Campaign 2008

[Firestarter 0]

I am uncertain as to why you have continued to attempt to instigate personal conflicts with me when it should be obvious that I have no interest in elevating your perceived "messageboard status" by engaging you on any level, although that is clearly your goal.

[snuffbox 0]

I would suggest you not take the internet so seriously. If you so desperately want to be taken seriously, I would suggest using actual research and not propose such insane conspiacy theories as Barack Obama turning America into a Muslim-led white-slave empire with Farrakhan at the helm.

[Firestarter 0]

I do not recall suggesting such a theory at any point.

[Vyce 0]

I had no idea Wright was running for president. I think I'm gonna vote for Hilary instead.

 

His preacher!? Seriously, are we all now responsible for the thoughts and actions of our preachers? It's fear mongering, nothing more, and it's really sad to see how far we haven't come.

 

God. Why is it so hard for people to recognize what the issue is re: Wright & Obama.

 

It's not about whether Obama BELIEVES in Wright's bullshit. Most people would agree that he doesn't.

 

It has everything to do with Obama's judgment and character, which actually are fair game to question, even criticize, because we as Americans could be giving him the whole fucking show come November, and we like to try and vett these people as best we can.

 

It goes like this. You're wrong for insinuating, as Obama has sort of tried to do (in as half-assed a manner as possible, which is contributing to this overall debacle for him), that this is just some schmuck he maybe caught a sermon of every now and again.

 

Barack went to Wright's church for 20 years.

He got married by Wright.

Pretty sure his kids were baptized by Wright's church.

Before Wright got exposed, Barack wrote some glowing praise about the man, saying he was his spiritual mentor. Some of this material can be found in Barack's own memoirs.

Obama even stated before that Wright was a political advisor, that he consulted with Wright on occasion before making political decisions.

 

All of this adds up to a very long, lengthy, deep relationship with a man who has since been exposed as bigot and a militant.

 

Again, it's not about Obama believing Wright's nonsense. It's just the pure common sense that ordinary Americans have, but apparently Barack didn't, in that if you are presented with such a fact pattern as this one, the question gets asked, well if this guy's such a wackjob, why the FUCK did you keep close this guy for 20 fucking years? Cause no one buys that Wright all of a sudden turned militan a few weeks ago. It's well documented that he's been this way for YEARS.

 

Obama, basically, hasn't had any sort of good explanation / answer to that question (and, in fact, can't actually state the truth, ie. that used Wright all of those years for credibility and political capital, because that would fly in the face of his "I'm a different type of politician, even though I'm actually the EXACT same sort of politician you're used to" gimmick). Which is why this is killing him slowly.

[Firestarter 0]

And, as usual, Vyce nails it.

[Jingus 0]

I do not recall suggesting such a theory at any point.

You sort of did.

 

What are you afraid of? He might get elected and appoint Louis Farrakhan the Secretary of State? Might offer Al Quaeda an unconditional surrender?

the second and third possibilities are not improbable

 

 

As to the "it's just a preacher!" debate: I grew up in a southern conservative church, Church of Christ to be exact, which is barely a smidgen to the left of Southern Baptist. It was an all-white church in a racially mixed neighborhood. I heard a bunch of questionable stuff from the preachers there. But once I was old enough to decide for myself, I stopped going. By sitting there and voluntarily listening to Wright's rhetoric for twenty years, Obama quite clearly demonstrated that he didn't find the reverend's more outrageous statements to be offensive.

[Firestarter 0]

Stating that a third party's sarcasm was "not improbable" is a far cry from proposing such a theory myself.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

And, as usual, Vyce nails it.

No, no he hasn't. Not when the generation gap gives Obama his benefit of the doubt (2nd time now).

 

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

Guilty by association isn't necessarily the case. There were several things that Wright had viewpoints on that made common sense to any American, black or white, and he had a passion for activism that Obama most likely shared, although of course Obama most likely doesn't share the same extremist viewpoints that Wright does, so the point is still- it doesn't fucking matter. I have tons of friends, associates, and colleagues whose work I respect and even admire, although I certainly do not agree with them.

 

Furthermore, the argument that Obama allegedly consulted Wright before making "important political decisions" is fallible at best. WHICH important political decisions did he consult Wright before making, and who exactly is that information being contributed to? Ultimately, the burden falls on Obama to make those decisions, so it is Obama that we have to judge for his decisions, not on who he is or isn't buddy-buddy with enough to be consulting. Again, this point is moot anyways since Obama has done a fair job of distancing himself from the remarks.

 

I got my ballot today in the mail for the Oregon primaries. So exciting! I'm sending them out tomorrow.

[Firestarter 0]

[O]f course, the senator's speech does share one quality with Cooper Union, Gettysburg, the FDR Inaugural, Henry V at Agincourt, Socrates' Apology, etc.: It's history. He said, apropos the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that "I could no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." But last week Obama did disown him. So, great-speech-wise, it's a bit like Churchill promising to fight them on the beaches and never surrender, and then surrendering a month and a half later, and on a beach he decided not to fight on.

 

It was never a great speech. It was a simulacrum of a great speech written to flatter gullible pundits into hailing it as the real deal...

 

Oddly enough, the shrewdest appraisal of the senator's speechifying "magic" came from Jeremiah Wright himself. "He's a politician," said the reverend. "He says what he has to say as a politician. … He does what politicians do."

 

The notion that the Amazing Obama might be just another politician doing what politicians do seems to have affronted the senator more than any of the stuff about America being no different from al-Qaida and the government inventing AIDS to kill black people. In his belated "disowning" of Wright, Obama said, "What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that – that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the – the commonality in all people."

 

Funny how tinny and generic the sonorous uplift rings when it's suddenly juxtaposed against something real and messy and human. As he chugged on, the senator couldn't find his groove and couldn't prevent himself from returning to pick at the same old bone: "If what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's – that's a show of disrespect to me."

 

And we can't have that, can we?

 

In a shrewd analysis of Obama's peculiarly petty objections to the Rev. Wright, Scott Johnson of the Powerline Web site remarked on the senator's "adolescent grandiosity." There's always been a whiff of that. When he tells his doting fans, "We are the change we've been waiting for," he means, of course, he is the change we've been waiting for.

 

"Do you personally feel that the reverend betrayed your husband?" asked Meredith Vieira on "The Today Show."

 

"You know what I think, Meredith?" replied Michelle Obama. "We've got to move forward. You know, this conversation doesn't help my kids."

 

Hang on. "My" kids? You're supposed to say "It's about the future of all our children," not "It's about the future of my children" – whose parents happen to have a base salary of half a million bucks a year. But even this bungled cliché nicely captures the campaign's self-absorption: Talking about Obama's pastor is a distraction from talking about Obama's kids.

 

By the way, the best response to Michelle's "this conversation doesn't help my kids" would be: "But entrusting their religious upbringing to Jeremiah Wright does?"

 

...

 

Mrs. O is becoming a challenge for satirists. My radio pal Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his show of the putative first lady identifying the real problem facing America:

 

"Like many young people coming out of college, with their MA's and BA's and PhD's and MPh's coming out so mired in debt that they have to forego the careers of their dreams, see, because when you're mired in debt, you can't afford to be a teacher or a nurse or social worker, or a pastor of a church, or to run a small nonprofit organization, or to do research for a small community group, or to be a community organizer because the salaries that you'll earn in those jobs won't cover the cost of the degree that it took to get the job."

 

I'm not sure why Michelle would stick "pastor of a church" in that list of downscale occupations: Her pastor drives a Mercedes and lives in a gated community. But, insofar as I understand Mrs. O, she feels that many Harvard and Princeton graduates have to give up their life's dream of being a minimum-wage "community organizer" (whatever that is) and are forced to become corporate lawyers, investment bankers and multinational CEOs just to pay off their college loans. I'm sure the waitresses and checkout clerks nodded sympathetically.

 

Michelle Obama is a bizarre mix of condescension and grievance – like Teresa Heinz Kerry with a chip on her shoulder. But the common thread to her rhetoric is its antipathy to what she calls "corporate America." Perhaps for his next Gettysburg Address the senator will be saying, "I could no more disown my wife than I could disown my own pastor. Oh, wait … ."

- link

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

42. To Prove the New Weapon Methodology, Technology and Technocracy in the Crime War, Drug War, 50 Years of War and Peace, The War in Iran and any other war going on the World of crime. Three of the most dangerous Weapons of the Crime War today are 1. Praying For Persons to die with electronics, 2. Killing the person’s heart with an electric snake hot-wire hookup and 3. Poisoning Persons with Cancer.

 

45. To Prove the definition Kill in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language

 

67. To Prove these perpetrators are trying to stop me from running for President of The United States. They are Vice-President Dick Chenny, Former Vice-President Al Gore and their Assessors. They keep killing my mother and our family

 

56. To Prove Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

 

The United States Military Police and Federal Police are doing a biography and autobiography of me regulating the United States Government National and International affiliated with and undercover intelligence-Criminal investigation of the United States Government.

 

-link

[SuperJerk 0]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that in those two decades Obama attended Wright's sermons, the senator was only interested in Wright's views on religious matters?

[Firestarter 0]

Sabrina says (13:56):

hugssssssssss

Sabrina says (13:56):

Firestarter says (13:56):

You're going to answer me first.

Sabrina says (13:56):

whats the question sister?

Firestarter says (13:57):

The question was one word.

Sabrina says (13:57):

um

Sabrina says (13:57):

which one?

Firestarter says (13:57):

Sister...

Sabrina says (13:57):

thats a question?

Firestarter says (13:57):

Yes.

Sabrina says (13:58):

um

Sabrina says (13:58):

are u asking if i will be ur sister?

Firestarter says (13:58):

Yes.

Sabrina says (13:58):

ok yes i am already sort of

Firestarter says (13:58):

Then say it.

Sabrina says (13:58):

i am ur sister!

Sabrina says (13:58):

this feels very star wars

Firestarter says (13:59):

Then I love you. Sister.

Sabrina says (13:59):

aww

Firestarter says (13:59):

Go take your shower.

Sabrina says (13:59):

i love u too despite all the things we disagree on sister

Sabrina says (13:59):

yay ure going to have a clean sister

Firestarter says (13:59):

Indeed.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Sabrina says (13:56):

hugssssssssss

Sabrina says (13:56):

Firestarter says (13:56):

You're going to answer me first.

Sabrina says (13:56):

whats the question sister?

Firestarter says (13:57):

The question was one word.

Sabrina says (13:57):

um

Sabrina says (13:57):

which one?

Firestarter says (13:57):

Sister...

Sabrina says (13:57):

thats a question?

Firestarter says (13:57):

Yes.

Sabrina says (13:58):

um

Sabrina says (13:58):

are u asking if i will be ur sister?

Firestarter says (13:58):

Yes.

Sabrina says (13:58):

ok yes i am already sort of

Firestarter says (13:58):

Then say it.

Sabrina says (13:58):

i am ur sister!

Sabrina says (13:58):

this feels very star wars

Firestarter says (13:59):

Then I love you. Sister.

Sabrina says (13:59):

aww

Firestarter says (13:59):

Go take your shower.

Sabrina says (13:59):

i love u too despite all the things we disagree on sister

Sabrina says (13:59):

yay ure going to have a clean sister

Firestarter says (13:59):

Indeed.

Can I blame this on B.O. Hussein too?

[Firestarter 0]

Can I blame this on B.O. Hussein too?

As you wish.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that in those two decades Obama attended Wright's sermons, the senator was only interested in Wright's views on religious matters?

 

Evidently not.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that in those two decades Obama attended Wright's sermons, the senator was only interested in Wright's views on religious matters?

The counter-argument that's made to that is the (somewhat flimsy) one that Obama had consulted Wright on his campaign and "important political decisions".

[BUTT 0]

I've decided Reverend Wright is awesome. That dude ain't afraid to tell AmeriKKKa what he really thinks. I wish HE was running for president.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well it looks like Obama got some good news today by winning the Guam caucus by 7 votes over Hillary.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Take that, Senator Clunton! You may have won California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and all the big states but we won GUAM!

 

YES WE CAN!

[SuperJerk 0]

Liberal pundits (both of them) are having a coronary of this, so I figured it somewhat noteworthy...

 

McCain: Remarks on oil not about Iraq war

 

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain has been forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.

 

At issue was a comment he made at a town hall-style meeting Friday morning in Denver, Colorado.

 

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

 

The presumptive GOP nominee sought to clarify his remarks later Friday after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

 

"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.

 

One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world," he said.

 

"If the word `again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean," McCain said.

 

"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction."

 

It was the second time in as many days that McCain had to clarify his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

 

McCain is a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, although he criticizes the the Bush administration's early handling of the conflict.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/mcc...q.ap/index.html

[SuperJerk 0]

Take that, Senator Clunton! You may have won California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and all the big states but we won GUAM!

 

YES WE CAN!

People forget Obama won the Texas caucus.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Sorry, but there were 2,818,599 votes reported in the primary, where Clinton won 51% of the vote. Compare that with the 42,576 who voted in the caucus, where Obama won 56% of the vote. It still doesn't come very close, and the caucus is something of a moral victory at best.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think Obama's victories in Missouri, Virginia, and Minnesota are good wins for him in this contest that he doesn't get enough credit for.

[At Home 0]

Sorry, but there were 2,818,599 votes reported in the primary, where Clinton won 51% of the vote. Compare that with the 42,576 who voted in the caucus, where Obama won 56% of the vote. It still doesn't come very close, and the caucus is something of a moral victory at best.

 

I thought that Obama won the states that Democrats can't win in November.

[SuperJerk 0]

Sorry, but there were 2,818,599 votes reported in the primary, where Clinton won 51% of the vote. Compare that with the 42,576 who voted in the caucus, where Obama won 56% of the vote. It still doesn't come very close, and the caucus is something of a moral victory at best.

So we're going back to who got the most votes overall?

 

 

 

[Firestarter 0]

This drone is confused.

[SuperJerk 0]

Just pointing out that the criteria changed half-way through the argument.

 

This whole "she wins big states" argument is flawed because it assumes winning the Democratic primary makes her more likely than her Republican opponent to carry those states in November.

[Guest Vitamin X]

My point was still that it's troublesome to see him winning pretty much ONLY the small and non-swing states (and territories like Guam). The Texas caucus victory is nice, but it's irrelevant when Clinton won a much more significant portion of the vote in the primary.

 

I thought that Obama won the states that Democrats can't win in November.

I'm becoming more and more troubled that Obama will have a much more difficult time against McCain than originally forecasted, which is why I'm worried when I can't see him winning bigger states.

 

This whole "she wins big states" argument is flawed because it assumes winning the Democratic primary makes her more likely than her Republican opponent to carry those states in November.

This may not be true in safe states like California and New York, but it's worrisome in places like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Winning North Carolina and some of the southern states that Obama might be able to take is canceled out by his slipping support in larger states- Hillary winning significantly in Pennsylvania is proof of this. And especially this late in the primaries when it's been repeated over and over again that Hillary has all but a slim chance in winning the delegate race, it appears as though more people are voting for Clinton to vote against Obama rather than for Hillary in these places.

 

I hope that's not the case, but it certainly seems that way.

[SuperJerk 0]

In my opinion, either Hillary or Obama is likely to beat McCain. Once we move past trivia like Rev. Wright, Bosnia snipers, campaign finance violations, etc., and the focus of the election moves to the economy and war...McCain doesn't stand a chance. The ISSUES favor the Democrats this year.