Yes, we can.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Turnabout is fair play. That is true, but is it really going to benefit anybody? Tit-for-tat-for-tit-for-tat goes on forever and doesn't solve anything. Do you want revenge or repair? Ask the Israelis and Palestinians - they have plenty of one but none of the other.

I think the Republicans need to realize that strategies they have used in the past also work in reverse. These politicians need to be called on their mistakes, no one seems to be doing that.Which mistakes are you referring to? Seems to me everyone is screaming about how awful the Bush Administration is - rightly so - so I don't see the silence you're talking about.

Although thinking like CP's is honorable and just, it ain't how politicians think. And used as a strategy by the Dems will just get them painted as weak by the media and the Repubs. It's the way it is.Then how come Obama is doing well? Can the Republicans paint him as weak for talking about fixing things instead of pointing fingers and saying "nyah nyah, it's our turn to blame you, you'll have to wait to be back in power to do the same to us, and then we'll get back in power and do the same back again, ad infinitum, nyah nyah."

Democrats need to come up with more cohesively strategies. It's something the Republicans do well. Yes, lots of times I don't agree with them, but I do applaud their unity.Unity? Have you seen what's happening with this McCain thing? If you're talking about how Republican representatives have followed lock step behind Bush into freedom infringement territory, I'd remind you that we don't want that kind of unity. It's the unity of scare tactics.

For example: I guarantee you, if there is an attack on our country after a Dem gets in as president, that the blame will fall directly in his or her lap. There will be no applause for that president on a pile of rubble. The president will be hung out to dry... by the Republicans.The only way to fix dirty playing is to take the high road, GC. Period. Call them out, make them look bad, and be able to stand on a clean history.

[scaeagles]

With it down to McCain v. Clinton or Obama, I fear we may have to put Leo on suicide watch this fall.

Already have the full bottle fo perscription sleeping pills ready to go.

[Kevy Baby]

Spin? Perhaps. One mans spin is another mans news reporting, I guess.The line between "reporting" and "editorializing" is often blurred.

And it'll be nice to listen to a presidential speech without feeling like you should shove ice picks in your ears, too.I would rather have a president who is a strong leader yet a poor speaker than a president who gives great speeches but doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Not saying that Bush is a great leader (or that Obama won't be one one), just making a point.

[Strangler Lewis]

Makes sense in theory. However, have we had any great presidents who were not also known for their public speaking ability? Could Moses get elected president?

[Kevy Baby]

Makes sense in theory. However, have we had any great presidents who were not also known for their public speaking ability? Could Moses get elected president?I didn't throw out the option of Great President/Great Speaker (nor poor president/poor speaker). I was merely comparing those two options: Good Pres/Poor Speaker vs. Good Speaker/Poor Pres.

[Strangler Lewis]

And the Torah says a dishonorable son shall be put to death. The Talmud mitigates this by saying that such a thing is an impossibility. You might be able to get elected, but I don't think you can be deemed a great president without the ability to inspire people to see things your way.

[scaeagles]

I believe Abraham Lincoln was a great President but so many people didn't see things his way that there was a civil war.

[Tom]

However, have we had any great presidents who were not also known for their public speaking ability? Could Moses get elected president?

Thomas Jefferson was a notoriously poor public speaker. After his first State of the Union address was inaudible to most of Congress, he never gave another one. The rest he sent to Congress in writing. There are also reports that he had a lisp.

Lincoln's voice was often described as high-pitched, unpleasant and shrill.

I guess it shows what good writing can do.

[Kevy Baby]

Lincoln's voice was often described as high-pitched, unpleasant and shrill.No it's not. I heard him plenty of times in "Great Moments..." and his voice was quite deep and very powerful.


:D

[Strangler Lewis]

Thomas Jefferson was a notoriously poor public speaker. After his first State of the Union address was inaudible to most of Congress, he never gave another one. The rest he sent to Congress in writing. There are also reports that he had a lisp.

Lincoln's voice was often described as high-pitched, unpleasant and shrill.

I guess it shows what good writing can do.

More Dennis Weaver than Raymond Massey, I guess. Maybe I should refine that to say that it's hard to imagine somebody ranking as a great president in our modern media age without being considered an eloquent speaker.

[innerSpaceman]

And without being a cripple. Or do we have to specify "modern age" for that one, too?

[NirvanaMan]

Turnabout is fair play. I think the Republicans need to realize that strategies they have used in the past also work in reverse. These politicians need to be called on their mistakes, no one seems to be doing that.


Are you honestly suggesting that only Republicans politicians play the game of uhhhh - politics?

Paaaaallllleeeeaasssse. :rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

Hey GC - I think dems might be guilty of some politicking, too, and also worthy of their own tactics being turned on them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've seen this point made a few times. This column (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552134/) goes into detail on it. The point being, Clinton touts her leadership experience, and yet she seems to be doing a pretty poor job of managing her campaign. She's gone from the clear favorite to barely hanging on. Whereas Obama, with his supposed lack of leadership experience, has run a very strong nation wide campaign.

[innerSpaceman]

And yet, as his campaign has gone on, chinks have appeared in the shining armor. He doesn't seem as able to articulate his policy goals with nearly the expertise that Clinton demonstrates. The Canada gaffe made him seem like every other forked tongue politician on what his policy goals really are. And, perversely, the more Clinton gets peevish and nasty, the more she is perceived as "real" ... while Obama is starting to look pretty glib and fake.



One thing that's played out over and over and is not likely to change is that they each have almost precisley half of the Democratic contingent, with Clinton raking in the working class, and women, and older Dems ... and Obama appealing to the younger Dems, the upper class and the people of color.


Face it, folks ... it's a TIE. And that's not going to change. The obvious solution, which neither candidate will accept, is to draw straws for who's V.P. and then join as a single, absolutely unbeatable, mega-historic ticket that will clinch the White House and take two incredible strides in American History.



Damn their pride. They should make a pact that, whoever goes first will not run for re-election in four years, but will switch places on the ticket with them. One gets to be president now, and the other waits only 4 years instead of 8, with the potential to serve as pres for 8.


Simple. ;)

[Morrigoon]

Why does everyone think that Clinton has the women's vote? What, we vote down gender lines JUST because there's a woman on the ticket? Women are approximately 50% of the population, so unless you're suggesting that Obama's voters are all male, I don't think Clinton can be said to "have" the women's vote and still be at parity with Obama.

[scaeagles]

Pretty dangerous going with two hard core liberals on the same ticket. I don't see it as a slam dunk at all.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Obama has won the majority of women in certain states. If I have time later I'll post links.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't know what scaeagles is smoking, but it's an undeniable demographic fact that if Clinton's voters and Obama's voters unite, their sheer numbers will overwhelm the entirety of Republican voters.


This is based on turn-outs in the primaries. Democrats have outnumbered Replublicans 2 to 1.

[Moonliner]

A) What "tie"? Obama has a clear lead in delegates that will be near impossible for Clinton to catch.

B) I find it humorous that the number two horse in the race is offering to split the ticket and take top spot. What hubris.

C) I agree it's not a slam dunk. ANY ticket that includes Ms. Clinton will be a non-starter in my book and I think a lot of others feel that way also. I voted Obama (or would have had I the chance) but I would NOT vote an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.

[Morrigoon]

Pretty dangerous going with two hard core liberals on the same ticket. I don't see it as a slam dunk at all.
Very perceptive of you. Because I won't vote for a ticket with Hillary on it, even with Obama headlining.

[innerSpaceman]

ok, that Goonie out. Doesn't change the tide. Sorry.


Elected Delegates is not the whole story, Moonie. Superdelegates are going to swing the election. Obama is likely to head into the convention with his roughly 100 delegate lead, and Clinton is likely to win the overall popular vote by the end of primary season. If she wins Pennsylvania, which is also likely, she's got a good argument that she is more electible by virtue of carrying the states that, like it or not, determine the presidential election for all of us.

A tiny swing of superdelegates is all it takes. That's why it's going to tie for all intents and purposes. If Clinton's big-states argument carries weight, she will be declaraed the nominee. The superdelegates don't want to go agains the will of the electorate, but they also want to win the White House. If Clinton wins the popular vote, that could be all the cover they need to award the nomination to the candidate a little behind in elected delegates.

[Moonliner]

I don't know what scaeagles is smoking, but it's an undeniable demographic fact that if Clinton's voters and Obama's voters unite, their sheer numbers will overwhelm the entirety of Republican voters.


This is based on turn-outs in the primaries. Democrats have outnumbered Republicans 2 to 1.

Only since McCain became a slamdunk have republican numbers dropped. For example Florida saw record turnout for their republican primary.

[Moonliner]

ok, that Goonie out. Doesn't change the tide. Sorry.


Elected Delegates is not the whole story, Moonie. Superdelegates are going to swing the election. Obama is likely to head into the convention with his roughly 100 delegate lead, and Clinton is likely to win the overall popular vote by the end of primary season. If she wins Pennsylvania, which is also likely, she's got a good argument that she is more electible by virtue of carrying the states that, like it or not, determine the presidential election for all of us.

A tiny swing of super-delegates is all it takes. That's why it's going to tie for all intents and purposes. If Clinton's big-states argument carries weight, she will be declared the nominee. The super-delegates don't want to go against the will of the electorate, but they also want to win the White House. If Clinton wins the popular vote, that could be all the cover they need to award the nomination to the candidate a little behind in elected delegates.


I think that if superdelegates are perceived as having selected the nominee then a lot of Democrats are going to be royally pissed at the party and vote for staying home on election day, essentially giving the election to McCain.

I predict that party leaders will NOT let that happen at all costs. Also I think if Clinton drops out her supporters will go grudgingly over to Obama. A large number of Obama supporters will never vote for Clinton. In fact a good number of independents will cross over and vote McCain.

[Snowflake]

Thomas Jefferson was a notoriously poor public speaker. After his first State of the Union address was inaudible to most of Congress, he never gave another one. The rest he sent to Congress in writing. There are also reports that he had a lisp.

Lincoln's voice was often described as high-pitched, unpleasant and shrill.

I guess it shows what good writing can do.

Tom, thanks for the little Presidential facts I did not know. Cool!

I have to say, I'm finding Hillary and Bill unpleasant and shrill, these days.

[Ghoulish Delight]

o she's got a good argument that she is more electible by virtue of carrying the states that, like it or not, determine the presidential election for all of us. She's tried to play that card...except all that's been proven is that she wins them over Obama. She wouldn't be running against Obama in the general, she'd be running against McCain, and on that, Obama still has the advantage.

[scaeagles]

I agree with Moonliner, particularly that Clinton brings Obama down, Obama does not lift Clinton. There is a huge demogrphic of Obama voters that would never vote Hillary in any capacity, and McCain is centrist enough to pull in a large portion of those.

[wendybeth]

Not one of those, Scaeagles. He scares the hell out of me. I truly think he's whacked out.

[wendybeth]

Lol- this one's for Moonie:

“I am not running for vice president, I am running for president of the United States of America. I am running to be commander in chief,” Obama boomed to applause. “I don’t know how somebody in second place is offering vice president to the person in first place.”
(Columbus Town Hall meeting)

[BarTopDancer]

I honestly don't know if I would vote for Hillary if it came down to it. I wouldn't vote for McCain. I'd probably end up being a participant in the "Nader vote".

[scaeagles]

Not one of those, Scaeagles. He scares the hell out of me. I truly think he's whacked out.


I do, too - remember, I described him as reminding me of DeNiro as Capone with a baseball bat.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm...interesting quote from Geraldine Ferraro, former VP candidate and a member of the Clinton team....she's basically saying that Obama is only doing well because he's a black man and everyone is afraid to criticize him. At least that's how I read it.

Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html)

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

She goes on to whine about a sexist media. Sheesh. I do feel like the media doesn't criticize Obama, but I think it's because they are all enamoured by him....like the hysterical Saturday Night Live skit from a few weeks ago, if anyone has heard or seen it.

[Alex]

He can't win for losing...or something like that.

Early arguments against Obama from many Democrats was that he couldn't win because he was black. Not that the person saying it cared that he was black but that too many other people would care so for that person to vote for him would be a waste. Now, he's succeeding only because he is black.

There is certainly some excitement about seeing a black man go so far in the process, just as for many there is excitement at seeing a woman do the same. But it is silly to say it is only or primarily because he is black. Al Sharpton or Charles Rangel wouldn't have made it past Iowa.

But certainly it is part of the package. But her being a woman is part of Clinton's package as well.

[Moonliner]

I honestly don't know if I would vote for Hillary if it came down to it. I wouldn't vote for McCain. I'd probably end up being a participant in the "Nader vote".

Even if you decide not to decide you still have made a choice.
- Rush (The band not the blowhole)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

It has been suggested that the one positive aspect to having Hillary be Obama's VP is that it pretty much ensures that nobody would attempt a presidential assassination.

[scaeagles]

I think Hillary would attempt a Presidential assassination.

[Ghoulish Delight]

But certainly it is part of the package. But her being a woman is part of Clinton's package as well.And then there's Bill's package...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Geraldine Ferraro?? Wow, they're all coming out of the woodwork now...

[Morrigoon]

Wow, they're reeeeeeeeally reaching, aren't they? The news is so desperate for a "scandal"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23571095/

[Not Afraid]

I've seen quite a few Che Obama posters (posted in illegal places) around Long Beach. I wonder if the guy who did these is a local.

[Not Afraid]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_oN9JKU8o5dI/R95HIBMFT0I/AAAAAAAAACg/FMlqDqO8lPA/s320/why_choose_if_you_can_combine.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

Just...just...scary!
:D

[sleepyjeff]

My eyes, my eyes, for the love of Disney my eyes............oh, the horror:)

[Snowflake]

Howling......rotflmao

too, too funny, NA

[Gn2Dlnd]

You got your chocolate on my peanut butter!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow. Not only did Barack deliver one hell of a speech in response to his pastor's hateful rhetoric, but apparently he wrote the whole damn thing himself. That just doesn't happen in politics anymore. At all. Not since Nixon in 1969, according to the Library of Congress. This was probably his most important speech in the campaign to date, and he didn't have someone write it, he didn't have someone help him write it, he didn't have a team of publicist scour it for damage control. He sat down and spent 2 days writing it himself.

There's something that would make me admire my President (and yes, I admire it in Nixon).

[innerSpaceman]

If it's true, I do indeed admire it. But simply having the press report that he wrote the speech himself, does not make it true. Of course, until that's demonstrated otherwise, I believe he did write it ... and wrote a damn good one.

In fact, I think this pastor fracus may have turned out to be the best thing that's happened to the Obama campaign, as I think the speech was the most substantive thing Obama's ever said.

[Morrigoon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=23697642�

Hopefully that link works. It's the speech.

[Morrigoon]

Okay, I'm only about a third of the way through this speech, but I have to say if he wrote this himself, he's an eloquent fvcking genius.

[Not Afraid]

In fact, I think this pastor fracus may have turned out to be the best thing that's happened to the Obama campaign, as I think the speech was the most substantive thing Obama's ever said.

Agreed. The fracus was the subject of To The Point (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp080319the_african_american) today on KCRW. There were people trying to make Obama look bad for attending the church, but those people did an awful job of it. On the other side, those who supported Obama made some excellent points. It's worth listening to.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The man is amazing. :snap: He did not deny anything, did not cover up anything. He told the truth, and he did it so well, it's undeniable, unarguable.

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's the speech on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU) 1.6 mil views. Wow!

[Gemini Cricket]

Wow, this is a looong speech. He has proved that he can speak as long as past politicians did.
:D

I think it is an amazing speech. I think this may have nailed the presidency for him. I hope he is elected president.

[innerSpaceman]

The man is amazing. :snap: He did not deny anything, did not cover up anything. He told the truth, and he did it so well, it's undeniable, unarguable.
Well, I'd go as far as admirable, not quite as deep as amazing.

Actually, the speech made me sad. He talks about all the things that need to be done, all the change that has to be made. But I see nothing different that's going to initiate that change.

Certainly his talking about it goes a little ways. But talk is cheap. Even good talk.

It doesn't make any of that stuff happen.



Still, I'm more impressed with Obama than I was a week ago.

[Alex]

Here's a sign of change, and I think Jon Stewart nailed it yesterday:

"...and so today on March 18, 2008, a Tuesday, a politician talked to Americans about race as if they were adults."

Who knows what actual talk rather than pretend outrage will accomplish.

On the other hand, it has been interesting because I've been very busy and haven't seen the speech. Only everybody's reaction to it and some clips on radio news and it has been a Rorschach test kind of thing. Most people are just finding in it what they were already looking for.

[blueerica]

Most people are just finding in it what they were already looking for.

Bingo.

Thus my whole "bleh" feeling on this particular election... or perhaps it's a culmination of all the elections I've seen?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I just feel like we've spent the last 8 years with a glaring example of how important the ability to communicate is to the job of President. It's surely not the only important skill, but to me it's high on the list. And in Barack Obama, we would get not just someone who is better than the last guy at it (as if that's difficult), but someone who has the potential to be one of the greatest ever. And not just from an ability standpoint, but from a substantive standpoint. I agree with Alex/John Stewart that what was so unbelievably refreshing was not just that the speech was well written and well spoken, but the content was honest and straightforward, it wasn't tired platitudes or rhetoric.

I felt the same way a year ago when Obama was under fire for some comments about Iran. His response laid it all out there without skirting the issue. That was what initially drew me to him and this speech reafirms it.

That alone is enough change for me to be excited about the prospect of President Obama. Having someone running this country who is willing to openly discuss things rather than talk around things, and to do so skillfully and without constant coaching would mark a pretty radical shift in American politics.

[innerSpaceman]

I just feel like we've spent the last 8 years with a glaring example of how important the ability to communicate is to the job of President.
I agree it's important. But forget the 8 years of Bush, where any one of Lisa's cats could communicate better. What about the 8 years of Clinton? He was a fantastic communicator. But he never governed in the vein of the things he communicated. Like I said, talk is cheap. Perhaps I'm more cynical than those who've seen less presidencies under their belt. Obama's talk is no less refreshing to me than Clinton's was, especially when he first campaigned for president.

Sorry, not buying it any more. Hmmm, would I like to give Obama the chance to make good? Sure. And it looks as it he's going to get that chance. And I'm glad. Don't mistake me for unhappy that he will likely be the next president. But I'm not all gaga because he talks the good talk. That's simply not enough for me.

But, yeah, it's good.

[BarTopDancer]

Here's a sign of change, and I think Jon Stewart nailed it yesterday:

"...and so today on March 18, 2008, a Tuesday, a politician talked to Americans about race as if they were adults."

Bingo.

For the last eight years we've been talked to like we're little children. "Let Uncle Georgie hold your hand and tell you what we're going to do to the big, bad bullies. Don't worry your pretty little head about what's going on in that far away land. We'll take care of it our way. Have no concern about the skyrocketing gas prices, the housing market crash, the job loss or the economy. Uncle Georgie will take care of you. These civil liberties are over-rated. We're going to protect you by taking them away. And remember, it's rude to question the actions of your elders. So sit there quietly while we destroy this country."

[Gn2Dlnd]

I've been very busy and haven't seen the speech.

Here's an mp3 (http://sundaygang.com/obama/2008/03/18/speech.mp3) for your ipodding convenience.

[Alex]

Yes, it is refreshing to not go through this chain with controversy:

- Something is said or done.
- There is a negative response.
- Person claims that they didn't actually say or do it.
- It is shown that they really
- Person claims that even if they did say or do it obviously you misunderstood their intent or action.
- It is shown that there really isn't any other reasonable reading.
- Person claims well even if they did say or or do it, and even if it looks like that means something in particular, they didn't really mean it.
- The press and public gets bored and lets it slide into oblivion.
- Bill Schneider awards person the Political Power Play of the Week for having played politics so masterfully and having weathered the storm without actually admitting to anything.
- Lather, rinse, repeat.

Admittedly, I have no idea if this will result in anything good but it is a nice difference.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What about the 8 years of Clinton? He was a fantastic communicator. But he never governed in the vein of the things he communicated. Like I said, talk is cheap. Perhaps I'm more cynical than those who've seen less presidencies under their belt. Obama's talk is no less refreshing to me than Clinton's was, especially when he first campaigned for president. Whereas I never felt that Clinton's communication was sincere. Slick, yes. Sincere, no.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, well, sorry but I don't find Obama's any more sincere. Forthright does not equal sincere in my book.

I think he was masterful at saving his skin. Where was this speech before he needed it politically???

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think he was masterful at saving his skin. Where was this speech before he needed it politically???If he had made the speech with no provocation, he would have been accused of "playing the race card".

One can't be 100% candid, nor can one not take political expediency into account at all and still expect to be President. But at the minimum, it's nice to see someone who is candid while making political moves.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, he wouldn't have been so accused by me. And for all I know, in all honesty, he may have said such things before now. I do not hear all of his speeches. In fact, this is perhaps the 2nd or 3rd I've heard all the way thru.


But it doesn't seem "sincere" to me what it's in reaction to the strongest (albeit bullsh!t) criticism he's had in the entire campaign. It was much more skillfull skin-saving than the rinse-repeat formula Alex detailed above, but it was skin-saving nonetheless. I don't see what can possibly be considered sincere in that.

Oh, I'm not saying the talk itself was pablum. It was really good stuff. As Jon Stewart said, so pleasantly rare to have race problems addressed in an adult manner.


He gets major talking props, yessiree.


But I think it's easy to forget, after 8 years of the man, how inspiring and seemingly forthright, and hope-enthused Bill Clinton was in his first campaign for president.


Like I said, I'll be happy to see Obama as pres. But I'm not falling over myself because he gives good talk. Fool me once, and all that.


So maybe I'm not giving Obama a fair shake because of my experience with Clinton. So what? If he's more than just talk as president, I'll be first in line to suck his dick under the oval office desk, ok?

[Kevy Baby]

So maybe I'm not giving Obama a fair shake because of my experience with Clinton. So what? If he's more than just talk as president, I'll be first in line to suck his dick under the oval office desk, ok?Do you own a blue dress?

[innerSpaceman]

It's more of a frock really.

[Morrigoon]

The thing that speech made me realize is why I'm attracted to him as a candidate. (Which I've wondered, given that I am not exactly the most liberal person on this board)

Part of the reason I was so for Giuliani was because I'd seen a speech he gave on C-Span (yes, people actually watch that channel... sometimes). It wasn't a historically significant speech, just one of many on the campaign trail for the then-running candidate. But in it, he'd addressed some issues head on, rather than sidestepping as so many candidates do. He'd been asked if his actions as mayor of NY (something related to offering health and education services to children of illegals) were inconsistent with his stance against illegal immigration. He basically took it head on and explained there was no inconsistency at all, that immigration is a federal issue, for the feds to handle, and his job as mayor of NYC was to see to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city's residents. That everyone was affected by sick people walking the streets (diseases are just as contagious to citizens), and that if there were children of illegals in the city anyway (the Feds failing to curtail the population), would it be better for those kids to be in school, learning how to be productive members of society, or to be left alone all day to hang out in the streets and committing crimes.

Apparently I dig a candidate who takes this stuff head on. More importantly, I look to be impressed with the substance of their response. I had that in Rudy, and we seem to have that in Barack.

[Strangler Lewis]

Okay, I've seen it. For an adult discussion about race, I prefer Lisa Lampanelli: vulgar remarks about other groups that are all sort of grounded in truth.

But seriously: What struck me most about his speech was that his bow to the anger and frustrations of white Americans was straight Michael Moorer: your anger is understandable, but you're picking the wrong targets: You shouldn't be upset at the "lower classes," job loss, black crime, etc. You should be upset at the federal government and big corporations because there's no safety net.

Mind you, I agree with Michael Moorer. I just doubt that anybody will call Obama a crank and a hothead over these observations.

[Strangler Lewis]

Okay, I've seen it. For an adult discussion about race, I prefer Lisa Lampanelli: vulgar remarks about other groups that are all sort of grounded in truth.

But seriously: What struck me most about his speech was that his bow to the anger and frustrations of white Americans was straight Michael Moorer: your anger is understandable, but you're picking the wrong targets: You shouldn't be upset at the "lower classes," job loss, black crime, etc. You should be upset at the federal government and big corporations because there's no safety net.

Mind you, I agree with Michael Moorer. I just doubt that anybody will call Obama a crank and a hothead over these observations.

Whoops. Make that Michael Moore.

Michael Moorer? Well, I wouldn't call him names either.

[SacTown Chronic]

Now i know why I spent part of yesterday afternoon thinking about boxing. Stop with the not-so-subliminal messages, SL.

[wendybeth]

I had a feeling this was going to happen: Bill Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104/)




Oops- I just saw GD beat me to it in the other faux-Bama thread.

[Gemini Cricket]

I haven't been all that vocal about the election yet but I do have to say this and it's not all that cheery:
I worry that if Obama or Clinton win the general election that either of them might be offed. First African American, first woman, wanting change etc. I just worry. I feel it every time Obama invokes the name of Martin Luther King Jr. It kinda creeps me out.

[innerSpaceman]

Which is one reason I wish they'd just join on one unbeatable, unassassinatabe ticket.

[JWBear]

This makes the odds of an Obama/Richardson ticket much better. I'm a happy boy! :D

[Alex]

- Something is said or done.
- There is a negative response.
- Person claims that they didn't actually say or do it.
- It is shown that they really
- Person claims that even if they did say or do it obviously you misunderstood their intent or action.
- It is shown that there really isn't any other reasonable reading.
- Person claims well even if they did say or or do it, and even if it looks like that means something in particular, they didn't really mean it.
- The press and public gets bored and lets it slide into oblivion.
- Bill Schneider awards person the Political Power Play of the Week for having played politics so masterfully and having weathered the storm without actually admitting to anything.
- Lather, rinse, repeat.


In the end I don't really think it is that big of an issue but having written this just a couple days ago, it is interesting to see the Clinton campaign essentially playing out a version of this in relation to how dangerous a visit to Bosnia was.

A couple links for those who haven't seen the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c&eurl=http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/03/under_fire.php

How hard is it to just say (assuming it is the truth): "Whoops, apparently over time my memory of that day has become clouded. On the flight in we were warned of possible risks and it would seem that over the years the failures of memory caused the warning to overwrite the actual event."

Instead we'll get

- Dramatic story
--Uh, isn't that a lie?
- No, it really happened
--Uh, no it didn't.
- Yes, I'm pretty sure it happened mostly the way I described it. Here, my speechwriter will agree with me.
--Well, if you have a second source we'll have to think this over.
-
--No, wait, yeah, it is still all wrong.
-Hey! Look over there! Easter Eggs!! Yay!!!!!
--Wow, you're right. We have to go do things with our kids. Can we get back to you on this sometime next week?
-Sure, anytime you want, my doors always open. If I don't answer the first time you call, don't worry, I'll eventually get back to you.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do people really want a President that gets out-politically-maneuvered by Sinbad?

[PanTheMan]

This makes the odds of an Obama/Richardson ticket much better. I'm a happy boy! :D

This is the direction I think the Dems are headed.






http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/bosbruin4/44e3.jpg

[JWBear]

[QUOTE=PanTheMan;200541]This is the direction I think the Dems are headed.
[QUOTE]

In which case, by this time next year & barring any unexpected occurances, we'll be talking about President Obama. :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

In which case, by this time next year & barring any unexpected occurances, we'll be talking about President Obama. :DThe idea that that this time next year Bush won't be president is exciting enough to begin with!

[Snowflake]

The idea that that this time next year Bush won't be president is exciting enough to begin with!

Yes, but the poor imcoming President will have a huge elephantine pile of Bush's poo to clean up. (No offense to the heffalumps for the reference, btw)

[Ghoulish Delight]

The prospect of John "Doesn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and Shiite Muslims" McCain get scarier by the day.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Hillary wants to flip pledged delegates? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-wants-t.html)

Yup, she doesn't care if you voted for someone else, she wants those delegates to vote for her.

[Alex]

Well, technically she's right. And so long as it is within the agreed rules I don't really have a problem with it beyond the appearance of poor sportsmanship.

While I don't think she'd really have any success in flipping a significant number of pledged delegates I can think of a reason to prod them towards showing at least a willingness to consider it. She needs to keep the superdelegates from committing en masse to Obama after the last primaries. There'll be a lot of pressure for them commit themselves ASAP so as to avoid going to the convention with things in the air and to allow Obama to begin running against McCain rather than Clinton.

And if it seems inevitable that Clinton will lose at the convention no matter what I imagine that's exactly what the superdelegates will do. However, if she can convince the superdelegates to keep the outcome in limbo past the first ballot by showing that on subsequent ballots, once the delegates are freed from their commitments, she'll get a lot of transferred support then she might be able to convince a lot of superdelegates that really do prefer her to hold off.

I still don't see it working. But this is all also part of what Clinton needs to be doing. She can't say "well, we're pretty much out of it but I like campaigning." She has to be putting out paths to the presidency, regardless of how unlikely they really are.

[innerSpaceman]

Technically, electors of the electoral college are also free to vote for whomever they please, regardless of the vote tallies in their respective states.

But, um, that never happens. Pledged delegates to the Democratic Convention aren't likely to switch allegence away from the voters and towards Hillary either.

But it's not playing dirty for her to allege that it's legal, because it is.


It's just not gonna happen.

[Kevy Baby]

As much as I dislike Hillary, I have to agree with Alex on this one.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, I don't blame her, it's the only gambit she's got left. I would however aim a stink eye or two at any pledged delegates that happened to agree to flip, within the rules or otherwise.

[BarTopDancer]

Gotta agree with Alex.

[Morrigoon]

CP: good meaty stuff in one of the reader comments on that site you linked.

(edited for Alex's sake)
As to her Senate record, no one in the press has had the diligence to lay out her record for the public to assess.

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
None of these bills are substantial!!

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.
-----------------------
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.


Don't know how accurate it is, but if accurate, is pretty damning.

[Alex]

Regardless of accuracy, I tend to disregard anybody who tries to use "sodomy" as a scare word.

[Morrigoon]

Fair enough ;) It's kind of pointless for him to have added that, as it adds little to his argument (after all, Hillary didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky... then again, neither did Bill ;))

Special for you, I have trimmed out the opening paragraphs wherein the author of that quote laid out his argument that Hillary had very little responsibility during the Clinton years. And that nasty little bit about sodomy ;)

[wendybeth]

Richardson committed to Obama, even though his voters (by the slimmest of margins) went for Hillary. He indicated that he was turned off by the type of campaign Hillary is running, and her reaction to his decision probably made him feel like he made the right choice. (She wasn't a happy camper).

Her negative campaign is going to do her in- I just hope it doesn't cause the Dems to lose the Presidency.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Richardson's a super delegate for whom it's much more common practice for them to vote against their constituents.

Unless Hillary has a huge win in Pennsylvania, I expect we'll start to see more super delegates crossing over to support Obama, likely due to pressure from party leaders. While Clinton's still got a mathematical chance to keep things close, they probably aren't going to do much, but the longer this battle goes on, the less chance the eventual candidate is going to have to mount a campaign against McCain. They're already being hurt by the fact that McCain's repeated "slip ups" regarding the difference between Al Qaeda vs. Shia is second page news behind the non-issue of Obama's pastor. That should have been an important campaign point for a democratic nominee to go after him on, seeing as foreign policy is supposedly McCain's strong point, but by the time this settles out it'll be questionable whether the average voter/media will consider it relevant anymore.

[Alex]

Notice that in the list he listed the bills authored by Clinton that were passed into law but for Obama listed bills sponsored or co-sponsored. Apples are being compared to oranges. I did my own searching and the numbers are somewhat different but don't paint so divergent a picture.

Since 2000, Clinton has been primary sponsor of 159 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 705 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on independence of US Attorneys, one on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal, one on breast cancer stamps, and one on subpoena power related the 9/11 Victims Fund.

Since 2000 (obviously, he wasn't actually in office since 2000 I just didn't change the search term since it should have no impact), Obama has been primary sponsor of 120 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 527 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on stem cell research, one on breast cancer stamps, one on naming a post office, one on the Freedom of Information Act.

Further, of all those bills Obama and Clinton were both co-sponsors of 269 of them.

I'd tie this in to the discussion in another thread about statistics and their use. Statistics were sorely misused there. And of course it is all meaningless without the context of knowing how many meaningful bills a senator can expect to push in a year, how many meaningful bills get passed every year, and the power structure involved in two junior senators trying to get their names prominently attached to meaningful bills.

My concern wasn't with the use of the word "sodomized" but rather the suspicion that a person who was working so hard to give a hard bias to a blowjob probably wasn't working too hard to be even keeled in the other parts of the post.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, Alex beat me to it. I demand that list be removed. I call shenanigans.

I'm gonna post the people I had the hots for vs. the people Cadaverous Pallor actually slept with. :p

[BarTopDancer]

So Hillary, was it sniper fire or not? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap5lq52KkZRk&refer=home)

If it was discussed elsewhere, I can't find it. But I have no issue with the post being moved.

[Alex]

Post 576 above has some of it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm gonna post the people I had the hots for vs. the people Cadaverous Pallor actually slept with. :pCadaverous Pallor's camp has refused the request to publish said list. You may want to file a Freedom of Information Act request...

Going back to my post earlier - yes, it is within the rules for her to sway previously pledged delegates. I still find it offensive. The message she is sending me, the voter, is "your vote doesn't matter." Even though I am not a Dem and couldn't vote for either, I am horrified by her disregard of the average citizen's opinion.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

I have to admit, I skimmed this. But it's preaching to my choir. If you still think Barack's people say "CHANGE" over and over and nothing else, you may want to read it.

[BarTopDancer]

Going back to my post earlier - yes, it is within the rules for her to sway previously pledged delegates. I still find it offensive. The message she is sending me, the voter, is "your vote doesn't matter." Even though I am not a Dem and couldn't vote for either, I am horrified by her disregard of the average citizen's opinion.

I also agree with you.

I'm having visions of an episode of West Wing when they called the various senators asking, begging and trying to convince them to change their vote.

[scaeagles]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

I have to admit, I skimmed this. But it's preaching to my choir. If you still think Barack's people say "CHANGE" over and over and nothing else, you may want to read it.

I found it to be quitenaive. The whole concept of "dignity promotion" doesn't work, as was evidenced by the whole Somalia debacle. When those in power in these backwards countries use food and living conditions as a weapon, you can't achieve these things without force, and minimal force may not even be enough, and without the guts to stick it out and fleeing as we did in Somalia we simply look stupid and weak.

Dictators are not typically concerned with the well being - or "dignity" - of their people.

What's typically neglected in these arguments (eportation of democracy) is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen.

What does? Providing food and goods so that the marauding bands of militia men can steal it? Look at what happened in Ethiopia, where during the famines food sat and rotted on docks because those in control of the roads wouldn't allow it to be shipped where it was needed.

In talking about feeding people and relieving malaria and the likes, there are not many people that would suggest that Bush has not been the most pro-Africa President of all. He has been doing the very things discussed where it is possible to do it. That's not change, so you're right - it's the continuation of what Bush is doing in Africa right now - again, not everywhere, but where possible.

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery

They demagogue the misery that they create intentionally. Dictators don't want to end the misery of the people they control. It's the primary way they control them (along with fear).

I have so much more to offer on why I consider this beyond naive, but not the time nor desire to continue doing so.

[Strangler Lewis]

One can't argue with dignity promotion. That was the best justification for the Civilian Conservation Corps. Still, it sounds like an uphill battle at best. People get a lot of easy dignity from an infallible religion, a machete or an M16. Plus, Scaeagles is probably right. Gandhi wouldn't have gotten very far if his opponent had been Stalin instead of the British.

[Not Afraid]

Going back to my post earlier - yes, it is within the rules for her to sway previously pledged delegates. I still find it offensive. The message she is sending me, the voter, is "your vote doesn't matter." Even though I am not a Dem and couldn't vote for either, I am horrified by her disregard of the average citizen's opinion.

Since singular votes don't really matter with the delegate system, I don't think she's doing anything unusual.

I also agree with you.

I'm having visions of an episode of West Wing when they called the various senators asking, begging and trying to convince them to change their vote.

Ummm. You don't think that's the way things are done?

[Kevy Baby]

Not sure if this is the best thread to put this in, but I got a kick out of the incident with Chelsea Clinton the other day.

She was at Butler College in Indiana on Tuesday and was asked whether her Mother's response to her Father's infidelity with Monica Lewinsky had damaged Mom's credibility. I love her response:

"Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and..." then she paused for dramatic effect before concluding, "I do not think that is any of your business."You go girl!

The Yahoo News story with the headline of "Flash: Chelsea Clinton is a Competent Adult (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080326/cm_thenation/45302981)"
______________________

And I have to say, she (Chelsea) is looking much better with age!

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/28/chelsea29107_wideweb__470x390,0.jpg

[Strangler Lewis]

Even though I am not a Dem and couldn't vote for either, I am horrified by her disregard of the average citizen's opinion.

Disregarding a vote is somewhat troubling. I hope, however, that I end up electing a president who will disregard the average citizen's opinion.

I do wonder how much of this is an act. Is she indulging in so much juvenile, schoolyard, power-mad bad behavior because it makes her look like a Republican and she thinks it's what people are really used to, and, therefore, really want in a president?

[BarTopDancer]

Ummm. You don't think that's the way things are done?

I know it is. As a visual person, that is the mental image I get when I hear this is happening.

[scaeagles]

Is she indulging in so much juvenile, schoolyard, power-mad bad behavior because it makes her look like a Republican


HAHAHA! Yeah, dems aren't power mad or juvenile, and hillary never, ever acted like this before the campaign. HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alex]

There's a person being part of a panel on NPR right now making the argument that the call for Clinton to drop out of the race since her odds are long is misogynistic since such calls would never be made to a man. That for men the ideal is from sports where the game isn't over until the clock runs out.

Apparently she doesn't have a memory that runs back very far so doesn't recall the calls for Huckabee to drop out before McCain's victory was completely solidified. Or that Romney actually did drop out once his odds were long so that he could throw his support to the apparent victor.

Or the millions of people openly ridiculing Ralph Nader for running when he has no chance of victory and can only cause trouble for the actual winners.

[Morrigoon]

Alex, I want to applaud your research on the bills topic. I'm far too lazy to look into it that far. (Which is why I grabbed ready-made comments when they presented themselves.)

I'm still not voting for Hillary if she wins.

[scaeagles]

Apparently there are a lot of people on both the Clinton and Obama side who have said they will not vote for the other if their candidate loses. I'm sure that will temper a bit, but if I recall Rasmussen released a poll today that said a full 22% of each candidates supporters would vote for McCain instead of the other.

[Kevy Baby]

I'm still not voting for Hillary if she wins.Will you vote for Hillary if she loses?

[Alex]

That should counterbalance all of the Republicans who said, when that nominee was still up in the air, that they'd never ever in a million years -- better Clinton or Marx himself -- vote for McCain.

I don't view the current polls as any more meaningful in that regard than I did the McCain ones.

[scaeagles]

True. I will vote for McCain (though holding my nose as I do it), and it will also be the case that Hillary and Obama supporters will vote for the other in the general.

[Morrigoon]

If Hillary wins, it'll be a toss up between voting for McCain or the Libertarian candidate. I don't particularly hate McCain, but I feel like electing him will be mistaken as a vote of support for the repubs in congress to continue with the status quo. If we weren't just coming off a Bush presidency I might even have voted for the guy. I'll probably throw my vote away on my own (L) candidate and hunker down for 4-8 years of Hillary's nattering voice.

That is... IF she can get elected over McCain. Her electability is more and more in doubt every day.

[scaeagles]

I find this amazing, really.

Obama's charitable donations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-gave-only-1-of-inc_n_93376.html)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent

Even with increases in their giving in the next couple of years, they still only got up to about 5% charitable giving on over 2.6 million in income.

I don't begrudge them their wealth in the least. I'd love to make that much. But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.

[Scrooge McSam]

You're easily amazed, obviously.

From the Bloomberg article source cited on Huffpo...

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford. He also said the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007, though they have yet to make last year's tax returns public.

``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said. The tax returns don't reflect any donations for which they didn't or couldn't claim a deduction or any volunteer work they might have performed.

The Obamas' giving pattern is consistent with that of most other Americans, said University of Georgia Professor Russell James, who has studied the issue.

His analysis of more than 56,000 survey respondents from 1995-2005 found that 90 percent of donors give 2 percent or less of their pre-tax income to charities, including their churches. Americans who earn more than $150,000 on average gave about 2.2 percent of their income.

``It's not shocking,'' James said of the Obamas' philanthropy. ``It's about par for the course for Americans.''

That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.

Hehehe What's amazing is you're saying you're "sorry" to say this. Good stuff, Leo.

You've done your hit piece for the day. Have a good one.

[Strangler Lewis]

And the recent trends more closely reflect true giving since, with their income, their ability to deduct that would be severely if not completely phased out.

[scaeagles]

You've done your hit piece for the day. Have a good one.

And you've done your lame justification for the day.

At least they weren't giving lots of money to their church to promote the hate filled racist preaching of Reverend Wright.

Anything can be justified. I suppose it's only a hit piece if you don't like what's being presented. The facts are the facts, and I find it lame that someone making over 1.2 million over the course of four years could only find 10,000 to give to charity, and I make no apologies for that. I find it lame that someone making 2.6 million in a span of two years could only find 5% to give to charity. Most Americans may only give 2.2 percent. Most Americans don't make 300K/year, or 1.3 million/year.

With that comparison of giving, I propose anyone making over 1 million per year be allowed to pay the same percentage in taxes that the average income maker pays.

Lame.

[innerSpaceman]

That's fine. Do you think it's lame for the rest of Americans?Perhaps you do.

THEN SAY SO.


Don't single out one person, however high profile, if you have the same opinion of the other millions who don't get their tax returns made public.



Or do you think it's lame because they are so high profile? Or do you think it's lame only of the wealthy? ALL the wealthy? Or just your political opponents?

[BarTopDancer]

How much did McCain give? How much did the Hillary give? And for kicks, how much did Bush give?

And let's be sure none of that money was to "questionable" people or organizations.

[Morrigoon]

I propose that Bush's salary is money being given to questionable people.

[Strangler Lewis]

I thought I read that they gave $27K to Rev. Wright in 2005 to 2006. So what? I would hope that anyone I would ever vote for who goes to a traditional church disagrees with 90 per cent of what comes out of the pulpit. Nonetheless, you give because that's what you do when you belong to a church community. If the objection is that this is really political activism under the guise of the Old Testament tradition of raging prophets, then, fine, let's take away the tax exemptions of all the megachurches and even some of the smaller ones like my sister-in-law's church where the congregation had a hissy fit at the thought of the American flag being taken out of the sanctuary.

My wife and I have belonged to various churches where we like the priest, he spouts the party line, we know to what extent he actually believes it, and we know that the proof in the pudding is in the makeup of the congregation. With one of the priests in San Francisco, a Russian dissident, it went both ways. He would read the official word about gays, but his choir director and most of the parish council were gay men, which was fine with him. He would also read the official word against capital punishment, but, privately, as a kneel-em-down-and-shoot-them-in-the-back-of-the-head Russian, he couldn't believe that I could represent death row inmates in good conscience.

Occasionally, my wife suggests that we find a church that's more officially in line with our political beliefs, like the breakaway pro-gay Episcopal group in Petaluma or the rich Episcopals in Sausalito who summarize Jesus's message as everyone should have a nice brunch. Frankly, I'm against it. Maybe I'm just an old Abraham who likes to argue with God.

More likely, I'm an American who believes in my version of self-evident truths. If I belong to a church or synagogue that's perfectly in line with my liberal moral beliefs and use that relationship with God to buttress my beliefs I'm really no better than a right wing evangelical or madrassah student like Obama.

[Kevy Baby]

But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.Usually we agree on politics Leo, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

This is too small of a microcosm to make a judgment by. First, as stated in follow-up articles/posts, the $10K/$1.2M figure was at a time where they had other financial obligations. I put my family before others and I will not fault someone else for doing so. Second, donating money is not the only way to make charitable contributions. There are other actions that one can make that are more valuable to charities that are not monetary. For example, I provide services that are worth about $3K-$4K per year to the MS Society. However, other than mileage and a couple of other small amounts, it isn't tax deductible. If you were look at my returns, the percentage of charitable contributions would be about 1% as well.

But most importantly, I am not in favor of telling people what to do with their money. But making public their charitable contributions and attempting to shame them for it, people are trying to tell the Obamas what they should do with their money.

Whether someone contributes X% of their income to charity is not a measure of what kind of a person they are.

(In fact: in a small sense, I like the idea that a potential president is not in favor of giving away money right now. However, I do not believe that Obamas charitable donations are indicative of how much of my [a taxpayer] money he will give away.)

[scaeagles]

That's fine. Do you think it's lame for the rest of Americans?Perhaps you do.

THEN SAY SO.

Don't single out one person, however high profile, if you have the same opinion of the other millions who don't get their tax returns made public.


I think anyone with an income that is measured in 7 figures that donates so little back in terms of percentage has issues. This goes for anyone, political opponent or not. I find it interesting that the giving has gone up as his political aspirations have also. Not that this is unique to politicians, but any politician who tells me that I'm not paying enough in taxes yet gives so little of their own away I have particular problems with.

However, this is not the every Americans thread. This is a thread about Obama, is it not? Should every opinion offered here be then subject to how it relates to the rest of Americans who do not wish to be President?

[scaeagles]

I put my family before others and I will not fault someone else for doing so. Second, donating money is not the only way to make charitable contributions.

These are good points, and would cause me to rethink my opinion a bit. I do not pretend to know what his obligations were (although it is difficult for me to imagine that 300K annually during 00-04 didn't adequately cover them), and time is also certainly a donation that is no small gesture.

[BarTopDancer]

I think this constant controversy over this minister is the Hillary camp getting desperate. I don't think her desperation will help gain her any momentum either.

SL said it best too.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I think this constant controversy over this minister is the Hillary camp getting desperate.

I disagree. I think it is entirely being fueled by the right-wing who realizes all too well that Hillary is the only one of the two that they have any chance of beating. It is imperative that they do everything in their power to try and destroy him before a decision is made. And the mock outrage over this pastor, who as far as I'm aware, isn't running for any public office, is getting pretty tiring. I agree that there is plenty of desperation happening, but I don't think the source is Hillary.

[scaeagles]

Mock outrage? Perhaps.

Obama's pastor has said very controversial things. This much is true. Was the outrage over Trent Lott complimenting....whomever it was (drawing a blank, though I should certianly know who) also manufactured? I think so.

If McCain went to a church that spoke of Arabs or African Americans in the same way the Wright has spoken about Jews and Italians, would that be acceptable of would it be an issue?

And I see no problem with the right wing trying to influence the dems electoral process. I thought open primaries were a good thing? (I don't, really, but many who do find this whole thing to be outrageous.)

[Kevy Baby]

I disagree. I think it is entirely being fueled by the right-wing who realizes all too well that Hillary is the only one of the two that they have any chance of beating.I'll be the fence-sitter: I think it is a bit of both.

[Strangler Lewis]

Re Trent Lott: I assume you mean his suggestion that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, the country could have avoided a lot of problems.

I don't know what Wright said about Jews and Italians. I think most of the discussion has focused on what he said about America. As far as John McCain's church goes, since he apparently now goes to a baptist church, I'm guessing they have a few things to say about gays. In general, my expectations about what is said in houses of worship is pretty low.

Before switching affiliation to a baptist church, McCain belonged to Bill Clinton's church, the Church of Flagrant Infidelity. Interestingly, when I checked the Wikipedia page to see what church he went to, I could no longer find the discussion of all the cheating he did on his first wife.

[SacTown Chronic]

And if you're badmouthing America, you best be badmouthing the faggots, the heathens, the feminists, the liberals, and the hedonists. It's always best (safest) to confuse white male fundi fantasy with facts.


Under no conditions are you to imply that America's policies in any way caused the chickens to come home to roost. To do so would be insightful and therefore un-American.

[BarTopDancer]

I think it's Hillary, trying to deflect from her Bosnia exaggerations.

The controversy over the minister died down until hers picked up. Her willingness to exaggerate so freely over something so major (sniper fire is pretty major) scares me. What else is she exaggerating about? The minister controversy concerns me a lot less - yes, the guy made racist and hate filled remarks. Yes, Obama goes to that church and donated money to it. He is also friends with the guy. The guy/church donated a bunch of money to the campaign. Which they donated and equal amount to charity. Personally, I don't care if he is friends with the guy or not. He has shown he can speak for himself, think for himself.

[Scrooge McSam]

And if you're badmouthing America, you best be badmouthing the faggots

This faggot can't remember if he's ever had bad mouth.

No... I don't think I have.:p

[SacTown Chronic]

The drugs and alcohol have obviously fried your memory, heathen.

[Scrooge McSam]

Do I know you?

[scaeagles]

Hey, SL, I'm obviously no McCain fan. I just think Obama gets treated differently than either Hillary or McCain.

It's just like the SNL skit of the Obama press conference....

"Mr. Obama, earlier we asked you if there was anything you needed - some water, anything, and you said no. I wanted to ask you.....are you sure? I mean, I can run out and get you something right now....".

[scaeagles]

I think it is entirely being fueled by the right-wing who realizes all too well that Hillary is the only one of the two that they have any chance of beating.

Recent polling suggests that isn't necessarily true. McCain has an identical lead over both, and Clinton and Obama are consistently neck and neck against the other.

From this (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) link -
Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 51% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% (see recent daily results). McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 41%. Obama’s reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

[Alex]

Here's my view of the charitable giving. Could he have given more? Almost certainly. Should he have given more? Probably, especially since he knew he would be pursuing a political career.

But I don't view it as a really bad thing that he didn't. Until his first book was published and made a fair chunk of change they'd never had a lot of money. They both had extensive college debt, and when the money started coming in they had a 2-year-old and a child on the way.

Plus, the source of money was not remotely guaranteed. The vast majority of their income in those years was from a book deal and royalties. There was no guarantee that they wouldn't return to the money they were making just a few years ago. Plus he's going to run for office which has a decent paycheck if he wins but a not so good one if he loses.

What does this add up to, for me? Being pretty darn conservative with his money. Paying off debts. Establishing a better household. Putting a lot away for retirement and the future education of your children. Just generally acting as if the gravy train could come to an immediate stop at any moment.

And as his income has become more secured he has increased the charitable giving. This can certainly be read simply as political expediency and I'm sure that is a not inconsiderable part of it. But also, it is the political future that also brought in the money so there is a certain amount of a chicken and egg thing going there.

But then, if I ever run for high office I will be screwed. Because we never claim our charitable donations for tax purposes, figuring it is nobody else's business.

[innerSpaceman]

Furthermore, what Trent Lott said and what someone's pastor said are very apples and oranges. I could give a hoot what some senator's pastor says. What they say themselves is a legitimate concern.

[Kevy Baby]

Furthermore, what Trent Lott said and what someone's pastor said are very apples and oranges. I could give a hoot what some senator's pastor says. What they say themselves is a legitimate concern.The issue with the Pastor statements has been that Obama has chosen to stay with the church. Some people interpret this as a tacit agreement with the statements.

I don't agree with this logic, but some do.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Recent polling suggests that isn't necessarily true. McCain has an identical lead over both, and Clinton and Obama are consistently neck and neck against the other.

From this (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) link -

The poll I saw this morning showed them all in a statistical dead heat, with Obama slightly ahead of McCain and Clinton slightly behind. Not sure where I read it but if I can find it, I'll post a link.

[BarTopDancer]

The issue with the Pastor statements has been that Obama has chosen to stay with the church. Some people interpret this as a tacit agreement with the statements.

I don't agree with this logic, but some do.

I hope that those who have an issue with Obama staying with his church agree 100% with their church leaders views then. And heaven forbid their friends ever do anything questionable.

One of the many things I like about Obama is that he comes off as human. Admits he smoked pot (and inhaled! :eek: :rolleyes: ). He seems to take care of his family needs (see Kevin's post). Doesn't agree with everything his church leader does, or his friends do.

Awesome, we don't have a guy with a God complex running for office. YAY!

[scaeagles]

The poll I saw this morning showed them all in a statistical dead heat, with Obama slightly ahead of McCain and Clinton slightly behind. Not sure where I read it but if I can find it, I'll post a link.


Probably the DNC website.:evil:

[BarTopDancer]

I saw that same poll on the Today Show.

[scaeagles]

What does this add up to, for me? Being pretty darn conservative with his money. Paying off debts. Establishing a better household. Putting a lot away for retirement and the future education of your children. Just generally acting as if the gravy train could come to an immediate stop at any moment.


Here's the problem I have with that....I do not have nearly enough tucked away for college for my kids. Same with retirement. I have some, of course, and something could happen, i suppose, that would stop my income.

If I had the mentality of not giving (much) until I was completely established, and everyone else did as well, there wouldn't be a whole lot of giving going on.

Shouldn't we be concerned about others who have real needs? I am not suggesting everyone become Mother Teresa here, but it seems to me there are more important things than putting away for a college education, though that is not a bad thing at all.

[innerSpaceman]

Says you, and you're entitled to that belief. You're also entitled to look unkindly on anyone who doesn't share your belief.

But I say others can have differing priorities ... college education fund, world travel fund, prostitution fund, jewelry bling fund ... it's none of my freaking business. And I don't think any of it hits my personal radar on qualifications to be president.

Rather it's all that pesky views on issues, policy plans, governing plans, international action plans ... ya know, that stupid president stuff.

[scaeagles]

Doesn't this correspond to his policy of "dignity", which CP posted a link to regarding? He wants to give tax money charitably to foreign countries yet has not demonstrated that in his own life with his own money. So he wants to take my money and your money and give it charitably when he had far more money then than I do now. I see that as wrong.

Go ahead and say that I have a right to see it that way and other people have a right to see it otherwise, blah, blah, blah. Can say that about anyhing posted in any thread.

[innerSpaceman]

And I will.

Like I said, someone's personal behavior may be relevant to many people. Fine with me. It's just got zero relevance to me. I don't care if it's b.j.'s under the ovaltine desk, or spanking their kids with a wire hanger.

[Alex]

Shouldn't we be concerned about others who have real needs? I am not suggesting everyone become Mother Teresa here, but it seems to me there are more important things than putting away for a college education, though that is not a bad thing at all.

I agree to an extent. But again, the nature of the income is significant to me. He had no way early on of being at all confident that the windfall would repeat itself year after year after year. For all he know those two or three years would be the high water mark of his life. That the window for getting himself established was short.

It isn't like he went to work for a law firm where he was earning $250,000/year and to keep the money rolling all he had to do was not get fired. He wrote a book. For all he knew that money would stop coming in after a couple years and no other book he wrote would ever get notice.

Plus, we don't know what else he was doing with his money that might be considered good charitable (though not tax deductible). Maybe nothing, maybe he was sending money to his grandmother in Kenya. I don't know. But not knowing isn't really grounds for jumping to the worst case conclusion. Unless that worst case conclusion fits in with the opinion you want to spin anyway. Just as jumping to the best case solution if you want to present him as Christ walking the earth again isn't warranted.



Besides, you're missing the appropriate conservative critique of this news (though you almost got it in your last post). But I don't want to do your work for you.

[Kevy Baby]

I hope that those who have an issue with Obama staying with his church agree 100% with their church leaders views then.But the statements made by the Pastor were pretty extreme and quite strong. That does make a difference.

...prostitution fund...I don't discuss your private life, please don't discuss mine :D

[innerSpaceman]

I've only seen the loop of Reverand White's "greatest hits" - so maybe I've missed something.

What's so "extreme" about them? I won't argue they are strong, but I hardly think they are extreme.

Decrying nuclear weapons attacks on Japanese civilians. How is that an extreme position? Sure, there may have been tactical and strategic reasons. Does that make the experience of the Japanese at our hands any less horrific? Or is it just a simple truth that it was a horrific thing?

Noting it was the very people we supported then abandoned in Afghanistan who then attacked on 9/11. How is that extreme? It's simple fact.



Perhaps it's not completely cool to rave "God Damn America" as an ironic twist on God Bless America, but if you're reasonably feeling the anger in contemplating the above two incidents, it is really that Oh-My-Christing extreme?








I, for one, don't think so.

[Kevy Baby]

Again, I am not siding with the argument: I believe for the most part that the Reverend Wright issue is, well, a NON issue. However, remarks made by Wright HAVE been inflammatory (the ones in bold are ones that I personally have a problem with):

September 2001: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
September 2001: “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”
September 2001: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”
April 2003: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.” (I disagree with the "Government is out to get the black man" mentality. It is racist to make such accusations. KB)
December 2007: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.” (Racist - KB)
December 2007: “Hillary ain’t never been called a [n!gger]. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
Jan. 13, 2008: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (Presumably by "us" he again refers to "the black man" and this is once again, racist - KB)
“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. (Of little statistical relevance - KB) … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”
“We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.
And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this [sh!t]!”Source (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/18/raw-data-some-controversial-statements-by-rev-wright/)

[Alex]

I can't really buy into the argument that it is both racist to be treated as an inferior segment of society and to act as if you're being treated as an inferior segment of society.

If the former is happening, and while it may not happen to the great extent of the past, it is certainly still happening then the latter just seems like common sense.

[Kevy Baby]

I can't really buy into the argument that it is both racist to be treated as an inferior segment of society and to act as if you're being treated as an inferior segment of society.

If the former is happening, and while it may not happen to the great extent of the past, it is certainly still happening then the latter just seems like common sense.To me, it is racist to say that the entire government treats all black men in a racist manner.

It is racist to assert that all white people hate/want to beat down/etc. all black people.

Yes, there are (white) racist individuals in this world - I am not naive. But when a black man makes an assertion about all non-black people, how is that not racist? That is (IMO) what Rev. Wright is preaching. Granted, I have heard worse (Farrakhan), but this is what I see.

[SacTown Chronic]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is, Kevin. Furthermore, nowhere in those quotes you provided does Rev. Wright assert that all white people desire to do anything to all black people.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, i didn't see that All White People stuff. Where?


Though it did clear up certain misunderstandings I had concerning his comments ... so thanks for posting them, Kevy.

[Kevy Baby]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is, Kevin.What word would you use? Governmentist? Perhaps "reverse discrimination" is more palatable. It is hypocritical to accuse an entire body (in this case "Government") of being against an entire race.

Do you have a problem that I accuse a black man of being racist? I have never seen a definition that says that racism can only be applied towards any one racial group. By using a combination of 1) accusing the government of being all white, and 2) saying the government is against "people of color" is, well, racism.

So to answer your question that has now come up of "but he never said that the government was all white people", I remind you of this statement by Wright:
“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”"The government ... against people of color." In other words: the white people are doing this to the black people.

rac·ism –noun
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.Furthermore, nowhere in those quotes you provided does Rev. Wright assert that all white people desire to do anything to all black people.I never said "all" and I never meant to imply it.

If you disagree that he implies the government is (predominantly) white, then the argument ends there and we disagree.

But just because I use the term "racism" against a black man, don't say I have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is." I know what it means and I chose to not limit its usage.



I hate carrying on this debate in this thread as it is not about Barrack any more (sorry CP).

[€uroMeinke]

I find this amazing, really.

Obama's charitable donations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-gave-only-1-of-inc_n_93376.html)



Even with increases in their giving in the next couple of years, they still only got up to about 5% charitable giving on over 2.6 million in income.

I don't begrudge them their wealth in the least. I'd love to make that much. But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.


This is why we need big government and high taxes, becasue no one really wants to give to charity anyway

[SacTown Chronic]

Do you have a problem that I accuse a black man of being racist?No.

I have never seen a definition that says that racism can only be applied towards any one racial group. Of course not.



I never said "all" and I never meant to imply it.

It is racist to assert that all white people hate/want to beat down/etc. all black people.



But just because I use the term "racism" against a black man...I haven't said that. Or anything approaching that. Or anything on the same fvcking planet as that. Reverand Wright's race has nothing to do with my assertion that you do not understand racism.


Let's try this another way:

Check those three definitions of racism you provided against the Wright quotes you provided and see if you have a winner.

[scaeagles]

This is why we need big government and high taxes, becasue no one really wants to give to charity anyway

Or perhaps it is because the taxes are so high no one has that much to give?

[€uroMeinke]

Or perhaps it is because the taxes are so high no one has that much to give?

Eh, but I bet you wouldn't let Obama slide on that excuse

[Alex]

It is a glaring demonstration of how liberal Obama is. Despite clearly seeing the needs of people around him, he is so focused on the idea that government is the source of solutions that even as he advanced into a financially secure, and even extravagant by most standards, income bracket it never even occurred to him to dig into his own bank accounts to give directly to solutions.

Instead, he acts on the assumption that he need do nothing directly but instead rely on the government to take what is necessary and redistribute it, leaving the rest behind for his own use. The excess of money he has is to him not a sign of personal charitable failure but rather a governmental failure to take what is needed. To him, the solution is not for him to give more but for the government to take more.

Learning that he gave so little is not a sign of hypocrisy but rather a demonstration of the core values he holds most dearly. And this is the very reason we should be wary of electing him to office. For he has been exposed as being just the radical tax-and-spend liberal that any decent conservative should fear seeing in the highest office in the land.




How did I do at channeling Rush?

[scaeagles]

Perhaps not....but I'd be a lot more understanding of someone making 30K giving less than 1% then I am of someone earning 300K doing the same.

[scaeagles]

A fine job indeed, Alex. And while you didn't mean it to be so, it's a convincing argument.

[Alex]

Yeah, I know it is from a certain point of view. That is the appropriate conservative argument I said you were missing. When/if you repeat it my royalty is $0.002 per use. Contact me by PM on where to send the check.

[wendybeth]

I find it heartwarming that Scaeagles is so worried about the poor.;)

[scaeagles]

I'm typically not a spewer forth of conservative thoughts that I hear from other sources.....I actually do think the way I write. So the probably of royalties to you of over a dime is highly, highly unlikely.

[scaeagles]

I find it heartwarming that Scaeagles is so worried about the poor.;)


How interesting that your post was #666 of this thread.

[wendybeth]

Lol!!!


:evil:

[BarTopDancer]

LOLCats for Obama (http://lolcats4obama.wordpress.com/)

[sleepyjeff]

It is a glaring demonstration of how liberal Obama is. Despite clearly seeing the needs of people around him, he is so focused on the idea that government is the source of solutions that even as he advanced into a financially secure, and even extravagant by most standards, income bracket it never even occurred to him to dig into his own bank accounts to give directly to solutions.

Instead, he acts on the assumption that he need do nothing directly but instead rely on the government to take what is necessary and redistribute it, leaving the rest behind for his own use. The excess of money he has is to him not a sign of personal charitable failure but rather a governmental failure to take what is needed. To him, the solution is not for him to give more but for the government to take more.

Learning that he gave so little is not a sign of hypocrisy but rather a demonstration of the core values he holds most dearly. And this is the very reason we should be wary of electing him to office. For he has been exposed as being just the radical tax-and-spend liberal that any decent conservative should fear seeing in the highest office in the land.




How did I do at channeling Rush?

Actually, I think you are channeling George Will:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032708.php3

[Alex]

Wow. I swear I hadn't read that.

Though we're hardly the first people to put in writing that idea.

[SacTown Chronic]

The correlation between givers and religion that Will cites is nothing more than the God-mandated tithe that puts the preacher in a Cadillac bought with tax-free dollars. He knows this but would never mention it.







Doesn't this correspond to his policy of "dignity", which CP posted a link to regarding? He wants to give tax money charitably to foreign countries yet has not demonstrated that in his own life with his own money. So he wants to take my money and your money and give it charitably when he had far more money then than I do now. I see that as wrong.


Dignity Promotion is a national defense theory. Barrack Obama wants to stop wasting tax dollars on bullets and tanks and wants to start wasting tax dollars on theories of peace through dignity and hope. He wants to take my money and your money and spend it on national defense without killing as many people as we do now. I see that as a righteous aspiration. What I don't see is what this has to do with charitable giving in his private life.

[scaeagles]

Again, that theory is naive when taking into consideration that a large amount of the poverty and hunger and lack of dignity in the world is imposed on the populace by the rulers of the nations experiencing these things as a form of control. Also, most of the leaders of terrorist organizations are idealogues and zealots who are not interested in dignity and hope, they are interested in people living under the partiuclar interpretation of Islam or the extermination of Israel or whatever it may be.

[Prudence]

Someone in Obama's position making his salary is not the same as me, in my position, making that salary. I don't have to maintain a certain image to project an air of success that attracts campaign donors. I don't have to dress a certain way, make sure my family is dressed a certain way, drive a certain car, have a driver take me to work so that I can work in the car, have a certain type of home suitable for persuasive entertaining, or fund that entertaining. I have the time to do my own cooking and cleaning (such as it is.) I don't have to maintain a home in one state and work in DC.

This applies to any of the candidates. And yes, there's a point where if someone's bringing in millions every year and hoarding it I might consider that a moral failing. But 300K a year? For me, in my life, that would be astounding wealth. I'd certainly have enough to spare a good amount for charity. But I also don't have my "employers" examining my personal life with a fine-toothed comb and speculating on my potential for success based on where I live, what brand of suit I wear, and what I served at my last party.

[Kevy Baby]

My father sent me this article by Ben Stein that appeared in the March 2, 2008 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html?_r=1&em&ex=1204693200&en=e669aa2b828d4e7a&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin). I kinda liked it.


AS I was sitting at my majestic TV in a majestic suite at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Miami a couple of weeks ago, going over notes for a speech the next morning and waiting for Crockett and Tubbs to speed by, chasing drug kingpins in their Miami Vice" motorboat, I watched Barack Obama speak in Madison, Wis.

As usual, Senator Obama gave a fine oration, with thunderous applause from the audience as his reward. But then I was beguiled by a series of gifts he was going to give the American people (of course, with their own money): universal health care, antipoverty programs, large grants to college students in return for community service (a darned good idea) and other goodies.

Then he talked about the country's energy policy and how he planned to change our dependence on oil. And he took aim at Exxon Mobil, which had almost $12 billion in earnings last quarter, and said that good old Exxon Mobil wouldn't part easily with its profits.

Now, I know it's primary season. I know Democratic candidates have to make obeisance to the populist, anti-business wing of their party, just as the Republican front-runner, Senator John McCain, has to make bows and curtsies to the supply-side part of his (and my) party. But Mr. Obama's comments about Exxon Mobil are, as folks used to say, fightin' words.

Mr. Obama is clearly an intelligent man. So it may not be too early to start a small process of education about Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and why attacking them is not smart. First, Exxon Mobil, like all the other gigantic integrated energy companies in this country, is owned not by a cabal of reactionary businessmen holding clandestine meetings in a lodge in the Texas scrublands (as Oliver Stone so brilliantly illustrated in "Nixon").

Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil's shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company. When Exxon Mobil earns almost $12 billion in a quarter, or $41 billion in a year, as it did in 2007, that money does not go into the coffers of a few billionaire executives quaffing Champagne in Texas. It goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens. When Exxon pays a dividend, that money goes to pay for the mortgages and oxygen tanks and in-home care of lots of elderly Americans. So, Mr. Obama, which union pension plans - and which blue-collar workers who benefit from them - will be among the first you would like to deprive of the income that flows from Exxon's rich dividends?

When Mr. Obama or his Democratic rival, my fellow Yale Law School graduate Hillary Rodham Clinton, go after the oil companies and want to take away their profits, they are basically seeking to lower the income of the ordinary American. Why do that? It's just cutting off one end of a blanket and sewing it to the other.

Years ago, there was a comic strip called "Pogo" by Walt Kelly, and the possum who was its hero uttered a deservedly famous line: "We have met the enemy and he is us." this applies to Big Oil. Its profits are our income. Its employees are overwhelmingly not millionaires - and, by the way, it's not illegal or evil to be a millionaire. They are our neighbors and the people who get us the gasoline to run our cars and trucks and the oil to heat our homes. And, after expenses, the money hauled in by Exxon Mobil and other companies like it goes vastly more toward exploration and finding new ways of delivering oil and gas to us slobs in our cars than it does to well-heeled oil executives. It may be a scary fact, but we need the oil companies.

Meanwhile, all over the world, from Russia to Venezuela to Africa to the sands of the Mideast, nations with large oil reserves are making it harder for American energy companies to get their hands on oil and gas. If they succeed and re-cartelize the price, current prices may look cheap. We should not be beating up Exxon Mobil and its brethren and making them cry uncle to Uncle Sam. A better policy might be to keep making sure they have no role in price-fixing, and then to encourage them to go after and lock up as much oil and gas as they can for us to burn up. We would be better off with stronger oil companies that can serve our energy needs for the long haul than with weak and overtaxed oil companies that cannot deliver the needed juice.

Finally, envy is simply not good economics. It has never led anywhere except to trouble, and we have enough divisions in this country already. As I said, Mr. Obama is a smart man. And Senator Clinton is a smart woman. I have worked in politics and with politicians. I know they have to say crowd-pleasing things (just as Republican leaders have to say that cutting taxes raises revenue). But I respectfully suggest that they might want to reconsider their attack on Big Oil. After all, Big Oil is big us. And we need us.

[BarTopDancer]

Someone in Obama's position making his salary is not the same as me, in my position, making that salary. I don't have to maintain a certain image to project an air of success that attracts campaign donors. I don't have to dress a certain way, make sure my family is dressed a certain way, drive a certain car, have a driver take me to work so that I can work in the car, have a certain type of home suitable for persuasive entertaining, or fund that entertaining. I have the time to do my own cooking and cleaning (such as it is.) I don't have to maintain a home in one state and work in DC.

This applies to any of the candidates. And yes, there's a point where if someone's bringing in millions every year and hoarding it I might consider that a moral failing. But 300K a year? For me, in my life, that would be astounding wealth. I'd certainly have enough to spare a good amount for charity. But I also don't have my "employers" examining my personal life with a fine-toothed comb and speculating on my potential for success based on where I live, what brand of suit I wear, and what I served at my last party.

PUBLIC MOJO! Well said!

[Strangler Lewis]

The Ben Stein article is fine as far as it goes, but most people hurt by high gas prices are a long way from retired. I know a number of families that have cut off their balls--i.e., sold their Tahoes, Silverados, etc. and downsized to minivans or bought a smaller used car for errands--because they can't afford to fill up the tank.

The price of food has also gone up, both because of increases in the price of gas and the price of wheat. I suppose the answer would be that most of the processed foods that Americans are killing themselves with are ultimately owned by Phillip Morris and the like who might be part of their 401k.

This assumes that most Americans are contributing sufficiently to 401k, which they are not. Rather, many are living paycheck to paycheck and running up credit cards. Of course, now that MasterCard and Visa have gone public, this is obviously a good thing.

[Kevy Baby]

The Ben Stein article is fine as far as it goes, but most people hurt by high gas prices are a long way from retired. I know a number of families that have cut off their balls--i.e., sold their Tahoes, Silverados, etc. and downsized to minivans or bought a smaller used car for errands--because they can't afford to fill up the tank.Who do you think is to blame for the high gas prices? Some believe that Exxon-Mobile et. al. is to blame (because E-M made $12 billion last quarter). It ain't them. Look at the cost for a barrel of oil which is well over $100 ($107 as of Thursday), up from about $50.00 in January 2007.

And for those who think that $12 billion is 'too high', look at it from a percentage perspective (all info from the respective companies' Income Statements on finance.yahoo.com):

Exxon-Mobile: 10%
Disney: 12%
Apple: 16%
Sears: 17%
Microsoft: 29%

[wendybeth]

Anybody else finish that Ben Stein article and think "Bueller.........Beuller......."



Btw, I think he lives up here in Sandpoint, Idaho- or he used to, anyway.

[Deebs]

Anybody else finish that Ben Stein article and think "Bueller.........Beuller......."



"Anyone? Anyone?"

(Yes, me.)

[flippyshark]

I used to enjoy watching Win Ben Stein's Money. It's a shame that these days, he's a shill for the deluded 'Intelligent Design" folks at the Discovery Institute, starring in a new creationist friendly (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/) documentary. (It sounds as though the main thesis of the film is "Darwinism leads inevitably to Nazism.") But, that deserves a thread all its own.

[scaeagles]

Also, I believe the profit per gallon of gas sold is 8-9 cents. The government takes anywhere between 3 to 5 times that in taxes.

[scaeagles]

The whole "has to maintain a certain image" thing may be accurate, but if that's the case, then he's lied about why his charitable donations had been so small. But of course, he can't say "I had to keep my money so I'd look good"....that wouldn't go over very well, would it?

[JWBear]

I used to enjoy watching Win Ben Stein's Money. It's a shame that these days, he's a shill for the deluded 'Intelligent Design" folks at the Discovery Institute, starring in a new creationist friendly (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/) documentary. (It sounds as though the main thesis of the film is "Darwinism leads inevitably to Nazism.") But, that deserves a thread all its own.


I hadn't heard of that film. What a joke! So much for Stein's credibility.

[scaeagles]

In general, why is it that disagreement in one area can lead to the complete discounting of everything else? Is Stein really without credibility now in everything?

I am guilty of doing the same on occasion, but I wonder why this is.....

[Alex]

It makes up for the assumption that because someone is well informed in one area (let's say economics) that one is therefore an expert in another (let's say evolution).

[flippyshark]

In general, why is it that disagreement in one area can lead to the complete discounting of everything else? Is Stein really without credibility now in everything?

I am guilty of doing the same on occasion, but I wonder why this is.....

It's a natural tendency, especially if one is already inclined to disagree with the person in question. If you already don't like a certain candidate or public figure, then the first questionable thing they do or say becomes instant justification for your initial hunch. Sometimes, that's all anyone wants or needs.

In principal, you are right, though. This isn't fair. Someone can be absolutely blinkered and deluded about one topic, and rational, lucid or even brilliant in another. Ben Stein has always been a staunch conservative, of course. (He was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon.) Some might, for that reason alone, want to find reason to dismiss him. To me, he's always come off as a smart, likable guy. But, since I accept that evolutionary theory really does explain a great deal of the natural world, (I'm one of those materialist atheistic types), Stein's alliance with the ID'ers does seem tantamount to his joining the Flat Earth Society. (And the fact that the ID movement is primarily driven by fundamentalist Christians, the very Jewish Stein makes a somewhat strange bedfellow. I presume he is a devout Jew who favors a more literal reading of the Torah?)

But to get back on topic, this really shows Barack Obama for what he really is!!! :)

[Strangler Lewis]

Who do you think is to blame for the high gas prices? Some believe that Exxon-Mobile et. al. is to blame (because E-M made $12 billion last quarter). It ain't them. Look at the cost for a barrel of oil which is well over $100 ($107 as of Thursday), up from about $50.00 in January 2007.


I wasn't really addressing blame for the situation. I was addressing the article's theory that people should be happy to pay high gas prices because the money all comes back to them in the end.

[SacTown Chronic]

Again, that theory is naive when taking into consideration that a large amount of the poverty and hunger and lack of dignity in the world is imposed on the populace by the rulers of the nations experiencing these things as a form of control. Also, most of the leaders of terrorist organizations are idealogues and zealots who are not interested in dignity and hope, they are interested in people living under the partiuclar interpretation of Islam or the extermination of Israel or whatever it may be.I wasn't discussing the effectiveness of Dignity Promotion so much as asking you what it has to do with Obama's charitable donations.

[Kevy Baby]

Anybody else finish that Ben Stein article and think "Bueller.........Beuller......."It was running through my head the whole time - I just can't help it.

In general, why is it that disagreement in one area can lead to the complete discounting of everything else?I try to be cognizant of that, trying to not confuse one issue with another. I wish I could say I was perfect on this, but...

I wasn't really addressing blame for the situation. I was addressing the article's theory that people should be happy to pay high gas prices because the money all comes back to them in the end.I don't think he was saying that we should be happy about the prices. What I took from the article was that Obama was placing the blame for the high prices in the wrong place (by blaming "big oil"): something I happen to strongly agree with.
_________________

And it is a good thing that candidates aren't selected by bowling scores. Obama scored a 37 over the weekend.

Spare us: Obama bowls a 37 in campaign stop (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/NEWS07/803310358)

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20080331&Category=NEWS07&ArtNo=803310358&Ref=AR&Profile=1009&MaxW=550&MaxH=650&title=0

[Alex]

Looks like he's wearing a watch on both wrists, but I assume the right hand is a bracelet of some sort. I'm amazed he actually bowled a full game (assuming he did).

He's a lefty so that's good. But the other day I saw video of him signing something and it looks like he's a wraparound lefty which is bad (self loathing TRAITOR!). Plus, he is wearing his watch on his left wrist, which to me is odd -- since I use the hand so much I find it generally irritating to wear my watch on that side, but I don't know how common that is.

I use to have a bowling average around 200. I wonder if that means I would be a better president.

[wendybeth]

His bowling score alone would make me vote for him. I bowled a 52 my first game!

(As a rightie, I can't stand wearing a watch on that wrist. Never thought about it until Alex mentioned it.)

[Kevy Baby]

I use to have a bowling average around 200. I wonder if that means I would be a better president.Unless bowling scores have an inverse relationship to presidential ability.

[sleepyjeff]

Anybody else finish that Ben Stein article and think "Bueller.........Beuller......."






Nope....I was thinking about cheese balls myself:)


http://youtube.com/watch?v=OratYKWszU8


:D

[Strangler Lewis]

Some people maybe don't have the necessities to be good bowlers.

As a longtime bowler myself, any celebrity's ability to knock 'em down with style immediately raises their status with me. On the other hand, since the PBA has unfortunately entered a hard-ass attitude era, my feelings about bowling and its cultural/political relevance are more equovical.

[Alex]

For anybody interested in the underlying issues in the ministry of Black Liberation Theology (the form preached by Obama's Rev. Wright) there will be an interview with the founder on NPR's Fresh Air this afternoon.

I don't suspect that it will make many people look at Rev. Wright issue differently but should expand the contextual understanding of it.

[Morrigoon]

Bowling while wearing a tie..... dork.

He should at least have sent some aide out to get a custom bowling shirt made for him with Obama 08 on it or something.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I used to wear my watch on my right wrist as a lefty, but got tired of people bugging me about it (for some reason, it was a big deal in elementary school) so I just learned to deal with the minor annoyances having it on my left causes. At this point I don't even notice, though I do take it off or switch it to my right wrist to bowl.

[innerSpaceman]

I used to wear my wristwatch on my left wrist.









Then they invented cell phones. :p

[Morrigoon]

Funny, because I'm a righty, and I wear my watch on my right wrist, which I know is the lefties' way to wear it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm an obsessive time checker, far easier to look at my wrist than fish my phone out of my pocket.

[innerSpaceman]

Ah. I think wristwatches are stylish. But since I can always tell the time innately within 15 minutes, I really couldn't justify two timepieces on my person.


As soon as the Dick Tracy wristwatch/phone works out for reals, I'll go back to strapping the unit on my wrist.

[scaeagles]

Hate wearing watches. Any guy that wears two will never have my vote!

[sleepyjeff]

37? My son went bowling for the first time in his life at age 3.....he bowled a 70(yes, he did have bumpers, but then again, he wasn't 46 he was 3)

You get 20 chances. That means, on average, he hit less than two pins per try.

Still, this does have nothing to do with Presidential ability but I would like him to know one thing........in Oregon, the Democratic Governor used his bowling ability in most of his TV ads and some say this helped him win the election.

Oregon still has not voted yet..........could this sway the election?

;)

[Alex]

An audio clip of Bill Clinton talking over the weekend has him saying "Or-ee-gone." To me this is more annoying than nukular.

[cirquelover]

Which is especially annoying considering he was heading to Oregon! I hear he didn't get a very warm reception in Medford.

[Alex]

Well, right there is a good reason to never run for president. You might have to go to Medford.

[cirquelover]

I'm glad I wasn't drinking when I read your response Alex! My monitor would have been covered!

Sadly that's where Gary has been stuck most of this year. It's been a big culture shock compared to the Hard Rock, Las Vegas where he spent most of last year!

[Alex]

Is he working at Seven Feathers?

I have to say that Oregon's Indian casinos are more boring than I'd have ever imagined it would be possible for a casino to be.

[cirquelover]

No, he's at Fire Mountain Gems and doing some work for Harry & Davids.

Your right about the Oregon Indian casinos though, they are geared for the old folks. My Mom is thrilled when she comes to visit because she can play all the Bingo she wants there.

[sleepyjeff]

An audio clip of Bill Clinton talking over the weekend has him saying "Or-ee-gone." To me this is more annoying than nukular.

Well, right there is a good reason to never run for president. You might have to go to Medford.

My wit has failed me....I want to write something inteligent and funny here but nothing is coming to mind.

Just the word Medford can do that to me sometimes.

[Morrigoon]

Even Newsweek has gotten into debunking that quote I posted. Check this out:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

[Alex]

First George Will and now Newsweek. If the media-industrial machine is going to use me as their oracle, I'd like a little mention.

[scaeagles]

No one has brought up Obama's small town America is bitter so they turn to guns, religion, and xenophobia comments. Of course he and his supporters have their spin, but I don't buy it. I think every once in a while what he means slips out and he must find a way to spin it, as does every politician.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The point seemed pretty obvious to me. These are Us vs Them issues. They breed divisiveness. Instead of working on the things that we can build together, most people and politicians cling to divisive issues because they bring more heat with them.

Besides: Shock of shocks, Barack Obama isn't a fan of the xenophobic, gun-waving, my-church-is-better-than-yours lifestyle. Seriously, people, this is surprising. :rolleyes: Neither am I, btw. Can I be called elitist now?

[Alex]

Well, he didn't say (I'm getting this all after the fact since I was pretty busy for a few days) small town Americans are bitter, he said that economically depressed people become bitter.

I didn't think there was anything controversial about that idea except for the political maladroitness of saying it out loud where he did. From what I've seen I will say that I'd prefer he stood by his...ahem...guns and didn't try to backtrack on it.

"Yes, I meant what I said. When people suffer economic hardship and a curtailment of opportunities over a long period of time they look to build up their self esteem in other ways and these ways can be harmful to community and national cohesion. In poor inner cities you may develop a gang culture, which is in many ways just a particularly violent and narrowly cast form of xenophobia. In rural areas it isn't nearly so violent but they too begin to look for ways to redefine themselves in a search for something to stand for.

In San Francisco, an area that has been on the good side of our nation's great economic changes over the last 30 years, it is baffling to them that people in places like parts Pennsylvania seem to so identify themselves through things like gun ownership or religious affiliation. And while these aren't inherently bad, I do think they are a sign of groups of people who have lost so much and for so long that they do become angry and bitter at any perceived attempt to take even more from them and cling, yes, I said cling, to what they still have with a tenacity that strikes others as curiously militant."

I think that is mostly what he meant. And it was stupid, politically, to go anywhere near actually saying it. Particularly when he wasn't talking directly to the people he was talking about. Plus, it is essentially what he said about racial tensions and issues in this country and he was praised to high water for that.

Somewhat unrelated, I liked Jon Stewart's comments last night on the media universally labeling it as "elitist" and how if a person running for president doesn't think he is better than us, why would we want him/her to be president? Condescending is bad in anybody, but I'm perfectly fine with elitist.

[scaeagles]

"Yes, I meant what I said. When people suffer economic hardship and a curtailment of opportunities over a long period of time they look to build up their self esteem in other ways and these ways can be harmful to community and national cohesion. In poor inner cities you may develop a gang culture, which is in many ways just a particularly violent and narrowly cast form of xenophobia. In rural areas it isn't nearly so violent but they too begin to look for ways to redefine themselves in a search for something to stand for.

If this is what he meant and should have said, then you are saying it would be acceptable to equate religion and gun ownership with the gang culture in terms of being "harmful to community and national cohesion"? That would be even more stupid to say, I believe. Then he wouldn't just be calling religion and gun ownership a crutch, he'd be calling them bad. He may very well think that, but the vast majority of Americans don't.

[Alex]

Yes, it would be stupid to say. I said it would be stupid to say.

Doesn't make what I said untrue. It is not equating all gun ownership and all religion with gang culture, just a form of them. And to say that different things share a common impetus is not, as you so deviously try to do, to say that all outcomes of a common source are equally good or bad. There is nothing inherently harmful in gun ownership and religion. But I do think that many people, when they aren't given a way to fulfill themselves begin to use external indicators such as group participations to build themselves up and exclude others. This is harmful to community and national cohesion.

I know lots of people who are religious for what I think are bad reasons -- primarily it gives them a way to feel superior to those who aren't a member of the religion. They may have a lot of problems by at least they had the sense to find the right god.

I know, it is a silly thought, that we would actually elect a person to an office that is capable of recognizing (and even worse, acknowledging) that bad things can sometimes do good things, or that good things can be used in bad ways. Better that good things be entirely good and bad things be entirely bad. That way we know who to hate, who to love, and who can just be ignored.

[innerSpaceman]

Must.refrain.from.mojoing.Alex.

[Sub la Goon]

I have been looking for a way to properly explain or articulate Obabma's (very correct IMO) statements about bitterness.

I think Alex has hit it right on the head.

:snap:

Also, I find it obnoxiously offensive for either Hillary or McCain to use the word "elitist" against anyone else. The hyprocrisy of those 2 never ends.

[Strangler Lewis]

If this is what he meant and should have said, then you are saying it would be acceptable to equate religion and gun ownership with the gang culture in terms of being "harmful to community and national cohesion"? That would be even more stupid to say, I believe. Then he wouldn't just be calling religion and gun ownership a crutch, he'd be calling them bad. He may very well think that, but the vast majority of Americans don't.

Just because something can be defended as a cherished constitutional freedom does not mean it can't be culturally damaging and debasing. In the free speech context, we have pornography. Freedom of religion and the right to bear arms certainly have their porn, too. While we would not prosecute it, we are right to be critical of it.

And what Obama said is straight Bowling for Columbine.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And what Obama said is straight Bowling for Columbine.

Or Thomas Frank (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396).

[scaeagles]

There is nothing inherently harmful in gun ownership and religion. But I do think that many people, when they aren't given a way to fulfill themselves begin to use external indicators such as group participations to build themselves up and exclude others. This is harmful to community and national cohesion.

If that is the end game of such participation, being the exclusion of others, then I can see that as being harmful to community. However, are gun owners gun owners so that they can feel superior to others? I guess it could be, but I don't see it that way. Are religious people religious so that they can feel superior? More often than I would like, indeed, but calling a religion exclusionary is a fine line - if one wishes to subscribe to the tenets of a religion that person is not often excluded from it.

There may be truth in what he said as you have explained it Alex, but someone who is as eloquent as he is needs to be more careful about soundind elitist. It may not bother you, but most of America is bothered by it, which is why he is and has been taking heat for it.

[scaeagles]

And what Obama said is straight Bowling for Columbine.

I'm sure he'll enjoy the linkages to Michael Moore on the campaign trail.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If that is the end game of such participation, being the exclusion of others, then I can see that as being harmful to community. However, are gun owners gun owners so that they can feel superior to others? I guess it could be, but I don't see it that way. Are religious people religious so that they can feel superior? More often than I would like, indeed, but calling a religion exclusionary is a fine line - if one wishes to subscribe to the tenets of a religion that person is not often excluded from it.He was specifically talking about a subset of people who, due to economic pressure, turn to those things. It doesn't even take a reinterpretation of what he said to see that he was not referring to ALL gun owners or ALL religious people.


There may be truth in what he said as you have explained it Alex, but someone who is as eloquent as he is needs to be more careful about soundind elitist. It may not bother you, but most of America is bothered by it, which is why he is and has been taking heat for it.

This is true, and he is in the delicate position that since he IS usually so eloquent, the slightest slip up is going to be magnified. But at least this slip up is the result of being a little too honest and just not explaining it well rather than, say, certain other people who "misspeak" by telling flat out lies and continuing to lie about it after being caught lying.

[JWBear]

I don't think he misspoke at all. He told the truth, and there are few things the American people hate more than being told truths they do not want to deal with.

[CoasterMatt]

If Hillary does that condescending head nod one more time.... GRRR

Talk to voters as grownups, not freakin' preschoolers.

[JWBear]

I love this quote I just read online

Oh yes, Obama made a terrible mistake. He told the truth... You'll never catch her (Hillary) making a mistake like that..

So true!

[JWBear]

If Hillary does that condescending head nod one more time.... GRRR

Talk to voters as grownups, not freakin' preschoolers.

I loved how she got booed and heckled by the teamsters.

[wendybeth]

I don't think he misspoke at all. He told the truth, and there are few things the American people hate more than being told truths they do not want to deal with.

I agree. I think if the economy keeps getting worse, which it will, more and more people will realize what he meant. I live in a town that is full of the people he describes and many of them seem driven by bitterness and fear. We have a high labor/low income scenario going on here, and soon the rest of the country will as well. Anyone else remember the late Seventies, early Eighties? This is going to be worse, and probably already is.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I wonder, if he did get elected, would this country actually start to like politicians that tell the truth? Or would we have to endure supposed offense at everything he ever says?

[BarTopDancer]

I wonder, if he did get elected, would this country actually start to like politicians that tell the truth? Or would we have to endure supposed offense at everything he ever says?

Only if the truth is something good. This country has gotten so used to sugar coating, and PCness, and not hurting anyones feelings that people don't want to hear anything negative, unless it sounds positive.

[Alex]

I wonder, if he did get elected, would this country actually start to like politicians that tell the truth? Or would we have to endure supposed offense at everything he ever says?

I don't expect this to change over what we've experienced for the last 16 years (and I'm sure happened before then I just wasn't so aware).

Those not in power will take offense at every possible thing, generally not for their own offense but on behalf of other people.

[scaeagles]

Geez...."supposed" offense is all over for every politician! Often times Obama supporters act as if because this is the great Obama no unkind word should come out of any mouth who dare to gaze upon him. He deserves the same treatment as every other politician, and perhaps even a larger helping of examination, because he is so relatively new to the political scene. I will continue to look at and question his motivations and beliefs the same as I, and every other person should, examine the motivations and beliefs of each politician.

You are referring to an aweful lot of people as having "supposed" offense. While I am not one to bow to offense nor really be concerned with it, I am concerned with what the man believes, and will continue to question it, the same as I have with Hillary and McCain - I've probably been more critical of each of them than I have of Obama.

[Alex]

I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities for plenty of offense and some of it will be justified and other parts won't.

But it is hardly a statement without support that manufactured offense is a big part of the standard political playbook.

[JWBear]

Oh, I'll be one of the first to criticize Obama when I hear something I consider worth criticizing. So far, I haven’t.

[scaeagles]

But it is hardly a statement without support that manufactured offense is a big part of the standard political playbook.

Indeed it is standard. Which is why I find it so amazing that when it dared be used against Obama it is found to be so shocking and out of the boundaries of the norm.

[JWBear]

Indeed it is standard. Which is why I find it so amazing that when it dared be used against Obama it is found to be so shocking and out of the boundaries of the norm.

Perhaps because it comes from people that seem to want for him to fail so desperately that they scrutinize everything he says and does in an attempt to find anything, no matter how trivial, to smear him with. So they leap on this comment with howls of fake outrage; when if, had it been said by one of the other candidates, it would barely have made page 20.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think it's news when a serious presidential contender speaks critically and, arguably, offensively about a major player in the cultural melting pot. It was news when Bill Clinton dressed down Sister Souljah. It was news when Ross Perot said "You people." It was news when all the Republicans said they didn't believe in evolution, and it would have been news at the time if we'd been privy to Nixon talking about getting the Big Jews on board.

[Alex]

Indeed it is standard. Which is why I find it so amazing that when it dared be used against Obama it is found to be so shocking and out of the boundaries of the norm.

I don't find it outside the boundaries of the norm. But I think you'll find that I've spoken against a lot of manufactured outrage issues on all sides over the years.

So I don't see me speaking out against this one outside the norm either.

Just speaking for myself though.

[scaeagles]

Perhaps because it comes from people that seem to want for him to fail so desperately that they scrutinize everything he says and does in an attempt to find anything, no matter how trivial, to smear him with. So they leap on this comment with howls of fake outrage; when if, had it been said by one of the other candidates, it would barely have made page 20.

I completely disagree. Obama has been handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in.

The Saturday Night Live Skit with the media falling all over themselves like groupies at an Obama press conference is right on the money.

[JWBear]

I completely disagree. Obama has been handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in.

The Saturday Night Live Skit with the media falling all over themselves like groupies at an Obama press conference is right on the money.

I wasn't referring to the media.

However, ever since that SNL skit, they've been falling all over themselves to be more critical, IMO.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Indeed it is standard. Which is why I find it so amazing that when it dared be used against Obama it is found to be so shocking and out of the boundaries of the norm.I didn't say it wasn't normal. Hence my distaste for politics, the media, and oh yeah, all of humankind's SNAFU systems.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I wasn't referring to the media.

However, ever since that SNL skit, they've been falling all over themselves to be more critical, IMO.
Interestingly, I think SNL's gone the opposite direction. Their first couple of shows post-strike, the jokes were VERY pro-Clinton. As the season's gone on they've skewed a little more balanced in their satire, perhaps even ending up pro-Obama on the whole.

[JWBear]

And Scaeagles... If you want to talk about the media being soft on someone, how about the way the so-called “liberal” press has looked the other way as the Bush administration steamrolled over our rights, trashed the economy, and lied its way into a war. Talk about “handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in”!

[sleepyjeff]

... If you want to talk about the media being soft on someone, how about the way the so-called “liberal” press has looked the other way as the Bush administration steamrolled over our rights, trashed the economy, and lied its way into a war. Talk about “handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in”!

Perhaps you need to put down the Washington Times, turn off the 700 Club, and watch a little CBS and read a little NY Times.....

..just saying;)

[scaeagles]

And Scaeagles... If you want to talk about the media being soft on someone, how about the way the so-called “liberal” press has looked the other way as the Bush administration steamrolled over our rights, trashed the economy, and lied its way into a war. Talk about “handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in”!

Guess it's all perspective.....I don't think the media has been soft at all on Bush. I will point out that I get in trouble on this board all the time for saying things like "oh yeah? Well how about this related item?!". I remember a media using forged documents to try to help John Kerry win an election, but that's another story.

And I disagree with the premise of your question, anyway, as the three things you have listed, JW, I don't concede are the case at all.

[Kevy Baby]

...as I the three things you have listed I don't concede are the case at all.This sentence should be taken out and shot to put it out of its misery. I had to read it three times to understand WTF you were saying.

:D

[scaeagles]

What are you talking about? I don't see that sentence....:)