Agreed. If anything the big deal is that he's actually having to pander to the black community to get the black vote.

LMFAO @ the thought of being unable to recall Bush using any rhetoric to influence people.

That's fine, Adonis, but do you give his opponents the same leeway? Do you give Bush the same leeway? Do you gloss over Bush's poor speaking skills and read entire transcripts of his speech to attempt to understand what he is saying? Or do you latch on to the sound bites?

It is easy to defend your candidate in this manner, but to be fair(and gain credibility) you should give the same deferrence to other politicians, especially ones you don't agree.

[quote name='adonis' post='6524900' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:03 AM'][quote name='bigbottom' post='6524844' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:56 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524796' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:49 AM']
[quote name='phthalatemagic' post='6524762' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:43 AM']
[quote name='redman' post='6524744' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524738' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:40 AM']
It's been rebutted.[/quote]


[/quote]
Yeha, I'd like to read it too.


I don't think anyone will care anyway.
[/quote]
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/JFK_Re...erica_4268.html

[quote]JFK Really Did Bring Obama’s Dad to America
by Paul Hogarth, 2007-03-06

At his March 4th speech in Alabama to commemorate the Anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march, Barack Obama confronted the allegation that he is “not black” by connecting his family history to the civil rights movement. Some of what he said in the speech was technically untrue, but Obama was not trying to mislead the audience. While he implied that the 1965 Selma March – which occurred when he was four years old – caused his parents to first meet, Obama later explained that he meant to say “the civil rights movement as a whole.”[/quote]
[/quote]


But see, saying that it was the Civil Rights movement that brought his parents together wouldn't allow him to use the "don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma" tagline. Again, it's all about pumping up the rhetoric.
[/quote]
I think his point was that Selma was a culmination of the civil rights movement as a whole, a major point in the history, and because people were willing to march at Selma, because people felt strongly enough about their beliefs, the entire climate into which he was born and was able to succeed was created.

That's why he was saying he had a claim on Selma, because people were willing to march. I think he said those words at some point.

It'd be silly to think that somehow Selma was specifically influential in his being born, like his parents watched clips of people marching across a bridge and then decided to get married and have a kid. So to me it's clear that he was speaking about something bigger than Selma, which Selma has come to represent, and that BIGGER concept is what allowed Obama to become Obama.
[/quote]


Sure, but that doesn't make what he said any more accurate. Look, I really don't think this is a big deal at all, but it is still needlessly embellishing a story to pander to an audience. Call it what it is.

Good point.

The entire speech is on his own website, fwiw. He's not exactly hiding from it.

While I agree with what you're saying, Obama isn't even lying here. It's a nonissue. Bush's lies pushed us into war. See the difference?

[quote name='bigbottom' post='6524927' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:08 AM'][quote name='adonis' post='6524900' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:03 AM']
[quote name='bigbottom' post='6524844' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:56 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524796' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:49 AM']
[quote name='phthalatemagic' post='6524762' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:43 AM']
[quote name='redman' post='6524744' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524738' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:40 AM']
It's been rebutted.[/quote]


[/quote]
Yeha, I'd like to read it too.


I don't think anyone will care anyway.
[/quote]
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/JFK_Re...erica_4268.html

[quote]JFK Really Did Bring Obama’s Dad to America
by Paul Hogarth, 2007-03-06

At his March 4th speech in Alabama to commemorate the Anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march, Barack Obama confronted the allegation that he is “not black” by connecting his family history to the civil rights movement. Some of what he said in the speech was technically untrue, but Obama was not trying to mislead the audience. While he implied that the 1965 Selma March – which occurred when he was four years old – caused his parents to first meet, Obama later explained that he meant to say “the civil rights movement as a whole.”[/quote]
[/quote]


But see, saying that it was the Civil Rights movement that brought his parents together wouldn't allow him to use the "don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma" tagline. Again, it's all about pumping up the rhetoric.
[/quote]
I think his point was that Selma was a culmination of the civil rights movement as a whole, a major point in the history, and because people were willing to march at Selma, because people felt strongly enough about their beliefs, the entire climate into which he was born and was able to succeed was created.

That's why he was saying he had a claim on Selma, because people were willing to march. I think he said those words at some point.

It'd be silly to think that somehow Selma was specifically influential in his being born, like his parents watched clips of people marching across a bridge and then decided to get married and have a kid. So to me it's clear that he was speaking about something bigger than Selma, which Selma has come to represent, and that BIGGER concept is what allowed Obama to become Obama.
[/quote]


Sure, but that doesn't make what he said any more accurate. Look, I really don't think this is a big deal at all, but it is still needlessly embellishing a story to pander to an audience. Call it what it is.
[/quote]I'll agree that it wasn't accurate, at least a few of his comments weren't, but the overall idea is accurate, it does give him a claim on Selma, and it's not embellishment.

He could've left out the direct ties to Selma producing his birth, and his point would've remained every bit as effective. His message wasn't that his birth was a direct result of people marching across a bridge, but that it was the direct result of the climate caused by people who were willing to march across a bridge for human rights, for dignity, for social equality. In that, he wasn't embellishing, and that climate not only made it possible for his parents to come together, but it has subsequently made it possible for him to accomplish all of what he's accomplished.

When you consider all of that as being true, the comments about being brought about from people crossing a bridge becomes a point not even worth contesting, because his larger message makes clear what he means. He's a product of the climate of that time - Selma was a defining mark during that time - as such, he has a claim on Selma. No embellishment needed.

to be fair, i think most of Bush's lying was done while in office, so i'm not sure a google search for "bush lies" will return the results we're looking for.

and no, politicians (hell, all people) should never lie. i'm on board there. but i don't think lying was his intention when you hear the speech, and let's face it... it's not a particularly egregious one even when taken out of context in this way. that is what makes it a hit piece.

Honestly I do. I hate people making big deals out of little things. I'd defend Clinton, although not quite as vociferously, Bush too, and anyone else being accused of something when the facts clearly support something else.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent, primarily because I hate partisan bickering and being "loyal" to letters beside peoples names. But regardless of whether I do or not, you're right. All people should be given leeway in this manner, regardless of politics, when the situation warrants it.

When you stop laughing I'll take a look at your examples.

[quote name='adonis' post='6524958' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:13 AM'][quote name='bigbottom' post='6524927' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:08 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524900' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:03 AM']
[quote name='bigbottom' post='6524844' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:56 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524796' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:49 AM']
[quote name='phthalatemagic' post='6524762' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:43 AM']
[quote name='redman' post='6524744' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM']
[quote name='adonis' post='6524738' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:40 AM']
It's been rebutted.[/quote]


[/quote]
Yeha, I'd like to read it too.


I don't think anyone will care anyway.
[/quote]
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/JFK_Re...erica_4268.html

[quote]JFK Really Did Bring Obama’s Dad to America
by Paul Hogarth, 2007-03-06

At his March 4th speech in Alabama to commemorate the Anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march, Barack Obama confronted the allegation that he is “not black” by connecting his family history to the civil rights movement. Some of what he said in the speech was technically untrue, but Obama was not trying to mislead the audience. While he implied that the 1965 Selma March – which occurred when he was four years old – caused his parents to first meet, Obama later explained that he meant to say “the civil rights movement as a whole.”[/quote]
[/quote]


But see, saying that it was the Civil Rights movement that brought his parents together wouldn't allow him to use the "don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma" tagline. Again, it's all about pumping up the rhetoric.
[/quote]
I think his point was that Selma was a culmination of the civil rights movement as a whole, a major point in the history, and because people were willing to march at Selma, because people felt strongly enough about their beliefs, the entire climate into which he was born and was able to succeed was created.

That's why he was saying he had a claim on Selma, because people were willing to march. I think he said those words at some point.

It'd be silly to think that somehow Selma was specifically influential in his being born, like his parents watched clips of people marching across a bridge and then decided to get married and have a kid. So to me it's clear that he was speaking about something bigger than Selma, which Selma has come to represent, and that BIGGER concept is what allowed Obama to become Obama.
[/quote]


Sure, but that doesn't make what he said any more accurate. Look, I really don't think this is a big deal at all, but it is still needlessly embellishing a story to pander to an audience. Call it what it is.
[/quote]I'll agree that it wasn't accurate, at least a few of his comments weren't, but the overall idea is accurate, it does give him a claim on Selma, and it's not embellishment.

He could've left out the direct ties to Selma producing his birth, and his point would've remained every bit as effective. His message wasn't that his birth was a direct result of people marching across a bridge, but that it was the direct result of the climate caused by people who were willing to march across a bridge for human rights, for dignity, for social equality. In that, he wasn't embellishing, and that climate not only made it possible for his parents to come together, but it has subsequently made it possible for him to accomplish all of what he's accomplished.

When you consider all of that as being true, the comments about being brought about from people crossing a bridge becomes a point not even worth contesting, because his larger message makes clear what he means. He's a product of the climate of that time - Selma was a defining mark during that time - as such, he has a claim on Selma. No embellishment needed.
[/quote]


Exactly. That's why including the embellishments and inaccuracies was stupid, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread.

I don't know about "hit piece", but I agree otherwise. All candidates for the presidency are under very close scrutiny, particularly the front-runners.

Obama is known as the fresh young face that's not been corrupted by skeptical Washington politics, so he in particular will be watched like a hawk for these types of transgressions. I agree that this is minor though.

Let's go in order.



Absolutely not!!!!!!! His parent's met and fell in love, and then had a child together. I infer from your quote that Obama is the first child of mixed parentage. Even though American society attempted to bar white & black people from marrying, the truth is that white & black people have fell in love and wanted to marry since the beginning of the republic. There were no political motives, no grand gestures involved. It is an individual thing. To tie a personal intimate relationship to current political winds is absurd. Did your parents marry as a result(or were influenced by events) of current political trends at the time? I doubt it, unless they met as volunteers on a campaign. They met, fell in love, and procreated you and your siblings(if you have any).

As far as

He has been riding high on the popularity wave, but as I said previously, for some of us who have not drunk the Kool-aid, it is a triumph of style over substance. Now, his style collided with his substance. You are already giving a pass to the substance and want to give into the style as you indicate in your posts.

No one has seriously posted here that he should be removed from the race. It is just maybe his supporters who have drunk the Kool-aid should take a step back and be willingly to look at Obama honestly. This includes weighing his style and substance, not overriding one with the other.

Not my point. Do you listen or read entire transcripts of Bush's speaking(or any other politiican you don't support as entusiastically as Obama) and give that politician the same defference as you do Obama?

Some would contend that Bush didn't lie, but just reached the wrong conclusions(a mark of incompetence, not one of treachery) in going to war in Iraq. Are you willing to read Bush's speeches to not focus on a few lines, like:

You keep harping on the style over substance issue. By style, it appears that you're referring to his oratory skills, eloquence, platitudes, etc. But can you explain a bit further about how Obama lacks substance as a candidate, if in fact that's what you think?

I find it funny that both sides are claiming it's no big deal because the other side does it.

We truly get the government we deserve.

Comparing my birth, to the birth of a half-white/half black guy whose dad was from Africa, over here on a student visa, married to a white woman near times where that sorta thing was illegal, is kinda inane.

To say that the prevailing political climate of the time, which began making it easier for racial equality to take root in america, to open our doors of opportunity not just to white males, but to people of all races, to say that this had nothing to do with Obama coming about is ignoring reality. Of course he wasn't the first mixed child born, but ask yourself how many black senators have there been, how many black presidents, how many black governers, and you'll start to see that only NOW, only a couple of generations removed from the events honored at Selma, do blacks have any real opportunity to thrive.

So it's clear that this movement, that these people who marched at selma, that the political climate of the time, lead the way for people like Obama to not only be brought into the world, but to be able to dream that they can do whatever they push themselves to do, and that their race won't limit them to such a high degree as it limited their parents and grandparents.

His speech was remarkable for its Substance. To hear you say that catching him in a mistake was a triumph of style over substance is ABSURD. His comparing his generation to Joshua, and the parents generation to Moses, was an amazing correlation. The substance of his speech was exceptional, and yet you nitpick and focus on a part of the speech where he wasn't as precise as I'm sure he woudl've liked to have been.

You're not able to see the forest for the trees.

Sure, bb.

It goes back to how this groundswell started for Obama. After his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, the buzz started about his imminent presidential campaign. At this point, he was a 4 year US Senator.

And here is the buzz...he is different. He is unlike any other. He is being built up like the end-all, be-all. A lot of this is inferred. Like I posted many times previously, I think this is a lot about Obama seeming to be the anti-Bush than anything else, just like I think BushII in 2000 was about him being anti-Clinton. I don't think this is a good way to pick presidents, but our history has been full of these examples(Think Carter as a reaction to Nixon, as an example).

I have seen most of his proposals, and they are standard issue left-boiler plate proposals. I think he has substance, but his substance is not what makes him different. If you take his exact proposals and have them come out of the mouth of Sen Biden, then I don't believe(I have no way to prove this) you have anywhere near(or even any) buzz about Sen Biden being the next president of the US. So, if it is not his substance(meaning here the substance of his political proposals, not the substance of his character), then it must be his style, which everyone raves about.

In summary, it is not that I think he lacks any substance. It is just that what is appealing about him is his style, not his substance, which makes his candidacy a triumph of style over substance.

Even if his current ambition caused him to add to the gentle embellishments of his elders I am willing to evaluate his character on more than one opportunistic speach to a crowd hoping for a particularized message.

Still, he should have known better and had his speach vetted by better handlers. I'll be interested to see if he learned a political lesson from this.

Ultimately it won't matter to me. I am unlikely to vote for any but the most conservative of Democrats. I am a Libertarian and rarely vote otherwise.

Yup. Welcome to presidential politics.

You're missing the point. See, Barack O'Bama was CONCEIVED on that bridge, DURING that march, and as such, Selma is his home. Just as Diamond David Lee Roth before him was born in Bloomington, IN and can always claim Hoosier status, Obama IS the Civil Rights movement. Half-black, half-white, just as MLK intended.

Seriously, this is such a non-issue. He's clearly weaving his heritage in with the Civil Rights movement, and I think he's justified in doing so. Metaphors, implications . . . all part of good storytelling. True, I'd like more politicians to start talking about the issues, but it's so early right now, I think for anyone to stand on their platforms now would be suicidal. These people, in both parties, are aiming for name/face recognition right now in their speeches, and leaving the issues to their websites, where a few interested people and overzealous journalists can read their resumes and dreams of the future. In the meantime, these guys are just trying to get known. Barack is black & white, McCain's a war vet, Edwards is southern, Hilary is Bill's wife, and Rudy played a leader on tv after 9/11 and was married to his cousin.

As for Romney, well, I just like his name for the headlines:
"Mitt Drops the Ball!"
"Mitt Catches a Beating!"
"Mitt's Too Small!"

He wasn't in the Senate until 2005.

It is so sad that pandering and embellishing are acceptable behaviors among presidential candidates. These people are trying to become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and yet they are expected to mislead and deceive to get there.

I don't really think what Obama did was lying, but I do believe that it was intended to mislead his listeners. Is what he did any worse than what all the other candidates do? No. Is it acceptable behavior for a Presidential candidate? I wish not, but it apparently it is.

How exactly did he mislead his listeners?

Reading the responses to this post has been pretty informative; and imo, some very simple, yet heavy observations have been made regarding the American political climate.

First, thanks to Adonis for posting the "rebuttal". Without both "sides" present, the issue is seldom framed in truth.

It is interesting that some here are strict adherents to the truth, across the board. Others are willing to forget a lie, as long as it is "their guy". And others are willing to forgive any lie, as long as they deem it harmless.

For any politician, I ask why we accept their lies? Are they lying to promote themselves, for personal gain? Are they lying for an ideal they wish to promote? While the lies are commonplace, why are they acceptable?

I can understand lying as a tactic of war in dealing with one's enemies, but why would we accept lying for any other sort of a politician's personal or political gain?

By indicating that his birth was directly related to the Civil Rights movement.

And are you saying that the civil rights movement had nothing to do with his birth?

I simply don't agree with you about the first part. There was nothing particularly special about his birth. Through his hard work and the content of his character and the opening of opportunities to black Americans, he has fully developed his potential. That is special, and for that he should be applauded.

Also, I didn't say the whole speech wasn't good. But, it would have been even better if he would have left out the pandering he did . It was a crtique, not a condemnation. Did I post that this was a bad speech?

Thanks for the explanation. That helps.

I'm pretty sure his birth had a lot more to do with two horny people than the civil rights movement.

I thought he was first elected to the US Senate in 2000, and then re-elected in 2006?

The Civil Rights movement technically began in the mid-50's ('54 or '55) with Thurogood Marshall and the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court case, so let's not think it all began with "I Have a Dream."

One good example of lying was listed in this thread, and was something about Gore's mother singing him a tune that wasn't created at a time where that was possible. That's a white lie meant to score points, and it's patently untrue.

What Obama did wasn't lie and make something up in the hopes of scoring points, he misspoke. He doesn't score any more points in saying that he was the result of people marching across a bridge than he does saying he's the result of the civil rights movement, which was his point, and which I believe to be a valid point. In this case, it's not so much that he fabricated a message to score points, but that he was not precise enough with his message so as to be above reproach.

In otherwords, there's no defense to saying that your mother sang you a song that wasn't around until after you'd grown up but there is a defense to using a bridge crossing as a representation of the civil rights movement, and saying that what it represents allowed him to become who he is.

This was a powerful speech.

BUT, why were the lies necessary? Couldn't he have made the exact same points serving the same ideals without the misrepresentations?

I am not picking on Obama, because most politicians do this. But why are they compelled to cross the line of truth? (Maybe I am picking on Obama, because I just lumped him in with most politicians? )

I heard the movie "Jungle Fever" was based on Obama's parents.

Why let truth get in the way of good political theatre?

It is all positioning. I hoped for more from Barrack when I picked up his book but the entire book was one big 'positioning' excercise for his Presidential bid.

That is EXACTLY what I am saying.

He would have been born no matter what the timetable of Civil Rights. However, his later opportunities that he earned would not have been available to him.

YES! Not only that, but he distinctly remembers his parents singing "We shall Overcome" as they did it.

Most likely, not nearly as much as he tried to indicate. Was their very marriage a result of improving race relations? Somewhat. Was the American racial climate changing? Yes.

But here is a part of the speech:
"But she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, [in] the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr., was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Ala.”

He was indicating that as a direct result from the events in Selma (note the words "because" and "so") he was born. As the writer stated, those events hadn't even happened before he was born. He indicated that his parents decided it was OK to have a child because of these specific events. That is misleading.

You are welcome. Like most people, I would like to have someone as president I really believed. I would rather be late on the bandwagon and be committed to it, then be early on the bandwagon and later be disillusioned. It is my nature.

One only has to go back to Obama's own words about how he lacks the experience to be president. Don't necessarily agree with it, but Hillary will.

Nothing particularly special about his birth? I'm not crowning him the messiah or anything, but the conditions of his birth were rather rare, wouldn't you say? A father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas, meeting in Hawaii, marrying only soon after such marriages were legal? I'd say his father coming to america was rare enough in and of itself. Then his father meeting a white woman who was willing to marry him, in that time was also pretty rare.

I'd also say that springing from the civil rights movement, coupled with his fairly rare birth, was the burgeoning opportunity for black americans to get ahead in america. All of these things, in my opinion, make his situation a rare one, and makes him particularly indebted to those who fought for civil rights at great personal risk, and Selma was a celebration of such people, and as such, he wanted to show his thanks, and to say that it was because of people like them that he could do what he's done.

As far as not liking the speech, that was just the impression I got from where you said . By "it" I assumed you meant that his mistake showed that you could say whatever you wanted in a speech, and if you have style it doesn't matter about your substance (implying none existed). If I mistook your meaning, my bad.

What did you mean by that, if it wasn't what I inferred?

Actually, the timetable matters. Without the Civil Rights Movement, his father probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to come to the U.S. to shag his mother, who would've likely been scorned A LOT more for birthing a mixed-race child. If he were born in 1920, it'd be more likely he'd have been killed after birth or given away. Context, time, place, circumstance--these things matter.

Very wrong on two accounts...

a) I've been in the minority around here in saying that Hillary will oVVn Obama for several months. Mistakes like this are all Hillary's machine needs to crush him. Hillary weighs her words carefully, Obama doesn't.

b) Obama is my early preferred candidate for president. If this pattern of fabricating stories to build his image continues, it will taint my image of him.

LOL @ title change..... wow......

So your vision of the Sr. Obama's was them sitting naked on a bed, wanting to have a baby, but pondering the question about whether it was possible. While they sit there, they think, you know, people marched across a bridge in Selma just a bit ago. I think we could really make this thing work. THen they look at each other, smile, and make a baby.

Is that what you think he was saying happened? You think he was directly attributing his birth to a conscious effort and thought on behalf of his parents to say that simply because of Selma, he was born? Did you listen to the rest of the speech by any chance? Did you try to understand his overriding message about why Selma was important, why it was important to him and other black americans, and what it means for black americans in current times?

I can't imagine that for you to have that opinion, that you listened to the whole speech trying to understand the points he was trying to get across. It sounds more like you are looking for something to knock him down a peg or two about.

He didn't fabricate a story to build his image.