I'm so excited. It's the first time I've ever felt 100% behind a political candidate. I can't believe he hasn't said one single thing I thought was stupid.
(I saw his much-maligned comment about lower-class Pennsylvanians turning to God and guns out of hopelessness as a statement of obvious fact rather than a controversial opinion. It makse sense that when people feel powerless, they turn to things that seem very powerful. Noticing that doesn't mean you don't believe in the existance/power of god any more than it means you don't believe in the existance/ power of guns.)
Alex Shabalov, former Republican
Adia Onyango, NY State delegate for Barack Obama and winner of the Cleveland Open, Under 1400 section.
What's really impressive is she didn't lose this position.
37 comments:
I admire your obvious enthusiasm, but politics at a high level is complicated. Like complex chess, sometimes there are ugly positions which just have to be played out. If there is a lesson from the past 16 years, it is that things in the world are not simple, nor are their simple solutions which can unilaterally imposed, no matter how much one's supporters may fervently believe in them. If the next election just exchanges one set of "true believers" for another, then we've actually taken a big step backwards.
I've admired Obama since his speech at the 2004 convention and supported him (by volunteering and donating) during the primary but it's early and I don't think we should underestimate how far the right wingers will go to slime him. That said, so far I'm impressed with how he has been able to fight back on the smears. He will take some heat for the decision to opt out of public financing but having been one of the millions of $25 donors who helped in the primaries, I am glad that he decided to do it as it gives him more flexibility. Turn out is key in November, particularly among young voters. If you know college kids, make sure that they are registered to vote in the states where they will be in November or that they arrange for absentee ballots. Volunteering to help voter registration is important too. Yes We Can!
Off topic, wtf is going on with the USCF and this year's Junior and Cadet Championships? How stupid can they be to organize a major tournmanent when some kids are still in school and/or when it conflicts with some invitation only training camp run by the Kasparov Foundation? Coming off the heels of the controversy around the U.S. Championships, you get the sense that the folks running the USCF are a bunch of bumbling idiots.
Profound comment by the first anon, which I second.
To temper Liz's enthusiasm, I'd also add that while I agree that Obama hasn't said anything dumb, some of what he has said on the race issue strikes me as perhaps too smart - as in, cagey (which ironically used to be Hillary's problem, i.e., slick).
Having a racist cracker as your public religious mentor and close personal friend, to boot, is an obvious political liability. When called upon to explain it, Obama replied with intellect and sophistication. I and many others decided he'd adequately addressed the issue. But there is inevitably lingering doubt. In other words, I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt is still there.
And - pardon me for saying this: It is highly unlikely that a white candidate who had a long-lasting, close and very public association with an overt racist figure like Wright, would ever be permitted to rehabilitate himself politically, no matter how much intelligence and apparent sincerity went into his efforts to explain it away.
Apropos of the above, here are two on-point posts from the comment thread of a Chicago Tribune religion blog entry that discussed this issue:
Well said Mary, you cut through the onslought. It's very much coming to light that Seantor Obama keeps some bigoted company - whether he is, is irrelevant. It shows poor judgement and lack of virtue.
Posted by: Interested | Mar 5, 2008 10:37:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep hearing of racist comments from a religious pulpit. My father preached (Evangalist) for 50 years and in ALL the maybe 400 churches I have attended in my 62 years, I have NEVER heard a racist comment in a predominately "white" church. Who then is racist?
These comments have no place where a loving God resides.
Posted by: Jim of MBSC | Mar 19, 2008 11:13:18 AM
(that link is: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2007/03/obamas_church_a.html )
What did Wright say that was racist? Angry, sure. Intemperate, sure. Stuff that couldn't be expected to play well outside his congregation, sure. But I must have missed the racist part.
Anja, since many people believe Jews are less than human, speaking of them and their country the way Wright has done often and publicly, often tends to escape the label of racism.
If however, Jewish people are no less human than Black people, then the only logical conclusion is that anti-Jewish hate speech deserves the same characterization as anti-Black hate speech.
(Since you likely reject the premise, I'm sure you will reject the conclusion.)
Here's another interesting perspective on the issue - especially the issue I raised in my original post, the possibility that Obama's success in finessing his very long and very deep relationship with Wright, was as much cagey as intelligent.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/04/obama_denounces_wright_comments/
So it looks like we'll be getting a president who doesn't say dumb things in public, and (presumably) doesn't hate any groups...but is quite slick, sophisticated and cagey when it comes to spinning his positions for public consumption.
(Meet the new boss...same as the old boss?)
I think it's a shame that anyone not planning to vote for Obama is assumed to have a racial prejudice against him. I'm not going to vote for Obama for two legitimate reasons:
First and foremost, Obama has come out squarely in favor of government censorship of the media. He was quoted in the Chicago Tribune (this was before he declared his candidacy; Obama's been in the news here in Illinois for the last several years)to the effect that if the TV and motion picture industries didn't voulntarily restrict their sex & violence content, he and the rest of the US senate would pass a law requiring such restrictions. I find it very distrubing that a presidential candidate would advocate censorship.
Secondly, Obama seems to be a creationist. He made a statement in the Tribune (also before he became a candidate) to the effect that more people believe in God than in evolution. I suppose he could find some wiggle room there, but to me he sounds like creationist, which I also find disturbing in a would-be president.
- Paul Garner
Followed Anonymous 1:27's link, which cites Wright's alleged statements that the government helped create AIDS (loony, but not racist) and that Louis Farrakhan is a great man (stupid, but not racist). Nothing about Jews, unless the point is that since Farrakhan says demonstrably and indisputably racist things about Jews, Wright is anti-Jewish. Follow the train of argument, and you have a lack of faith in Obama because of Obama's relationship with a man who has said nice things about another man who says bad things about Jews. That's guilt by association, squared.
Paul Garner, Barack Obama is not a creationist. The fact that more Americans believe in God than in evolution is true, and deeply disappointing. The fact that Obama notes this fact does not mean he agrees with it. I could point out that vastly more Americans enjoy Dangerous Housewives than chess. That doesn't mean I'd rather watch Dangerous Housewives than play chess.
As for Obama and censorship, here are his own words on the subject, from a recent interview, reported on today in the Huffington Post:
"The degrading images towards women I think are a problem and when the Imus issue came up, one of the quotes that stirred up a little bit of controversy for me was, sadly, as offensive as what Imus said, was we hear some of that language on the radio in our own communities.
"I do think as President you can use the bully pulpit to speak out against some the coarsening aspects of our culture. I am not someone who believes in censorship, but I think there's nothing wrong with speaking out against things that are teaching our kids the wrong lessons.
"I want to make sure that when I'm driving along, I don't have to sudeenly fool around with the radio because of an objectionable lyric, or that if I'm watching television that suddenly there's an image on there that's completely inappropriate. That's something that I think all parents struggle with. And it's not a conservative or liberal issue, I think it's just a matter of common sense."
More at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet.
<"I want to make sure that when I'm driving along, I don't have to sudeenly fool around with the radio because of an objectionable lyric, or that if I'm watching television that suddenly there's an image on there that's completely inappropriate. That's something that I think all parents struggle with. And it's not a conservative or liberal issue, I think it's just a matter of common sense.">
Yes, exactly my point - he wants to make sure of that by passing laws that censor the media. He thinks that's "common sense", to impose his own sensibilities on the public through the law.
I'm not a fan of censorship either, but clearly there are some limits?! No one wants to see hardcore porn on Nickelodean. Maybe that's all he means?
I agree he won't change the nature of bureaucracy, but the idea of watching the evening news, secure in the knowledge that the president isn't going to say something unbelievably stupid is such a nice idea.
I'm not sure where you get "he wants to make sure of that by passing laws that censor the media" from "I am not someone who believes in censorship." Especially when you consider that Barack Obama, aside from the rest of his résumé, is a professor of Constitutional law.
this is the first time in my life i will ever vote. i had actually thought about voting for obama, but i looked into things and, for a real change, i'm voting for bob barr, the libertarian candidate. in my opinion, democrats and republicans have become the same party with the same people and the same problems.
If you think you will be secure in the knowledge Obama will never say anything stupid on TV then you just aren't looking very hard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
The deal breaker for me was when he voted in favor of the Patriot Act. He's only been around long enough to make one significant vote in the Senate and that vote was to curb our civil liberties. For someone to vote for the Patriot Act and then proclaim themselves the champion of civil liberties is just too much to take. He doesn't offer change, he's just another dishonest, politically expedient political hack. By the time I found out about his racist church and his wife's racist thesis he'd already lost me.
The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes jokingly wonders if he's not a plant. You'd have to be an insane person to vote for John McCain. No American in his right mind wants 100 years of war and open borders, but the only way people will vote for him (McCain) is if his opponent is so blatantly horrible there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
I agree with chessloser, you can't tell the Democrats from the Republicans without a scorecard. McCain is nothing more than a liberal in a war-monger's clothing. I can't vote for Bob Barr, though. I know him indirectly (through a mutual acquaintance) and I have a strong distaste for him.
I would have voted for Dr. Ron Paul but the media banded together to censor and trivialize him and now he's out of the race. So I shan't vote. It would be a little like playing musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic. I mean, what difference does it make? So I'll do what I always do, which is close my eyes and pray that in the morning everything has gone away. When election night comes I won't know the result unless it's posted on Chessbase. Instead I'll be in my pajamas studying a line of the Ruy Lopez and hoping I get to spring my super secret novelty in a tournament game before Ragnarok comes.
J.A. Topfke
"McCain is nothing more than a liberal in a war-monger's clothing"? If that's the case, you must think Strom Thurmond was a centrist. John McCain has the eighth most conservative voting record in the 110th Senate (http://voteview.com/sen110.htm), the second most conservative record in the 109th (http://voteview.com/sen109.htm) and the fourth most conservative record in the 108th (http://voteview.com/sen108.htm). Only if you go back to the 107th does he even occupy a place in his own party's moderate wing; he has never voted to the left of any Democrat.
You're right that the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is a legal abomination. Obama was not in the Senate when the original act was passed, and he joined a Democratic filibuster in the Senate to prevent the Bush administration from getting the version of the reauthorization bill it wanted, which would have been even worse. Instead, Obama submitted his own bill, the S.A.F.E. Act, and when the Senate didn't bring it to the floor, he pushed hard for a bill that reformed the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act with additional civil liberties protections. His comments on the reauthorization vote may be found here (yay -- link tags work!).
Money quote: "Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise: we strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records; we established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps; we protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters; we preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath; and we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things."
Addendum: Here's Wired News' report on Obama's U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act reauthorization vote.
That was a cool McDonald's I'm Luvin Style infomercial website.
I think I saw a Zatonskih stunt-double in it.
I completely agree with you, hardcore porn on Nickelodeon would be going a bit too far. If they just stick to soft porn I'd be okay with it.
"It is highly unlikely that a white candidate who had a long-lasting, close and very public association with an overt racist figure like Wright, would ever be permitted to rehabilitate himself politically, no matter how much intelligence and apparent sincerity went into his efforts to explain it away."
Absolutely, completely and unquestionably false.
First of all, long-lasting and close? Maybe. Public? Had you ever heard of Rev. Wright before March? No.
Second of all, in the wake of Sept. 11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said exactly - exactly - what Rev. Wright said: That God brought Sept. 11 on America because of immoral behavior.
Jerry Falwell was an omnipresence on television until the day he died; John McCain went to his college to beg for money and votes. Pat Robertson is still in the maintream of American political discourse; Bush consulted with him before invading Iraq.
Oh, I'm sorry; there is one difference: Rev. Wright said our immoral behavior - "chickens coming home to roost" - consisted of invading countries, bombing civilians and overthrowing democratically elected governments. Falwell and Robertson said our immoral behavior consisted of not persecuting homosexuals and the ACLU.
If you're white, as long as you advocate killing and harassing people who are not straight, white Americans, you will never be thrown out of our political discussion, and our political and media stars will come to you for your sober, serious advice.
Elizabeth, I hope you're reading this stuff. Misinformed, lazy smears like this are exactly why this is not going to be easy.
Rick Massimo
elizabeth,
what exactly is so inspiring about a bunch of ethnic minorities spitting cliches and casting their vote for obama while some emotionally stimulating music plays?
this sort of cornballism is what turns me off of politics, id be more interested in knowing specific policy reasons why u support obama
Luckily, the American system ensures that neither of the major candidates can screw things up too badly and after the Singularity, "Mammalian politics" (Tim Leary's phrase) will be as relevant to out lives as reality tv shows.
In the meantime, write in chessloser on your Presidential ballot. The White House would be a much better place with him in it.
Rick, no worries, it's a pretty good bet that I'm reading this. :)
Anon 4:32 -- My point is not "watch this advertisement and be converted." It's more "wow, this is the first time I've seen such widespread and heartfelt celebrity endorsement in a political campaign." And I feel like this should equate to a huge, huge advantage. Hence the title. I mean, people buy products because of who endorses them, even when they understand that the celebrity doesn't use the product. So why shouldn't voters be even more influenced by these videos, since it seems like the endorsers are expressing real opinions ?
Did you think I just love chanting?
And while I'm clarifying things, the picture a few posts back is Don Quixote, not John Watson.
I was afraid you'd given up on this thread because of the gallons of stoopid that have been spilled all over it.
The video, and other ones like it, doesn't do much for me on their own. But what I found significant was the number of parodies that imagined a similar McCain video, with the refrain "No you can't." Those hit home, because that really is what he's saying.
Sure, emotion isn't the only criterion for picking a candidate, but its important. And it's only now, when the Republican candidate has the emotional appeal of cold spaghetti, that emotion and spirit are things we're supposed to distrust. As though voting for GWB, especially in 2000, was the result of a sober, serious look at the issues.
Rick Massimo
I always feel profound admiration and maybe a bit of heartfelt sorrow : ) for anyone that "becomes the canidate/politician". It seems we very easily find a person or position and defend it/him/her tooth and nail regardless of individual merits.
Whenever I hear a statement like {I agree with EVERYTHING canidate X has ever said} it seems a bit wishful and intoxicated. Now in no way am I trying to demean, but Liz's characterization of Obama seems overblown. Both of these remaining candidates are greatly flawed.
In Obama's case I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider all of these shady associations. We haven't seen a guy connected to this many fringe nut jobs since....well since Bush I guess, but I, personally was really turned off by the fact that he was a member of a racist church for so many years, and then LIED to the American people by acting like he didn't know Wright had these views.
Secondly the guy is a divider. He has the most far-left voting record of any Senator in Congress. I don't really care what side of the aisle someone sits but for God's sake can it be in the same UNIVERSE as the CENTER. While i don't care at all for John McCain at least he isn't a far-right loon. He has worked bipartisan for decades and made many enemies in his own party because he worked together with Democrats, aka McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,etc.
Most on the Left I have noticed are put into a drug-like trance bu his speeches...speeches in which the same tired phrases, which have no intrinsic meaning are spouted over and over again, I guess this isn't anything new or necassarily bad to politics but I must say that this type of bombastic demagogue has not been on display in many years.
I'm wondering in fact what the actual draw of Obama is, other than having a Black parent. I don't particularly find him having anything better to offer than Jon Edwards. Even though Edwards and I wouldn't agree on almost anything I felt he was the Democrats strongest candidate for his honesty, experience and passion.
I should wrap this up for the three people that might actually read this....no I don't see myself voting for Obama, in fact I wish I could see the day when people didn't vote strictly based on R vs. D or Black vs. White or Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life....but would in fact find what is behind the chessy slogans and bizarre methodologies used in Politics.
The fact is that 90% of African-Americans have voted for Barrack Obama simply based on race. Hilary Clinton along with Bill had created great opportunities for African-Americans for decades but because a guy has darker skin than him she gets the backseat...
Politics in America is pathetic.
(steps off of soapbox)
In Obama's case I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider all of these shady associations. We haven't seen a guy connected to this many fringe nut jobs since.... What "fringe nut jobs"? Wright? Wright is but one man. Farrakhan? There's no connection between Obama and Farrakhan, none whatsoever. Bill Ayers? He's a friend of mine, a brilliant educator and social critic and a stand-up guy, despite having done some seriously fucked-up things in his youth (which he got off the hook for only because the government did equally fucked-up things in the process of going after him). He's in no sense a "nut job" (although I think he'd don the label "fringe" with pride). "All of these" is a hyperbolic phrase to apply to one individual, with whom, incidentally, Obama has cut his ties. As for Trinity UCC, on what grounds do you call the church itself racist? I still haven't seen sound evidence to indicate that Wright himself is racist.
Secondly the guy is a divider. He has the most far-left voting record of any Senator in Congress. Nope. Not just hyperbole, but measurably false. In this Congress and the previous one, the honor belongs to Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Obama is tied for 10th this session and ranked 21st in the previous. Nor is Obama a "divider": In the Illinois Senate, Obama earned himself a reputation for reaching across the aisle to Republicans and getting them to co-sponsor his initiatives. The only person I can think of whom one could legitimately accuse Obama of alienating is Hillary Clinton, and she asked for it.
While i don't care at all for John McCain at least he isn't a far-right loon. As I pointed out above, with links, McCain is currently one of the hardest-right Republicans in the Senate, despite having voted more moderately in the past, which to my mind makes him not only dangerous but suspiciously inconsistent in his core beliefs.
Most on the Left I have noticed are put into a drug-like trance bu his speeches...speeches in which the same tired phrases, which have no intrinsic meaning are spouted over and over again. They mean a great deal to me. Perhaps you could tell us which ones you find particularly empty, and we could discuss what they refer to.
I'm wondering in fact what the actual draw of Obama is, other than having a Black parent. I don't particularly find him having anything better to offer than Jon Edwards. Here I'm partly with you, but first let me observe that Obama appeals to me primarily on four levels: his exceptional intellect, his integrity, his optimism, and his desire to place both power and responsibility back in the hands of American citizens. He's appealed to me for these reasons ever since I had the privilege of voting for him in the 2004 Democratic Senate primary, in which, without the support of the Cook County Machine, he beat both a self-funded millionaire and the party-anointed machine tool. That being said, I thought he lost his voice during the earliest phase of this campaign, and for a time I defected to Edwards, who had begun to sound more like Obama than Obama himself did. But Obama found his voice again about the same time Edwards dropped out of the race, so at no time have I felt like there wasn't some voice advocating for this country's most urgent needs.
The fact is that 90% of African-Americans have voted for Barrack Obama simply based on race. Not in the way you mean. Hillary Clinton, in fact, had slightly greater support among black voters than Obama did -- until the South Carolina primary, when Bill Clinton alienated them en masse by dismissing Obama as a no-hope Jesse Jackson redux. That's why African-Americans have gone for Obama in such overwhelming numbers, and even if I weren't an Obama supporter myself, I couldn't say I blamed them.
Chess is a sport of intellect. I'm not surprised that folks would concoct logically threadbare and factually insupportable arguments for opposing Obama, but I am surprised to see so many of those arguments being parroted here.
"While i don't care at all for John McCain at least he isn't a far-right loon."
Let's see:
Iraq - 100 years is "fine with me."
Tax cuts for billionaires - all for 'em. Yes, voted against them before, but all for making them permanent now.
National health care - against.
Oil - Sure, we should develop some alternative energy sources at some undefined point in the future, but for now we should just drill more, despite the fact that it'll be 30 years before any of that oil makes any difference and even though oil companies are sitting on hundreds of thousands of leased acres they aren't using.
Roe vs. Wade - Yes, he said he didn't want to repeal it in 1997; says he wants to all the time now.
By the way, that survey that calls Obama the most liberal senator? Comes from the Natoinal Journal, a conservative publication. First of all, they have been wrong about every issue in this country for at least the past 10 years. Second of all, they seem to have an uncanny knack for naming the Democratic presidential candidate "the most liberal (fill in the blank)." Do you really think their vested interest in getting Republicans elected has no influence on their methodology? Show me a liberal organization that proudly hails Obama as the most liberal senator. You can't.
Rick Massimo
Anjiaoshi is absolutely right in the way she (he?) rebuts this nonsense about Obama's so-called shady associations. I live a few blocks from Obama, I've been a constituent of his since the 1990s (when he was our state senator), and I've seen him up work close for many years. His views bear no resemblance to those that have been attributed to him through guilt by association.
Yes, Bill Ayers is a 60something guy in the neighborhood who teaches education and happens to have done some wigged out things 30-35 years ago. Everyone crosses paths with him sooner or later if they live in Hyde Park. I have. To suggest that Obama's tenuous relationship with Ayers has even the slightest bearing on his fitness to be president is meshugannah.
Meanwhile, McCain's ties to those true extremist haters, the Revs. Hagee and Parsley, have barely made a blip on the screen in the campaign. Why?
Well, for one thing because we've grown so accustomed to right-wing extremists playing a prominent role in Republcan campaigns that it's become part of our political culture to simply overlook it. For another, because the right has launched a campaign of character assasination against Obama, trumping up relationships that don't exist or barely exist, and such campaigns, when carried out relentlessly, are successful in making some reasonable people pay attention, even if their claims are baseless.
Obama is the most promising candidate we've had since Bobby Kennedy. I don't know how much he can really accomplish given the state of things, but the way I look at it this is the only country we've got, and we have to try to fix it.
Plus he and Michelle both play chess.
Plus he and Michelle both play chess.
Tom wins the argument! (At least on this blog).
Elizabeth, you sure know how to stir up the hornets.
Really, I think we all tend to take the Presidency way too seriously. No matter who gets elected, life goes on about the same. It is the genius of our system, rather than the genius of any politician, that counts. No matter how hard the campaign, the outgoing President grins, shakes hands and turns over power in an orderly manner, time after time--for over 200 years. Not many countries can say that.
AS for Ayers--happens to have done some wigged out things 30-35 years ago, well, he was a FUCKING BOMBER. He personally set bombs that could well have maimed or killed to indulge his rich-boy-bad-boy fantasies. He didn't happen to be there when his good friends and fuck-buddies got blown to shit by their own bomb filled with nails and shrapnel but oh, he was there in spirit. It is only blind luck that he didn't get 25 years in prison and now he's a respected effing professor, as is his terrorist comrade/wife.
The fact that Obama had a fund raiser at Ayers' house doesn't mean Obama supports terrorism, sure. But let's get one thing straight, Bill Ayers ain't just a guy in the neighborhood.
AS for Ayers . . . well, he was a FUCKING BOMBER. . . . It is only blind luck that he didn't get 25 years in prison and now he's a respected effing professor, as is his terrorist comrade/wife. What is the purpose of prison? Deterrence? Revenge? Catharsis? I happen to hold the view of Cesare Beccaria (On Crimes and Punishments), which is that the sole legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to prevent crime, and that punishing crime is only a means toward achieving that goal, not an end in itself. If Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, without the aid of the criminal justice system, have become people who will never commit another violent crime, was there ever any need to punish them? What would be the purpose of punishing them now? To emphasize to others, perhaps, that crime carries consequences . . . except that this particular case was undermined by police and prosecutorial misconduct, which must be shown to have consequences too.
No, Bill ain't just a guy in the neighborhood -- he happens to be a onetime criminal who rehabilitated himself, not only going straight but earning legitimate respect in his chosen field. How many criminals can claim that accomplishment?
I win the argument! Yippee!
Well it doesn't seem that there is a case to be made against Obama...because as I stated his supports are so incredibly "deer in the headlight" that they wont look at him objectively.
It's apparent that several individuals engaging in this dialogue are pure ideologues. To give a F**king BOMBER like Ayers a pass like he isn't a nut is absurd. I don't care how many years ago it was...
The points I brought up have plenty to discuss and are all very valid. If Obama's supporters don't want to make strawman arguements about every defect that he has then be my guest, like I said I don't care for McCain either.
One of the most troubling things about Obama is the character flaw in respect to financing. He He whole-heartedly rails for one thing and now that he sees he can make more campaign money he filps and now endorses the very thing he was opposed to a few short months ago.
But I know, I know Obama's supports will try to deflect the undeflectable. Just admit that the guy isn't perfect, he has many flaws and at this point he is doing everything he can to paint a picture of who he is NOT.
So we have Campaign finance issues, shady associations of which only the most loney of the fringe can deny, we have many verbal boners including the much revealing comments about people clinging to religion and guns out of economic trouble which is patently wrong and Obama himself admits that was the wrong thing to say, we have him attending a sepretist church for decades which was only concerned with "Black values", "Black work ethic", and Black interpretations of scriptures....I could go on and on but of course a non-partisan like myself will be attacked by the many Obama bots so I will let it go.
My only point is that Obama isn't anything better than what we have seen in the last eight years...change doesn't equal GOOD CHANGE.
I was extremely disappointed that Obama apologized for the "bitter" remark. He was absolutely right.
He's far from perfect. His endorsement of the FISA abomination - sorry, "compromise" -and his refusal to meet with prominent Muslim-Americans have been really disappointing.
I started off with Edwards, briefly supporting Chris Dodd, then switched back to Edwards when it was down to three Dem candidates, then Obama when it was down to two.
Chargingking, you're projecting. And as I said before, only now, when a Democrat is inspiring and evoking emotion, have "we" decided that that's a scary, bad thing. As if the Republicans haven't been doing it for years (and are continuing to; they just can't do it well because they have - well, John McCain).
Rick Massimo
He whole-heartedly rails for one thing and now that he sees he can make more campaign money he filps and now endorses the very thing he was opposed to a few short months ago.
"A few short months ago," Obama said that he would confer with McCain and accept public financing, with its attendant limits, if McCain agreed to do the same. McCain not only has declined to discuss the issue with Obama at all, he secured a loan during primary season by pledging general election–season federal matching funds as collateral, then spent beyond the limits imposed by accepting those matching funds, then afterward decided not to take the matching funds so that he wouldn't be bound by the spending limits. Obama may have been let off the hook for a conditional statement that seemed to promise more than he did, and you may resent that and feel that it violates the spirit of something or other and is thus indicative of a flawed character, but the only candidate here who's actually broken his word on campaign financing is John McCain.
chargingking, you still haven't indicated whom "this many nut jobs" is supposed to refer to. So far we have at most two: Jeremiah Wright and, if you insist on including him, Bill Ayers. (Evidently I carry no weight as a character witness.) Who else constitutes this supposed teeming mass of unhinged radicals? Stevie Wonder? Ellen DeGeneres? Scarlett Johansson?
BTW, you're misusing the term "strawman argument." You're choosing to make wild, vague and uninformed statements, and I'm unmasking them as such. (For instance: You now claim, on top of everything else, that Trinity UCC is a "separatist" church. What's your basis for that?) A strawman argument would be if I were the one making wild, vague and uninformed statements and attributing them to you, when in fact the arguments you were really making were much stronger.
P.S. Before you wail about being attacked, please note that you're the one who's chosen to make assertions about what people are, while I've confined myself to comments about what you say.
I also love the fact that Obama is for the gun restrictions in D.C. and then after the Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional he says he is in agreement with the court.
It's fun being "FOR" both sides of an issue.
He supports the gun restrictions and then is in full agreement when the thing he supports is called illegal! Look forward to four long years of that type of character.
Who is iCC's Obama(GM)? Shabalov?
Obama ..... O joke!
Do we really want this man in charge of our national security! He makes John Kerry look strong. I am all for change but this guy is Chicago politician all the way. Coming from New Orleans we know old school politics and finally have change in our state (Bobby J.)
Here is the a funny side note.....Even Jesse Jackson thinks his boy is arrogant!!!!! He talks down to everyone "sweetie".
One final note..... I prefer the fight to stay thousands of miles away. Our men in blue can handle the nuts (code pink) locally but if we weren't fighting there they would be blowing up Walmarts and bus stations here!!!!
JC Badreaux
It's not Shabalov... maybe Onischuk?
Post a Comment