better because it allows everyone to see written responses directed towards some issue. Of course, the Democratic and Republican parties would not like this idea because it would be too easy for independents to compete. Such a format would not require a candidate to have money which is what political parties use to reduce competition. I look at the parties the same way as I look at a corporation. There needs to be more competition, more ideas and viewpoints. Right now there are two parties which basically just follow the polls. If there was concern that the majority candidate might not win, then the debates could be a knockout process. Right now though the political system is broken, it does not work. Same with the legal system in the US, but that's another story.

By the way, I thought of that idea last night, had not heard it before. However, I bet many others have thought of it as well, besides Lazarus and I.

I's a great idea, but not everybody has access. Almost a third of the population of the United States does not have access to the internet. Many older people
can't be bothered learning how to use it, and many poor people can't afford it. Anyway, I still think it's the way to go and
eventually will be †he way we vote as well.

Edited by missminni, 11 February 2008 - 09:26 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Lets face it ... Both Hilldog and Obama have nearly the exact same policies and both deeply care about party loyalties.

So which do you think would most appeal to the international community,

a half Muslim black man ... or ... a middle aged white woman?

[Lazarus Long]

I actually gave this a lot of thought last night before you even asked Kostas.

For a number of reasons I think Obama is in the best position to negotiate a return to US legitimacy with both our friends and enemies. His personality and obvious characteristics puts him in a unique position to negotiate the needed alternative strategy for the war on terrorism, peak oil and global economic disruptions caused by climate change.

The situation is a little analogous to Nixon opening up China but in reverse. His very presence in the Oval Office will force a rethink on the stereotype of the US as *racist* imperialist and they will have to just treat us as the run of the mill imperial power. However he will be able to demand a certain amount of cooperation from African leaders such as Nigeria and in Kenya specifically that will be hard to deny. He might be able to unify the African people into a more stable economy and cohesive social system in advance of their catastrophically worsening situation.

Nixon could bring legitimacy to the negotiations with China because he was so avidly anticommunist that no one would question his ability to represent the US best interests. A Democrat could not do this without triggering a vocal outcry of being a traitor to the car war and a Peacenik Pinko. However because he used the Tri-Lateral Commission's representatives in the form of Henry Kissinger to make the entreaties he was taken seriously by the other side as well.

Ironically Obama's familiarity with Muslim culture is one that will play well to his ability to negotiate with OPEC and the specific states in conflict now. He will carry a sachet of legitimacy other candidates will not and if they push him to make a threat they will not only have to take him seriously they will be forced to negotiate on different terms than the classically divisive ones of black and white.

I also think his presence in the White house will herald a paradigm shift in the debate over social inequities in our culture and provide many African American children with a role model of significantly more prominent and powerful imagery than a gansta rap star. This will help define a transition from the *post slavery,* *post civil rights* struggles to a new age of equality and self responsibility and establish a *count-down point* to the end of the affirmative action.

Whether in five, ten, or twenty years, his presence in the White will force a rethink of such domestic policy and initiate a debate on not if we should phase out such policy but instead how and when we will. Consider this analogous to how Clinton and not a Republican could institute Welfare Reform even though most of his recommendations came almost verbatim from the Republican platform.

[Ghostrider]

That would be ideal. Unfortunately we've been having TV and publicity/celebrity driven elections for almost 50 years. With that first Nixon-Kennedy TV debate the map of politcal campaigning was forever changed.

Well, the format of debate has never been constant through time. It usually adapts to the best medium for dialog. Before TV, there were newspapers, and public talks at local fairs and other events. Before TV, there was radio. TV was adopted because it allowed the politicians to spread their message much more efficiently. Now, I would argue that the Internet is better because it allows everyone to see written responses directed towards some issue. Of course, the Democratic and Republican parties would not like this idea because it would be too easy for independents to compete. Such a format would not require a candidate to have money which is what political parties use to reduce competition. I look at the parties the same way as I look at a corporation. There needs to be more competition, more ideas and viewpoints. Right now there are two parties which basically just follow the polls. If there was concern that the majority candidate might not win, then the debates could be a knockout process. Right now though the political system is broken, it does not work. Same with the legal system in the US, but that's another story.

By the way, I thought of that idea last night, had not heard it before. However, I bet many others have thought of it as well, besides Lazarus and I.

I's a great idea, but not everybody has access. Almost a third of the population of the United States does not have access to the internet. Many older people
can't be bothered learning how to use it, and many poor people can't afford it. Anyway, I still think it's the way to go and
eventually will be †he way we vote as well.

Public libraries have free internet access...there could also be an option to have the transcripts printed and mailed to the people who do not have access.

[missminni]

Lets face it ... Both Hilldog and Obama have nearly the exact same policies and both deeply care about party loyalties.

So which do you think would most appeal to the international community,

a half Muslim black man ... or ... a middle aged white woman?

Regardless of your disdain for her, according to the polls, the European Countries prefer her to Obama.

[Ghostrider]

Lets face it ... Both Hilldog and Obama have nearly the exact same policies and both deeply care about party loyalties.

So which do you think would most appeal to the international community,

a half Muslim black man ... or ... a middle aged white woman?

True, although one good thing about Obama is that since he is younger, he has had less time to develop party loyalties. Actually, I don't really care about how we appear to the rest of the world. I don't care to see the US become more socialistic. However, I do think the US should become more isolationist, not the world's police.

[Ghostrider]

Lets face it ... Both Hilldog and Obama have nearly the exact same policies and both deeply care about party loyalties.

So which do you think would most appeal to the international community,

a half Muslim black man ... or ... a middle aged white woman?

Regardless of your disdain for her, according to the polls, the European Countries prefer her to Obama.

Why would that be?

[Cyberbrain]

Polls can be misleading ... not to mention that the only thing European media covers is Hillary. I should know, I lived in Europe for the past few years and all they cover is Hilldog, they barely mention Obama. And the only reason most like her to begin with is because she's an outspoken socialist.

Frankly I would like to have her as president (she'd be no different then Obama) ... the only difference would be our foreign relationships as Lazarus Long points out.

Edited by Kostas, 12 February 2008 - 12:03 AM.

[niner]

I actually gave this a lot of thought last night before you even asked Kostas.

For a number of reasons I think Obama is in the best position to negotiate a return to US legitimacy with both our friends and enemies. His personality and obvious characteristics puts him in a unique position to negotiate the needed alternative strategy for the war on terrorism, peak oil and global economic disruptions caused by climate change. [...]

Along the lines of Laz's comments, I was very impressed by this article on Obama by Andrew Sullivan. He touches on some of the issues Laz addresses as well as America's long standing cultural divide. I was somewhat agnostic on Obama until I read Sullivan's article, then I became a supporter.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW in the last few years since becoming a NY senator Clinton has distanced herself from the Palestinians and gone to bed with not merely the Jewish community that has always supported her but the more extremist Zionist fringe of that lobby. She would now be very hard pressed to be treated with legitimacy from various Muslim groups that we must engage and negotiate with for a safer world and more reliable global markets.

For example both she and Obama have taken a pretty strong (and again somewhat similar) stand on Iran but she is viewed as the less rational and more biased player with overarching ties to the Israeli lobby. And while I do not think we should be pandering to social mores that we do not approve of it will definitely be easier to bring the more radical religious elements of the Muslim community to the table if they are dealing with Obama than if they are dealing with a *woman* not merely Clinton.

That is Realpolitik not something I am advocating but again it is a reason to use the resource at hand rather than complicate this as a opportunity to try a *symbolic* change with respect to the history of sexism as opposed to racism.

Anyway sexism effects at least half the world but so does racism . Only half of those impacted by the history of racism are women and they are able to benefit from either symbol of profound change so Obama works for them too. He has the potential to be a Kennedy figure abroad not just at home. I just hope he doesn't get treated like Kennedy and King in other ways.

[missminni]

Lets face it ... Both Hilldog and Obama have nearly the exact same policies and both deeply care about party loyalties.

So which do you think would most appeal to the international community,

a half Muslim black man ... or ... a middle aged white woman?

Regardless of your disdain for her, according to the polls, the European Countries prefer her to Obama.

Why would that be?

CNN Poll. They said that iraq wanted a Republican to win. They polled government people, not
the general population. They said European governments loved Bill Clinton and thought they would get more of the same with
Hillary.
You know, nothing personal, but everytime you call Hillary a foul name, it so weakens your argument
that this is not an issue of gender. Why do you feel the need to call her names? You are not calling any of the male
candidates derogatory names. I find the name calling very misogynistic and it seems to be quite prevalent on this forum.

[Lazarus Long]

Why do you feel the need to call her names? You are not calling any of the male
candidates derogatory names. I find the name calling very misogynistic and it seems to be quite prevalent on this forum.

On this point we agree Missimmi.

I have even noticed that I found myself calling her by her first name and her opponent by his last but then I realized that was more due to media identification rather than an attempt at diminishing her stature. She is known as Hillary not Clinton but actually it is preferable to call her Senator Clinton as that is her proper title. I think the two should be treated as equals for the purpose of this discussion and I agree that it reduces the legitimacy of the replies to include invective, ridicule, and vitriol. I respectfully ask those continuing to participate in this discussion to raise the bar on how we address the subject.

I dropped the title Senator for them both for the sake of brevity and Hillary is her chosen media moniker to distinguish herself from her husband I suspect and make her more *familiar* to the general public. Barack is more recognized by his surname than his first.

You know another interesting aside; I think the last Senator from Illinois who became President was Lincoln.

[missminni]

BTW in the last few years since becoming a NY senator Clinton has distanced herself from the Palestinians and gone to bed with not merely the Jewish community that has always supported her but the more extremist Zionist fringe of that lobby. She would now be very hard pressed to be treated with legitimacy from various Muslim groups that we must engage and negotiate with for a safer world and more reliable global markets.

For example both she and Obama have taken a pretty strong (and again somewhat similar) stand on Iran but she is viewed as the less rational and more biased player with overarching ties to the Israeli lobby. And while I do not think we should be pandering to social mores that we do not approve of it will definitely be easier to bring the more radical religious elements of the Muslim community to the table if they are dealing with Obama than if they are dealing with a *woman* not merely Clinton.

That is Realpolitik not something I am advocating but again it is a reason to use the resource at hand rather than complicate this as a opportunity to try a *symbolic* change with respect to the history of sexism as opposed to racism.

Anyway sexism effects at least half the world but so does racism . Only half of those impacted by the history of racism are women and they are able to benefit from either symbol of profound change so Obama works for them too. He has the potential to be a Kennedy figure abroad not just at home. I just hope he doesn't get treated like Kennedy and King in other ways.

This is the saddest statement yet. I can't believe you actually said this, no matter how you tried to mitigate it.
We should now consider a candidate to please a reactionary fundamentalist religion? OMG. And as for Kennedy. I am sure by now
you must know he was certainly not the great man we thought he was at the time. Bobby, maybe, but John...I don't think so.
Talk about a sleezebag. Let's keep it real. As for Martin, he was in a class to himself. They're not going to assinate Obama. He's not enough
of a threat. He's establishment. Look who is behind him. Tom Dachle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry...doesn't sound like much change to me.
I just think you all hate Hillary so much, you are building him up way beyond what he is.

[Lazarus Long]

This is the saddest statement yet. I can't believe you actually said this, no matter how you tried to mitigate it.
We should now consider a candidate to please a reactionary fundamentalist religion? OMG. And as for Kennedy. I am sure by now
you must know he was certainly not the great man we thought he was at the time. Bobby, maybe, but John...I don't think so.
Talk about a sleezebag. Let's keep it real. As for Martin, he was in a class to himself. They're not going to assinate Obama. He's not enough
of a threat. He's establishment. Look who is behind him. Tom Dachle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry...doesn't sound like much change to me.
I just think you all hate Hillary so much, you are building him up way beyond what he is.

Realpolitik is never pleasant Missimmi, I was just stating facts and I do not hate Clinton. I respect her a lot and am very familiar with her history. I said however early on that I do not trust her. I will add that last time she any chance of redeeming herself in this respect was the Iraq war powers vote and she failed miserably then.

There is a great difference between appearance and substance. The description I gave was an opinion about appearance and not substance, anyway it was based on informal review of current press around the world including Al Jazeera coverage of our election and my life long familiarity with how Kennedy is *perceived* in Latin America. I still saw many homes with pictures of Kennedy on their walls during my recent travels, right next to the Virgin Mary in many instances.

[missminni]

This is the saddest statement yet. I can't believe you actually said this, no matter how you tried to mitigate it.
We should now consider a candidate to please a reactionary fundamentalist religion? OMG. And as for Kennedy. I am sure by now
you must know he was certainly not the great man we thought he was at the time. Bobby, maybe, but John...I don't think so.
Talk about a sleezebag. Let's keep it real. As for Martin, he was in a class to himself. They're not going to assinate Obama. He's not enough
of a threat. He's establishment. Look who is behind him. Tom Dachle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry...doesn't sound like much change to me.
I just think you all hate Hillary so much, you are building him up way beyond what he is.

Realpolitik is never pleasant Missimmi, I was just stating facts and I do not hate Clinton. I respect her a lot and am very familiar with her history. I said however early on that I do not trust her. I will add that last time she any chance of redeeming herself in this respect was the Iraq war powers vote and she failed miserably then.

There is a great difference between appearance and substance the description I gave was an opinion about appearance and not substance and it too was based on informal review of current press around the world including Al Jazeera coverage of our election and my life long familiarity with how Kennedy is *perceived* in Latin America. I still saw many homes with pictures Kennedy on their walls during my recent travels,right next to the Virgin Mary in many instances.

How hilarious. Ignorance knows no boundaries. On another note, I just took a "Candidate Calculator
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?" Mine turned out to be Mike Gavel. We agreed 91%. Obama came in second
and Hillary third. So go figure. Try it.

[niner]

On another note, I just took a "Candidate Calculator
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?" Mine turned out to be Mike Gavel. We agreed 91%. Obama came in second and Hillary third. So go figure. Try it.

Mine also came up Gravel. Funny how that works, isn't it? The problem is, I'm not voting on a president solely on the basis of their purported policies. Policy is important, but the presidency is a lot more than that. The president is a figurehead, a representative, perhaps a lightning rod, an influencer and leader of the nation and the world. That's why I'm for Obama.

[niner]

I just hope he doesn't get treated like Kennedy and King in other ways.

A while back when Obama started winning, I was suddenly struck by a real feeling of dread: What if he gets assassinated? That would tear the country apart. It's apparently a huge worry already in the Black community. I hope he has a good security detail. How much security do candidates at this level get, anyway?

[missminni]

I just hope he doesn't get treated like Kennedy and King in other ways.

A while back when Obama started winning, I was suddenly struck by a real feeling of dread: What if he gets assassinated? That would tear the country apart. It's apparently a huge worry already in the Black community. I hope he has a good security detail. How much security do candidates at this level get, anyway?

from May 3 2007

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, has been placed under the protection of the Secret Service, the agency said Thursday.

The government is not aware of any specific, credible threat against Obama, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the decision. But his office has received hate mail and calls and other "threatening materials" in the past and during his campaign, the source said.

Three Obama campaign officials who discussed the issue on condition of anonymity also said there was no specific threat against the candidate.

They said the request stemmed from what one called the "cumulative effect" of a heavier campaign schedule, larger crowds and "just the growing perception internally" it was time to take additional security precautions that are best suited for the Secret Service.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson also told CNN there is no known specific or credible threat.

Illinois' senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin, told reporters Thursday night that he relayed concerns about the size of the crowds Obama was drawing and other issues to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid decided to take the matter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as an issue for a congressional advisory board, Durbin said.

"I knew the crowds were large ... but some of the other information given to us, unfortunately I think, raised a concern among many of [Obama's] friends," Durbin said.

"Unfortunately, some of the information we found was racially motivated. It is a sad reality in this day and age that Mr. Obama's African-American heritage is a cause for very violent and hatred, hated reactions among some people."

Durbin would not elaborate. "I've been advised not to talk about any specific security problems or any threats," he said. He also would not say how he received the information, only that it was from "credible sources."

The crowds, he said, have been record-breaking. "Naturally, it's encouraging politically, but it's also raised a lot of security concerns."

The Secret Service protection for Obama began at 1 p.m. Thursday, Durbin said.

Edited by missminni, 12 February 2008 - 02:41 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

In any case, you can stick a fork in Ron Paul.

You don't like Paul? .... I take it you either don't pay taxes or you're in favor of a welfare state.

[Lazarus Long]

I also think his presence in the White house will herald a paradigm shift in the debate over social inequities in our culture and provide many African American children with a role model of significantly more prominent and powerful imagery than a gansta rap star. This will help define a transition from the *post slavery,* *post civil rights* struggles to a new age of equality and self responsibility and establish a *count-down point* to the end of the affirmative action.

That's is possible, but this outcome assume that an Obama presidency will go well. Considering the shape of the world and the challenges facing the U.S. at this time, I don't think that is anywhere close to a certainty. If he becomes unpopular it would likely exacerbate racial tensions. There are risks associated with an Obama presidency. One would hope it would pay off, but it is far from certain.

Agreed. There are risks and benefits but either way at least for once they are worth taking.

[missminni]

On another note, I just took a "Candidate Calculator
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?" Mine turned out to be Mike Gavel. We agreed 91%. Obama came in second and Hillary third. So go figure. Try it.

Mine also came up Gravel. Funny how that works, isn't it? The problem is, I'm not voting on a president solely on the basis of their purported policies. Policy is important, but the presidency is a lot more than that. The president is a figurehead, a representative, perhaps a lightning rod, an influencer and leader of the nation and the world. That's why I'm for Obama.

That's so true. That's why I support Hillary. Exactly why.
I'm curious.
When did you first get behind Obama? After or before the Iowa primary?
I just listened to an interview with Michelle Obama and she so tried to downplay the influence of Oprah. I am quite sure
if you check the polls, once Oprah got publicly behind him, and then actually campaigned with him in Iowa, the tides changed. You realize she drew the crowds. People went to see her.
Plain and simple, she got the white women, Hillary's bread and butter, to vote for Obama.
She has that kind of influence and anybody who doesn't acknowledge that is in denial. The other thing is that once somebody
starts to win, everybody wants to back a winner. It's the crowd mentality. And similarly, once somebody starts to lose, they all
join in to attack. Not a nice aspect of human nature.
BTW, I was not impressed with Michelle Obama at all. She had boring generic answers for everything, which were usually prefaced or finished with expressions like "deep in my heart of hearts" and "feelings of hope" and "change" and going against "the establishment".
I have to ask what establishment is she talking about? Certainly not the democratic establishment.
They are behind Obama. When Ted Kennedy, Tom Dachel, John Kerry, Bill Bradley, Maria Shriver, Jesse Jackson, Ted Sorenson, Robert DiNiro, David Geffen to name a few, are your contributors and supporters, not to mention Exelon, the largest nuclear operator in the United States,
and CNN, which so obviously favors him, I do believe you are establishment. I don't see Obama as radical. In fact I see him as a recycling of 60's rhetoric. He says nothing new.
NOTHING. And we've had black presidential candidates before. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, Al Sharpton. It is not the first time a black man has run. Maybe the first time he will get the nomination, but not the first time one has run. And like Joe Biden said, and was
so criticized for saying, he is clean cut and well spoken and very acceptable to white America. I think Al Sharpton is a fabulous speaker.
Much better than Obama. I was very impressed with his speech at the last democratic convention. It was awesome. And personally I'd like to see Charlie Rangle run for president. I think Charlie Rangle is brilliant. What I'm saying is,
I am so not impressed with all this hype about Obama. I just don't see the substance. It's all facade. Why he gets crowds so mesmerized is beyond me...it's like he's Rev. Moon or something. His followers all have a glazed over look in their eyes.
I just don't get it. I don't see what they see. Plus, he smokes cigarettes!! To me, a cigarette smoker is like a suicide bomber.
They kill themself and everyone around them too. I know I am talking to Obama fanatics here, but somebody has to
express the other point of view to keep some balance. I guess it's me and only me. Although I will vote for him if he
gets the nomination, I will never understand how people could be so duped.

Edited by missminni, 12 February 2008 - 04:04 AM.

[niner]

On another note, I just took a "Candidate Calculator
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?" Mine turned out to be Mike Gavel. We agreed 91%. Obama came in second and Hillary third. So go figure. Try it.

Mine also came up Gravel. Funny how that works, isn't it? The problem is, I'm not voting on a president solely on the basis of their purported policies. Policy is important, but the presidency is a lot more than that. The president is a figurehead, a representative, perhaps a lightning rod, an influencer and leader of the nation and the world. That's why I'm for Obama.

That's so true. That's why I support Hillary. Exactly why.
I'm curious.
When did you first get behind Obama? After the Iowa primary?

It was after I read Andrew Sullivan's article about him in The Atlantic. This was before Iowa, and even Oprah, I think. I linked to the article in post #132 of this thread.

[...] I don't see Obama as radical. In fact I see him as a recycling of 60's rhetoric. He says nothing new.
NOTHING. And we've had black presidential candidates before. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, Al Sharpton. It is not the first time a black man has run. Maybe the first time he will get the nomination, but not the first time one has run. And like Joe Biden said, and was so criticized for saying, he is clean cut and well spoken and very acceptable to white America.

I don't want a radical to be president. I don't want Al Sharpton either. He's a racist demagogue. Joe Biden didn't say Obama was "clean cut", he said he was "clean". Big difference.

I know I am talking to Obama fanatics here, but somebody has to express the other point of view to keep some balance.

Hmm. That's funny, I don't feel like a fanatic...

[missminni]

On another note, I just took a "Candidate Calculator
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?" Mine turned out to be Mike Gavel. We agreed 91%. Obama came in second and Hillary third. So go figure. Try it.

Mine also came up Gravel. Funny how that works, isn't it? The problem is, I'm not voting on a president solely on the basis of their purported policies. Policy is important, but the presidency is a lot more than that. The president is a figurehead, a representative, perhaps a lightning rod, an influencer and leader of the nation and the world. That's why I'm for Obama.

That's so true. That's why I support Hillary. Exactly why.
I'm curious.
When did you first get behind Obama? After the Iowa primary?

It was after I read Andrew Sullivan's article about him in The Atlantic. This was before Iowa, and even Oprah, I think. I linked to the article in post #132 of this thread.

[...] I don't see Obama as radical. In fact I see him as a recycling of 60's rhetoric. He says nothing new.
NOTHING. And we've had black presidential candidates before. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, Al Sharpton. It is not the first time a black man has run. Maybe the first time he will get the nomination, but not the first time one has run. And like Joe Biden said, and was so criticized for saying, he is clean cut and well spoken and very acceptable to white America.

I don't want a radical to be president. I don't want Al Sharpton either. He's a racist demagogue. Joe Biden didn't say Obama was "clean cut", he said he was "clean". Big difference.

I know I am talking to Obama fanatics here, but somebody has to express the other point of view to keep some balance.

Hmm. That's funny, I don't feel like a fanatic...

I didn't mean you per se. Sorry. There are some here that think he's the great white hope...pun intended.
anyway, I will read that article right now. I missed it. As for Biden saying clean, he meant clean cut as opposed to somebody like
Al Sharpton with his big hair. That was so blown out of proportion. I don't think Sharpton would have been right for the presidency because of his reputation as a publicity seeking lawyer, but he can sure give a powerful speech and I liked what he had to say too. Also, I am not saying a radical should be president, I am just pointing out that Obama is not saying anything new.

[Cyberbrain]

I have to agree with missminni's last thread ... regardless who is nominated ... I'm voting democrat.

That is of course if Ron Paul is nominated ... though I highly doubt it.