This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I agree, although many can't articulate why they are excited other than the prospect that things will change. Kerry was a relatively known quantity with known views and still blew a large late lead (if you believe the polls) against an unpopular incumbent. Obama is a relative unknown, once he becomes more defined there is the potential for quite a bit of volatility (up or down) in his favorable/unfavorable ratings.
Because you don't give long boring policy speeches on the stump. No one is. He has revealed as much detail as anyone else. And where do you think the info we have comes from anyway?
Read his lips?
So a Bush 1 replay and a massive flip flop all in one article. Well done Maverick. Glad it makes him sad to deal away his prinicples. Otherwise he would be just another pandering, say anything, do anything candidate.
I have no idea where your info comes from to be honest. What a candidate promises is absolutely invalid. You can only go back and look at a candidates track record. And Obama has none. I think his only play is to avoid making "policy" an issue as much as possible and emphasize rhetoric, which he has wisely done. And that brings us back to how the byline to this thread hurts Obama...
And a year ago Obama was giving the boring policy speeches. But they don't make the front page headlines. Meanwhile, frivolous and empty so-called scandals like the cackle or the tie-pin do. Pai Mei, you're ALWAYS blaming the media for things. Why aren't you looking there first on this topic as well?
Yeah, I have to say that this complaint about Obama not being specific is a Clinton scheme to eliminate his rhetorical advantage. His views are certainly clear enough. I myself am opposed to most of them, which is one reason (obviously not the only one) I am voting for McCain. But to suggest he hasn't expressed himself clearly about what he wants is just wrong.I will say this about Obama. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree that his government based solutions to the economy will do anything except make us all poorer, and despite the fact that his stated views on Iraq and the War on Terror I believe are misguided, there is one intriguing aspect about his candidacy, and that is the effect his election would have on Islamic types around the world, as well as other third-worlders who despise us. It is at least conceivable that Barack Hussein Obama's very presence as the leader of our country will change the perception of America and American values around the world, and that would in itself be revolutionary and make up for everything else.If I truly believed this to be true, I would support Obama in spite of every issue he stands for, because of the greater good for our country. But I find myself too hard-headed (cynical) for that. The Islamic dislike for us is tied to our support of Israel and our support of whichever governments over there keep the oil flowing. Unless we're willing to give these up (and I'm against doing so), whatever Obama is or does won't matter in the long run. Having come to this conclusion, I can't support hm.
I think that is wise. McCain is a moderate - which means he is prepared to sell out any principle for power. McCain will govern by licking his finger and sticking it in the wind. If he gets the impression that a tax hike is the best thing for himself politically, he will do it.
It'll be interesting to see how Obama handles the tax issue during the campaign. It's tough to be in the position of telling people that you're going to raise their taxes.
Trust me, Clinton didn't come up with the notion that Obama is light on policy and experience by herself. Its a widely-held criticism coming at him from all sides. If this election becomes a referendum on policy and experience, Obama is gonna lose. He has to divert the election cycle from that at all costs.
I NEVER blame the media for things. In fact, I've pointed out repeatedly that at the ZENITH of the liberal press, when they controlled the 3 major networks, Fox News didn't exist, and Rush was not on the air, that was where the country shifted away from the left. Rush Limbaugh appeared AFTER the shift occurred. Fox News appeared AFTER the shift occurred. Stuff like that is in response to the public moving away from the left. They realized a new market appeared, and moved in to service it. The media actually is a trailing indicator of public sentiment in this way.
This is a very thought provoking post.
Tim, what you're failing to consider is that there is a growing resentment within the Islamic world against AQ and the fundamentalist movement. But so long as AQ and the Taliban can portray America as the evil empire, they will continue to gain new recruits and be seen as a viable alternative to more secular government. It is important that America re-engages with the struggle for the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world. By electing a black man with the name Barack Obama, that single event will speak volumes to those around the world that the American Dream is actually real. That in a free society, the merit of one's character and dedication to hard work is all that's truly necessary to succeed, even over barriers like race and class that seem insurmountable in their own countries. I'm telling you, electing Obama would be the biggest public relations coup for America since D-Day.
Blind guess, but I think he's going to deflect and say that he is pulling out of Iraq to fund his new policies - I also think he will pull the "we are only going to roll back the existing tax breaks for the rich and corporations" card.
"No new taxes" on the same day George H.W. Bush endorses him.
As one commentator put it: McCain is the grumpy old man telling everyone to get off his lawn.
Of course you're right. Let's look at McCain's two main stands over the last couple of years: immigration reform (he took a viewpoint opposed by 70% of the nation) pushing for the surge in Iraq (at the time he did it, he took a viewpoint opposed by 80% of the nation.) These two issues led him to sink to the bottom of the polls last fall. But this is a guy who is "prepared to sell out any principle".Honestly, do you think a man who's been tortured in the past because he refused to sell out is going to do so now for political advantage?
Just a tad.
As I said, if I become convinced you are right about this, I will switch my support to Obama, despite my affections for McCain, because you're right, if it was that much of a public relations coup it really WOULD outweigh all other factors.Unfortunately, as I wrote, there are other factors behind the dislike that Obama's election will not solve. So my judgment is, even if it improved things in the short run, it would not have long term effect. How quickly would it be before Obama became the third world equivalent of an "Uncle Tom" or "House ******", a man beholden to the control of his "white imperialist masters"? It would happen all too soon, I believe.
He certainly has bad timing. He comes out with this the day George H W Bush endorses him? Ouch.Nothing like dusting off tired old empty Republican campaign promises.Memo to Repubs: Obama ≠ Dukakis
Seriously, what the eff are you talking about?
I do not start comment about McCain on this thread. I respond to comments from other people.The McCain thread (which I started) is open to criticism of McCain, discussion of Obama, Clinton, or anything else. There are no trolls on that thread.
"Sentaor, FBG's on the phone again. They're wanting details for their thread. I don't think we can hold out much longer."
Please tell me which part you did not understand, and I will be happy to expand.
Start with the business about Uncle Tom, then move on to the House ######, then the white imperialist master bit, and then...No, just start with the Uncle Tom part. My head is spinning.
Wow. That's some really jaded cynicism concerning race and the world.I'm guessing you're a "glass half empty" guy?
Glad to have you aboard!Wait.
The racist part.
I almost agree with the basic premise of this post.Anyone who took US history in high school can tell you that politics are cyclical. Conservatism will rule for a few years and then give way to liberalism, etc. We saw Reagan bring the country to the right, and in this election we will see Obama do the same for the left. You can even look at the field of Republicans and see the shift to the left. McCain represents the hawk wing of the party but is certainly center to left on many issues issues, the Huckster represents the biblethumping wing of the party but would probably be the most liberal candidate on either ballot if it weren't for that (and the policy that goes along with it like abortion, evolution, etc.) and Romney and Rudy were both pro-choice socially liberal before they made their run for president. There's not really a Gingrich or George W. in the bunch.Someone posted here last week about this being the most important election in however many years and I think that it could be. We are seeing the conservative era end and a new era of liberalism begin (don't worry it will end in about 20 years).Sorry bud.
You, sir, are a true American.
OK. Many times in the past in this country, when Blacks achieved positions of political power, they have been derided by more radical Blacks as being in the power of "the White man" and both terms which I mentioned were used. (Uncle Tom of course refers to the character from the Stowe novel which was the stereotypical white image of the Black man: shuffling feet, bowed head, "Yassuh Massah" an image which most African Americans despise. The "House N-gg-r" is an even older term, used to describe slaves who had gone to work in the "Master's House" receiving better treatment than the normal field hand. Here are some examples of the use of both terms: Spike Lee has referred to Colin Powell several times as an "Uncle Tom", while the Black prosecuter Chris Darden, when appointed in the OJ Simpson trial, was referred to as a "House N-gg-r" by the Los Angeles Black community.The third world criticism of the United States is very much aligned to the radical view inside this country, which is why I made the comparison. Obama may start off as a hero to these people, but very soon (unless he ends all support for Israel) he will be derided with the same sort of criticism: that he is just a stooge for the white corporate (possibly Jewish) elements that control this country. That is when, I predict, you will hear the "Uncle Tom". I hope this explains things.
Wow, I hope Joe and the mods aren't trolling this thread tonight...for your sake. 
Wow, did i really just read that? Is it your goal to derail this thread to the point it needs to get
or deleted?Seriously Tim, WTF is wrong with you? I dont usually form strong opinions about people based solely on their message board posts, but i dont have a choice with you. Who could even think of something like that without actually first believing in the concepts behind it?
Umm...no. Not really.
What did you expect? You just painted approximately 6 billion people with a very broad brush.
You don't understand how a bunch of people on a message board would assume a person using racist terms was a racist?? Really??
Not to mention, his POV would prohibit anyone of color from ever entering the presidential office. I'll give him the benefit of just being naive here. But, I'd otherwise consider it an outrageously racist perspective he's espousing here.
True
Wow, where to begin. First of all, we are dealing very specifically with what would be the Islamic world's impression of Obama as President. No other issue regarding Obama's views or the man himself is implied. The words I used have a very specific meaning; any African-American reading this will instantly understand what I am trying to say without (hopefully) taking offense; certainly none is intended, and if anyone is offended, I apologize.But please understand, when you talk about people and their faith in Obama, we are not talking about Americans here. We are talking about a group of people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered by the British Government in order to prevent her from marrying an Egyptian, and who believe that 9/11 was all a plot of the Israeli Mossad. These two conspiracies are accepted by the VAST MAJORITY of Muslims around the world as gospel. If Obama is elected, I predict they will have hopes that the USA will end their support for Israel. When this doesn't happen, I predict they will turn on Obama. I hope I am wrong about this, but that's the way I see it.Wow, I hope Joe and the mods aren't trolling this thread tonight...for your sake. :(
Let's see...where to even begin:
1. Do you have THAT little hope in and respect for Barack Obama? Wow. That man could probably out walk, out talk, out debate, out deduce, out analyze, etc. all but a very-few men and women who participate in this forum.
2. You don't have nearly enough faith in people and THEIR faith in Obama. People from all walks of life, men and women, high-school drop-outs to PhDs, rich and poor, etc. see something special in him. I think people STILL crave the "I'm a uniter rather than a divider" concept that George W. Bush helped ride into the White House back in 2001...only to be one of the most divisive Presidents in our lifetime. People STILL want a "uniter not a divider," except they believe that Obama won't give the American people a wedgie this time around.
3. You might not have meant it, but mentioning "Uncle Tom" or "House N-gg-r" in a thread about an African-American candidate for President? That is just dumb, man. DUMB. I'll assume you didn't mean anything by it, but man 'o man that is crossing about 6-7 lines that probably shouldn't be crossed around here.
Geez, Tim had better exclude all women from running for President too, I guess...since they'll just end up as puppets for "the white man" too.
Wow....just wow. I mean no offense to Tim whatsoever, but wow.
That's simply not true. I was specifically arguing against the argument that Muslims around the world would have a long term positive attitude of Obama simply because of his name and skin color. This has nothing to do with anything else.
