Obama''s Speech....

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 4/16/2008 9:15:01 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 4/16/2008 6:12:33 PM

Author: rainbowtrout

Yes, I have to say I agree with Diamondfan on this one--while I myself enjoy Obama as a candidate, I do feel among my friends who are Obama supporters, and in discussions (such as this thread) that the Obama God Can Do No Wrong.


And that, my friends, is what we call a cult of personality. And we all know how dangerous that one is.

Ardent support for a candidate is a far cry from being a 'cult of personality'. There are many rabid Hillary supporters too, of my acquaintance. Does that make them whirly-eyed Moony-esque sycophants? I doubt it. And characterizing Obama supporters as such is more than a touch of hyperbole.

I DO think that too many people, when dealing in politics and elections, take sides, and because our society for some reason decries changing ones mind as 'waffling', never reassess their ideas again.



A friend of mine - a dear person - but with whom I discuss not much substantive, since he doesn't care much for things that require research, study, or self-awareness or reading, said snarkily and defensively to me after the Dems won back congress in 2006, 'Well, I guess that you've got control now, so well just see how YOU do.' Number one I was taken aback because we don't discuss my politics at all, and he knows little of where I stand on real issues, and two, I though what is this? Freakin' football??

I personally don't think Obama is god, but I do think he is not yet so entrenched in the political landscape, or so old as to have lost his idealism in the mud of Washington. He also doesn't OWE as many people as Clinton, who is going to spend alot of time paying off debts to supporters. I support any candidate these days with a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism. It's easy to promise, but hard to execute those promises. The difference is that McCain and Hillary have shown time and again that they have no idealism left. McCain has lobbyists as his top advisors and trots out WWII solutions in a world that has move far beyond such things, and Hillary is just flat out disingenuous all the time. I can stand to watch her about as much as I can stand to watch our current royal.


IMO, this once-great and once-respected country - is a country which has sold it's soul, and laws, and privacy, and constitutional protections for the illusion of security, and I truly believe we do not have much time left to swing back before the changes become permanant and we have no chance of return.

I will repost what I said in a previous post:

The reason I support Obama is I see him as the ONLY candidate likely to restore the constitutional balances and actually hand BACK some of the powers that this administration has collected in its mission to create a unitary executive that is above the law. First and foremost to me is the health of the underpinnings of our form of government. The rest will follow as it will. Not that the economy or the war are to be ignored, but without the rule of law being upheld at the highest levels, what we do at the lower ones will be pretty irrelevant.

So, a disclaimer first. I LIVE with a political junkie who also happens to be a ardent Obama supporter. She goes to knock on doors in Philly, etc. So I have been rather steeped in living in a 1br apt with someone for whom Obama can do no wrong. (although I admire her political agency)

I actually do happen to BE an Obama supporter, but I still have reservations about him (for the record, they don't really have to do with Israel, or Wright). I completely agree with MoonWater's point that it's inteeeeresting just how white preachers can get away with saying dirt about minorities MUCH more often that the other way around.

In discussions with, say, my roommate, and my other political junkie friends, yes, I have felt like there is a feeling that Obama HIMSELF is just so magically idealistic and wonderful that he can do no wrong. Specifically in this thread, when for example Fisher aired her disagreements, I felt that it was implicitly not "OK" for her not to agree with the prevailing opinion on the thread, which has subsequently become somewhat self-congratulatory (which I must say is one of the prime reasons "they" dislike "us" if we are going to talk about sides...)

And while I find your implicit critique that I did not in fact read the thread amusing (which has I believe been done to others who disagreed, not citing you specifically--and no, I do not have the time to go through right now and pull examples, I have to go translate Arabic poetry in about 5), yes, I also support Obama for the SAME REASON you do, I think he has a snowball's shot in heck of returning, say, habeas corpus. Although my cynical side says that once given, power is rarely returned by those holding it. But at least it is explicitly ON his agenda.

RE: MoonWater&Israel--I had hoped that my blurb about Obama and his doubly marked "otherness" would help with your question of why some Jews are uncomfortable with Obama...guess not. For the record, my rabbi voted for him.

 

[MoonWater]

And again I agree with Karen. I find it funny that people think Obama supporters believe he can do no wrong. On the contrary, I''ve complained about a few things he''s done/said. However, if you are going to accuse the man of taking a certain stance or believing something (or not believing for that matter), you better have evidence to support your claim or it''s just rumors and opinions. I provide evidence when I say something positive about him, I expect the same when people say something negative. It''s really that simple.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/16/2008 9:49:43 PM
Author: rainbowtrout


RE: MoonWater&Israel--I had hoped that my blurb about Obama and his doubly marked 'otherness' would help with your question of why some Jews are uncomfortable with Obama...guess not. For the record, my rabbi voted for him.

What "otherness" are you speaking of? People's willingness to believe rumors over facts? Oh well, sorry, I think it's a ridiculous reason. But hey, I'm still in the land of religious freedom.

 

[diamondfan]

This is not a tit for tat contest.

And by the way, at the end of the day, I do NOT have to provide any evidence, if I amass my information and feel what I feel. And honestly, I think he is slick and a political machine and there is something about him that I do not trust or care for, though I believe he is a smart man. He talks in sound bites and catchy rhetoric and I find him to be unidimensional and lacking in depth. He presents well and has all the credentials on paper but something about him makes me wary. I feel he will say anything, back pedal to any length, to get in the White House, which is not a rare thing, but again, not something I find agreeable. And I have every right to my sense and to my inclinations. I do not have to find words to make it clear to anyone else. That is what an opinion means to me. I formed it, based on different information, and came up with a synthesis of things. If I ate steak all of my life but could not find the words to describe to someone else's satisfaction what steak tastes like, does that invalidate my having eaten it? There are intangible qualities I want in a President and I do not think he has them. He may have others that are all well and good, but the ones he lacks to me, the gut feeling I get from him, coupled with some concrete things, get in the way for me. I do not see him as my savior, I just do not. And I have many friends who are so Obamified that one is not even allowed to breathe a word against him, though they go to town on other's choices. I say, okay, you like him, I do not. When you go into the little booth in November, go for it! Vote for the one you want to see running your country. Totally your right and you should take it. I just wish our choices were better but I think I feel that every four years.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 4/13/2008 8:53:49 PM
Author: rainbowtrout


RE: some of the Jewish/Obama issues. We just had a talk on this at my temple last Fri. It''s a double bind, between the somewhat fraught legacy of Jews and the civil rights mov''t, and Obama''s, yes, not as hawkish stance on Israel as McCain or Clinton. One interesting thing said was this: the Jews have become very comfortable with the Protestant majority because it is a known quantity, and changing the status quo with an untried signifier like Obama is scary, especially when he comes smelling of ''Otherness'' (i.e. many still think he is Muslim).

So that is what I had put up, to expand on what I mean by "otherness" :

First of all, to restate slightly, that the very thing that can make Obama frightening to the community is precisely what also makes him appealing--that he is ''something different.'' When the status quo has been working reasonably well for a minority community, fear of something different in the government would proceed fairly organically out of that.

Second, the word "Other" here would come more out of the context of Obama''s international connections and the suspicion by many that he is Muslim, fits into that not only non-Jewish, but non-Western Orientalist idea of the ''Muslim other.'' The fact that none of this is based in face has very little relevance, Orientalism managed to get on just fine as a way of thinking about the Eastern Other for a nice 200 years with little basis in face.

I assume that since you''ve taken some African American studies classes you would be familiar with the Hottentot Venus? Same idea, except the contexts shift subtly going from the "negresse" of the Hottentott to the Arab Other. And I use that word in a very specific French 19th century context, so please do not take offense.

Now Obama is both black--and therefore carries the weight of those associations of Otherness from whiteness (once again from what you''ve said I''m assuming I don''t have to run down the list of deep seated associations in American culture, Jewish or otherwise), and his middle name is Hussein/he has these Kenyan/Muslim ties, thus giving him the burden of an Otherness from "the West" as well.



Anyway, that was what I was trying to get at in the above blurb.

 

[rainbowtrout]

.....and I wasn't trying to comment on the validity of the reason or lack therof, merely to explain the underlying causes as I saw them.

Of COURSE it's an illogical reason. People get by on those for centuries. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its own internal logic which it is important to understand. Sorry, before you edited your post I actually thought you were really asking what I thought.


If you don't UNDERSTAND why an irrational prejudice exists, how can you fight it? And there are better ways to approach it than with "your reason is ridiculous." That TENDS not to change any minds. Trust me, I didn't get very far with "your reason for saying my government is controlled by Jews is stupid" in the Middle East.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 4/16/2008 9:30:31 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 4/16/2008 11:28:05 AM

Author: ladypirate

Ooo! I want to play, I want to play! Jeopardy style:


What is torture?


I have no idea, but this sounds like something the neocons (or a teenager) would say.

Hah! All wrong! You all thought it was written by John Yoo, but NO!!!


In an article in the NYTimes on the obscene amounts being earned by top hedge fund managers....


'One manager, John Paulson, made $3.7 billion last year.....Even on Wall Street, where money is the ultimate measure of success, the size of the winnings makes some uneasy. (neck pain perhaps?? KR) “There is nothing wrong with it — it’s not illegal,” said William H. Gross, the chief investment officer of the bond fund Pimco. “But it’s ugly.”

The richest hedge fund managers keep getting richer — fast. To make it into the top 25 of Alpha’s list, the industry standard for hedge fund pay, a manager needed to earn at least $360 million last year, more than 18 times the amount in 2002. The median American family, by contrast, earned $60,500 last year.'


I couldn't help but think as I read this, and others like it in recent months about the rapidly growing disparity in earnings in the US, that this is just the kind of imbalance that got the French aristocracy relieved of their heads.


The article finished with another great line:


'And Mr. Gross, the fund manager, warned that the widening divide among the richest and everyone else is cause for worry.

“Like at the end of the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties, we are going the other way,” Mr. Gross said. “We are clearly in a period of excess, and we have to swing back to the middle or the center cannot hold.'

Aha! I was talking about John Ashcroft--"History will not judge this kindly."

Referring to:


/abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4583256&page=1" target="_blank">

ha HA!

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 3/23/2008 12:02:49 PM
Author: MoonWater
Thanks for the link coatimudi (love love your rings btw, every time I see your avatar I drool) but that still doesn''t tell me what about Obama worries Jewish people. I know this Farrakahn stuff is utterly annoying. He gets props in the black community because the Nation of Islam, in spite of some of it''s horrid beliefs, has reached out to help poor unfortunate, sometimes drug addicted African-Americans. It''s much like a cult in that way, praying on the less fortunate. But I''m a huge Malcolm X fan, I read his autobiography (and no the film doesn''t do it justice in the slightest) and as a result, I absolutely can not stand, dare I say, hate Farrakhan. I truly believe the man is responsible for Malcolm''s death. So it''s unfortunate that someone like Obama, who has shown nothing but inclusiveness throughout his life, has to be remotely associated with the guy.

As a point of interest, they do this in the Middle East as well, it is a principle method of building community support for, say, Hezbollah. My greater experience was with Al Qayda in the Islamic Maghreb though, for the record, not Hezbollah. One of the things I enjoy about Obama''s foreign policy is that he sees that we need more of this style of "soft sell" if we want our game back in the Middle East.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/16/2008 10:10:56 PM
Author: diamondfan
This is not a tit for tat contest.


And by the way, at the end of the day, I do NOT have to provide any evidence, if I amass my information and feel what I feel. And honestly, I think he is slick and a political machine and there is something about him that I do not trust or care for, though I believe he is a smart man. He talks in sound bites and catchy rhetoric and I find him to be unidimensional and lacking in depth. He presents well and has all the credentials on paper but something about him makes me wary. I feel he will say anything, back pedal to any length, to get in the White House, which is not a rare thing, but again, not something I find agreeable. And I have every right to my sense and to my inclinations. I do not have to find words to make it clear to anyone else. That is what an opinion means to me. I formed it, based on different information, and came up with a synthesis of things. If I ate steak all of my life but could not find the words to describe to someone else''s satisfaction what steak tastes like, does that invalidate my having eaten it? There are intangible qualities I want in a President and I do not think he has them. He may have others that are all well and good, but the ones he lacks to me, the gut feeling I get from him, coupled with some concrete things, get in the way for me. I do not see him as my savior, I just do not. And I have many friends who are so Obamified that one is not even allowed to breathe a word against him, though they go to town on other''s choices. I say, okay, you like him, I do not. When you go into the little booth in November, go for it! Vote for the one you want to see running your country. Totally your right and you should take it. I just wish our choices were better but I think I feel that every four years.

You, are, too, defensive.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/16/2008 10:15:20 PM
Author: rainbowtrout

Date: 4/13/2008 8:53:49 PM

Author: rainbowtrout



RE: some of the Jewish/Obama issues. We just had a talk on this at my temple last Fri. It''s a double bind, between the somewhat fraught legacy of Jews and the civil rights mov''t, and Obama''s, yes, not as hawkish stance on Israel as McCain or Clinton. One interesting thing said was this: the Jews have become very comfortable with the Protestant majority because it is a known quantity, and changing the status quo with an untried signifier like Obama is scary, especially when he comes smelling of ''Otherness'' (i.e. many still think he is Muslim).

So that is what I had put up, to expand on what I mean by ''otherness'' :


First of all, to restate slightly, that the very thing that can make Obama frightening to the community is precisely what also makes him appealing--that he is ''something different.'' When the status quo has been working reasonably well for a minority community, fear of something different in the government would proceed fairly organically out of that.


Second, the word ''Other'' here would come more out of the context of Obama''s international connections and the suspicion by many that he is Muslim, fits into that not only non-Jewish, but non-Western Orientalist idea of the ''Muslim other.'' The fact that none of this is based in face has very little relevance, Orientalism managed to get on just fine as a way of thinking about the Eastern Other for a nice 200 years with little basis in face.


I assume that since you''ve taken some African American studies classes you would be familiar with the Hottentot Venus? Same idea, except the contexts shift subtly going from the ''negresse'' of the Hottentott to the Arab Other. And I use that word in a very specific French 19th century context, so please do not take offense.


Now Obama is both black--and therefore carries the weight of those associations of Otherness from whiteness (once again from what you''ve said I''m assuming I don''t have to run down the list of deep seated associations in American culture, Jewish or otherwise), and his middle name is Hussein/he has these Kenyan/Muslim ties, thus giving him the burden of an Otherness from ''the West'' as well.




Anyway, that was what I was trying to get at in the above blurb.

I got what you were saying. My problem lies in the prejudice against the "other," the fear of what is different from yourself. Not one elected official I''ve been able to vote for shares my religion, but I don''t hold it against them. I manage to judge people by their actions. Like I said before, feel free to show me something concrete against him and I just may agree with you. (and obviously I''m not talking about you in particular, don''t want to get my head bit off).

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/16/2008 10:17:56 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
.....and I wasn't trying to comment on the validity of the reason or lack therof, merely to explain the underlying causes as I saw them.


Of COURSE it's an illogical reason. People get by on those for centuries. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its own internal logic which it is important to understand. Sorry, before you edited your post I actually thought you were really asking what I thought.



If you don't UNDERSTAND why an irrational prejudice exists, how can you fight it? And there are better ways to approach it than with 'your reason is ridiculous.' That TENDS not to change any minds. Trust me, I didn't get very far with 'your reason for saying my government is controlled by Jews is stupid' in the Middle East.

Oh but see, I was trying to understand the (irrational) reasons, it's just that you were the ONLY person to offer any reason at all. It won't change the fact that I think it's absolutely asinine and I won't refrain from saying so out of the fear of not being able to change a person's mind. What I will offer are facts which may contradict that irrational perspective in the hopes that those FACTS (not my opinion or belief in the ridiculousness of their belief) changes their mind instead. If it does not, oh well. I honestly don't care to do much beyond that on a message board.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 4/16/2008 9:49:43 PM
Author: rainbowtrout

Date: 4/16/2008 9:15:01 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 4/16/2008 6:12:33 PM

Author: rainbowtrout

Yes, I have to say I agree with Diamondfan on this one--while I myself enjoy Obama as a candidate, I do feel among my friends who are Obama supporters, and in discussions (such as this thread) that the Obama God Can Do No Wrong.


And that, my friends, is what we call a cult of personality. And we all know how dangerous that one is.

Ardent support for a candidate is a far cry from being a ''cult of personality''. There are many rabid Hillary supporters too, of my acquaintance. Does that make them whirly-eyed Moony-esque sycophants? I doubt it. And characterizing Obama supporters as such is more than a touch of hyperbole.


I DO think that too many people, when dealing in politics and elections, take sides, and because our society for some reason decries changing ones mind as ''waffling'', never reassess their ideas again.



A friend of mine - a dear person - but with whom I discuss not much substantive, since he doesn''t care much for things that require research, study, or self-awareness or reading, said snarkily and defensively to me after the Dems won back congress in 2006, ''Well, I guess that you''ve got control now, so well just see how YOU do.'' Number one I was taken aback because we don''t discuss my politics at all, and he knows little of where I stand on real issues, and two, I though what is this? Freakin'' football??


I personally don''t think Obama is god, but I do think he is not yet so entrenched in the political landscape, or so old as to have lost his idealism in the mud of Washington. He also doesn''t OWE as many people as Clinton, who is going to spend alot of time paying off debts to supporters. I support any candidate these days with a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism. It''s easy to promise, but hard to execute those promises. The difference is that McCain and Hillary have shown time and again that they have no idealism left. McCain has lobbyists as his top advisors and trots out WWII solutions in a world that has move far beyond such things, and Hillary is just flat out disingenuous all the time. I can stand to watch her about as much as I can stand to watch our current royal.


IMO, this once-great and once-respected country - is a country which has sold it''s soul, and laws, and privacy, and constitutional protections for the illusion of security, and I truly believe we do not have much time left to swing back before the changes become permanant and we have no chance of return.

I will repost what I said in a previous post:

The reason I support Obama is I see him as the ONLY candidate likely to restore the constitutional balances and actually hand BACK some of the powers that this administration has collected in its mission to create a unitary executive that is above the law. First and foremost to me is the health of the underpinnings of our form of government. The rest will follow as it will. Not that the economy or the war are to be ignored, but without the rule of law being upheld at the highest levels, what we do at the lower ones will be pretty irrelevant.

So, a disclaimer first. I LIVE with a political junkie who also happens to be a ardent Obama supporter. She goes to knock on doors in Philly, etc. So I have been rather steeped in living in a 1br apt with someone for whom Obama can do no wrong. (although I admire her political agency)

I actually do happen to BE an Obama supporter, but I still have reservations about him (for the record, they don''t really have to do with Israel, or Wright). I completely agree with MoonWater''s point that it''s inteeeeresting just how white preachers can get away with saying dirt about minorities MUCH more often that the other way around.

In discussions with, say, my roommate, and my other political junkie friends, yes, I have felt like there is a feeling that Obama HIMSELF is just so magically idealistic and wonderful that he can do no wrong. Specifically in this thread, when for example Fisher aired her disagreements, I felt that it was implicitly not ''OK'' for her not to agree with the prevailing opinion on the thread, which has subsequently become somewhat self-congratulatory (which I must say is one of the prime reasons ''they'' dislike ''us'' if we are going to talk about sides...)

And while I find your implicit critique that I did not in fact read the thread amusing (which has I believe been done to others who disagreed, not citing you specifically--and no, I do not have the time to go through right now and pull examples, I have to go translate Arabic poetry in about 5), yes, I also support Obama for the SAME REASON you do, I think he has a snowball''s shot in heck of returning, say, habeas corpus. Although my cynical side says that once given, power is rarely returned by those holding it. But at least it is explicitly ON his agenda.

RE: MoonWater&Israel--I had hoped that my blurb about Obama and his doubly marked ''otherness'' would help with your question of why some Jews are uncomfortable with Obama...guess not. For the record, my rabbi voted for him.

QUOTE: "And while I find your implicit critique that I did not in fact read the thread amusing (which has I believe been done to others who disagreed, not citing you specifically--and no, I do not have the time to go through right now and pull examples, I have to go translate Arabic poetry in about 5),

I''m glad you''re amused, but you see critique where none exists. If I''m going to critique you, I can assure you, it won''t be implicit. I assume nothing about how much of this thread you''ve read, and I honestly don''t know where you managed to pull that from, but if you feel I was making some veiled innuendo about how much of this thread you have or haven''t read, you are manufacturing it in your own head.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/16/2008 10:51:08 PM
Author: rainbowtrout

Date: 3/23/2008 12:02:49 PM

Author: MoonWater

Thanks for the link coatimudi (love love your rings btw, every time I see your avatar I drool) but that still doesn''t tell me what about Obama worries Jewish people. I know this Farrakahn stuff is utterly annoying. He gets props in the black community because the Nation of Islam, in spite of some of it''s horrid beliefs, has reached out to help poor unfortunate, sometimes drug addicted African-Americans. It''s much like a cult in that way, praying on the less fortunate. But I''m a huge Malcolm X fan, I read his autobiography (and no the film doesn''t do it justice in the slightest) and as a result, I absolutely can not stand, dare I say, hate Farrakhan. I truly believe the man is responsible for Malcolm''s death. So it''s unfortunate that someone like Obama, who has shown nothing but inclusiveness throughout his life, has to be remotely associated with the guy.

As a point of interest, they do this in the Middle East as well, it is a principle method of building community support for, say, Hezbollah. My greater experience was with Al Qayda in the Islamic Maghreb though, for the record, not Hezbollah. One of the things I enjoy about Obama''s foreign policy is that he sees that we need more of this style of ''soft sell'' if we want our game back in the Middle East.

Yeah it''s pretty gross. Scientologists do it as well. (ok, so all cults probably do this but I''ve read a lot about Scientology recently)

 

[ksinger]

And just for the record, I don''t see myself as on a "side". I don''t self-identify as "Hi there!!! I''m Karen and I''m a DEMOCRAT!!!. Heck you have to register as SOMETHING, or you can''t take part in the political process. I registered 27 years ago and haven''t changed it since. AND, unless I vote for McCain, (yechhh) my vote won''t count AT ALL. There is not a snowball''s chance in hell that a dem would win here, so even stating who I support is pretty pointless. I''m pretty worn out from it all at the moment, and am seriously considering sitting this one out, if the truth be known. We shall see....

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 4/16/2008 10:10:56 PM
Author: diamondfan
This is not a tit for tat contest.

And by the way, at the end of the day, I do NOT have to provide any evidence, if I amass my information and feel what I feel. And honestly, I think he is slick and a political machine and there is something about him that I do not trust or care for, though I believe he is a smart man. He talks in sound bites and catchy rhetoric and I find him to be unidimensional and lacking in depth. He presents well and has all the credentials on paper but something about him makes me wary. I feel he will say anything, back pedal to any length, to get in the White House, which is not a rare thing, but again, not something I find agreeable.

Diamondfan, Tom Sowell agrees with you:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell041508.php3

 

[diamondfan]

Jennifer, thanks! Great piece.

We had the debates here in Philly last night. Consensus is he did not fare too well. Defensive was the word our paper used over and over. He had insulted a huge group of people in the state here earlier this month and people did NOT like it. He spoke of "bitter small town residents in the state (PA) who cling to religion and guns because of their economic frustration". Again when pushed, even though his words were pretty clear, he claimed he mangled his words, was misunderstood and did not intend to demean them.

She has a lead her in the state and despite his views to the contrary (he stated PA did not really matter in the scheme of things) we have had influence in the past. So it remains to be seen til November, but I think his slickly constructed facade is crumbling just a bit under the pressure of the election process. I can only say I think it will tend to get worse before November, not better.

 

[MoonWater]

I think one of Obama's greatest mistakes is over estimating the intelligence of the American public. People are so quick to be on the defensive that they can't pause and actually understand what his point was. Mischosen words or not, he was correct in his assessment. What makes this more annoying is the extent to which Hillary has gone after him over the "bitter" statements when her husband said similiar things in 1991. Further...I really need to get the quote attributed to her that my FF just read to me last nite. Yeah, she's really for those working class folks. Oh, and I'm sure if Obama said what Bill said, everyone would be calling him a racist lol...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It

 

[MoonWater]

Didn''t need to wait for FF, I found it: Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw ''Em"

I''ve read a lot about the Clintons and their actions over the years and it is more than a little obvious that their only goal is to gain power and money. I find it odd, in light of the constant contradictions in their actions vs. their words, that people still believe them. I mean it''s all out there for the public to read if they choose to. They will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, triangulate their way into any position they choose. They won''t hesitate to use any minority group to help them do it either. Whether it be the Blacks, the Hispanics, or the Jews (and now it''s the poor Whites). It''s disgusting.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 4/17/2008 11:25:25 AM
Author: MoonWater
I think one of Obama's greatest mistakes is over estimating the intelligence of the American public. People are so quick to be on the defensive that they can't pause and actually understand what his point was. Mischosen words or not, he was correct in his assessment. What makes this more annoying is the extent to which Hillary has gone after him over the 'bitter' statements when her husband said similiar things in 1991. Further...I really need to get the quote attributed to her that my FF just read to me last nite. Yeah, she's really for those working class folks. Oh, and I'm sure if Obama said what Bill said, everyone would be calling him a racist lol...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html


Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It

Agreed!

Thanks for posting those links Moon.

And whatup with George Stephanopoulos being a moderator when he served on the Clinton/Gore campaign??? Bias much?

I haven't even been a fan of Obama, but this absurdity makes me seethe.

Clinton is pulling pages out of the Republican strategy playbook.

The media is doing a fabulous job of making sure the candidates don't talk about what really matters in this election.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 4/17/2008 11:25:25 AM
Author: MoonWater
I think one of Obama''s greatest mistakes is over estimating the intelligence of the American public. People are so quick to be on the defensive that they can''t pause and actually understand what his point was. Mischosen words or not, he was correct in his assessment. What makes this more annoying is the extent to which Hillary has gone after him over the ''bitter'' statements when her husband said similiar things in 1991. Further...I really need to get the quote attributed to her that my FF just read to me last nite. Yeah, she''s really for those working class folks. Oh, and I''m sure if Obama said what Bill said, everyone would be calling him a racist lol...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It

And as if by MAGIC! POOF! An article related to this very thing...sorta. Interesting nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html?em&ex=1208577600&en=40babad0d05af188&ei=5087%0A

And bottom line, NONE of the candidates is "common". (Obama is probably closest, but as a senator he''s already in running in quite elite circles) When is the last time Clinton lived in anything other than a mansion?? And isn''t McCain married to an heiress??
Quite frankly I don''t WANT to be able to imagine having a beer or tossing back shots with ANY of them. That isn''t my litmus test for a leader of a nation. Like John Stewart, I want that leader to be "embarrassingly smarter than I am". I''ve already HAD one quite a bit dumber, although admittedly with better connections.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I found this to be a good article (d**$% long primary season):
NYTIMES, David Brooks OP-ED April 18.



Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

 

[diamondfan]

I felt like his stuff was smoke and mirrors to an extant.

I do not love her either, she has lied but does own it, and she just seems more real. Again, not a huge Clinton fan at present but still, that is my feeling.

While the debate might not have been done well and the moderators and their questions can be found lacking, I still think he dances around the issues and never really addresses things. His voting record will be brought out. Then he has to explain that stuff.

 

[MoonWater]

Weird, the Clintons aren't known for owning up to their lies. In fact, this Bosnia thing was the first I'd ever saw of it. Usually when they get backed into a corner over one of their lies, they tend to say things such as..."It depends on what the definition of is, is."

What's more disturbing to me about Hillary is her willingness to use anything in the Republican play book to attack Obama. She compared him to Karl Rove and Ken Starr, it appears she was projecting a little too much. (note: Dick Morris used Rove tactics before Rove used Rove tactics, and it was Hillary who was responsible for hiring him during Bill's presidency. That tells you a little about how this woman works). One would think she'd have enough substantive info so that she wouldn't need to attack in this fashion. This is the same woman who whined about the "vast right wing conspiracy" after all. Funny how it turned out, there was no vast right wing conspiracy, Bill's accusers were legit!

Worser still is that she has so little scruples that she was willing to be interviewed by Richard Mellon Scaife, the millionaire behind accusing the Clintons of such things as MURDER for crying out loud. Feel free to read: Hillary's Rev. Wright His name is Richard Mellon Scaife. I'll be happy to dig up the other articles I read on this, including the actual interview. I felt like I was witnessing what it must be like to sell your soul to the devil.

The Clintons scare me more than McCain can because they will flip at a moments notice in order to serve their own ends. A friend today can be an enemy tomorrow, an enemy today can be a friend tomorrow. It just depends on what you can do for them. Their secrecy worries me too. I would love for them to provide a list of donors to the Clinton library and let us know how Bill makes his money. I'll keep holding my breath.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/17/2008 2:41:21 PM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 4/17/2008 11:25:25 AM

Author: MoonWater

I think one of Obama''s greatest mistakes is over estimating the intelligence of the American public. People are so quick to be on the defensive that they can''t pause and actually understand what his point was. Mischosen words or not, he was correct in his assessment. What makes this more annoying is the extent to which Hillary has gone after him over the ''bitter'' statements when her husband said similiar things in 1991. Further...I really need to get the quote attributed to her that my FF just read to me last nite. Yeah, she''s really for those working class folks. Oh, and I''m sure if Obama said what Bill said, everyone would be calling him a racist lol...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html



Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It

Agreed!


Thanks for posting those links Moon.


And whatup with George Stephanopoulos being a moderator when he served on the Clinton/Gore campaign??? Bias much?


I haven''t even been a fan of Obama, but this absurdity makes me seethe.


Clinton is pulling pages out of the Republican strategy playbook.


The media is doing a fabulous job of making sure the candidates don''t talk about what really matters in this election.

Biased? Naaah lol. Again, I think Obama overestimates the American public. What a pity....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/et-tu-abc_b_97229.html

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/18/2008 1:34:10 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
I found this to be a good article (d**$% long primary season):

NYTIMES, David Brooks OP-ED April 18.


A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.


Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

Is this guy living under a rock? Hillary had a substantial lead on Obama from the very beginning and most recently in PA, it has been dwindling in spite of the crap being thrown at him. So, I wouldn't say she has "ground him down" lol, wtf? Also, once the Republicans found out that their greatest threat was Hillary Clinton (this is before Obama took off) they were wetting their pants in excitement. They even have a movie completely against her which they are ready to release. It would be a piece of cake for them to win against her, even she knows that (whether she wants to let on or not). There is no way that Hillary could EVER win the general election. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" would come out of the wood work and remind the United States of all the things that were wrong with the Clinton Administration and the Clintons in general. But hey, maybe Bill and Hill have some deep dark secret about McCain they're holding on to. Maybe he has another black baby hidden some where, lol. There is a reason that right-wing radio and tv are going so hard after Obama over his possible guilt by association connections. They keep saying things like, "well, we don't know what it means. I mean, we don't know what he did, blah blah" over and over every single day in order to get people to believe there is something more to it. They want Hillary to win so they can go up against her. Btw, here's Obama's connection to Bill Ayers laid out: Fact Check: Obama and Former Radical. Frankly I think Hillary is in cahoots with the Republicans to destroy Obama. She has a, "if I can't win, no one can" mentality that she's displaying.

 

[ksinger]

Moon, if you''re not familiar with him, Brooks is (was) the NYTimes most conservative opinionator. Now that Bill Kristol is part of the staff, he''s lost that honor, but still, he''s pretty far to the right. I read him regularly, and rarely agree. His writing seems circular and shallow to me, whether he''s doing politics or society. More so on social issues I think.... Anyway, he was quite hawkish on the war for a long time. But like most of the rats, he was forced to leave the sinking ship, pretty much after it was almost under. He hung on a long time. I don''t recall exactly when he cried uncle, but he did come out and admit he was wrong about the war in one piece quite awhile back.

 

[rainbowtrout]

So, you can't really have it both ways. Either Hillary is no threat to Obama or she IS wearing him down. In my opinion, this long primary season, with her pulling tactics from the Republicans on him, is bad for the party, bad for Obama, and bad for the country. If she had ANY sense of party loyalty (or dare I say patriotism) she would have bowed out gracefully when it became painfully apparent that the people where not behind her in terms of delegate count.

I think this article demonstrates the way in which her behavior has robbed Obama of the period in which he could have put that "magic time" to use in campaigning against a REPUBLICAN istead of the Clintons. He IS starting to lose some of his shine, and he is starting to look more like a campaigner with his promises re: Iraq and taxes. One of my few critiques of Obama, in fact, has always been his poor performance in debates such as the article describes, and in my opinion he tends to come off as stumbling and poor spoken (esp. when contrasted with his AMAZING oratorical skills)--he won't always have time to write a great speech before talking to a foreign dignitary! OTOH, he is better at it than McCain, so we'll be okay if he makes it to the general.

ETA: fwiw, I have actually watched about five of the debates full-length.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/19/2008 11:21:31 AM
Author: ksinger
Moon, if you're not familiar with him, Brooks is (was) the NYTimes most conservative opinionator. Now that Bill Kristol is part of the staff, he's lost that honor, but still, he's pretty far to the right. I read him regularly, and rarely agree. His writing seems circular and shallow to me, whether he's doing politics or society. More so on social issues I think.... Anyway, he was quite hawkish on the war for a long time. But like most of the rats, he was forced to leave the sinking ship, pretty much after it was almost under. He hung on a long time. I don't recall exactly when he cried uncle, but he did come out and admit he was wrong about the war in one piece quite awhile back.

Ok, that makes sense. I just found it odd considering Hillary's favorable rating is lower while her negatives are higher (52% of the country don't like her).

Re: rainbowtrout

So, you can't really have it both ways. Either Hillary is no threat to Obama or she IS wearing him down.

There is no need to have it both ways. It's not Hillary that's wearing him down, it's the Republicans. Hillary just jumps on the bandwagon. Her only arguments against him was his "inexperience" and that what he said was "just words." Neither worked. She has only been successful with tainting the Clinton legacy. Both her and Bill have looked more and more foolish as time goes on. For instance, after the last debate, she went on about how Obama complaining that the debate was hard (never even saw that lol) and then Bill said that when everyone was attacking Hillary, he didn't see her complain. I mean, how short do they think our memories are? In one debate Hillary stopped it to complain about getting the first question and made a reference to an SNL skit which implied that she getting hit harder than Obama. THAT'S whining. These people are so hypocritical its astounding.

In regard to losing the "magic time" I don't agree. All of this stuff would have come out eventually and I think it's best that it comes out now than in the general election. Assuming Obama wins the Dem nomination, he will have been vetted enough so that he can go on the offensive in regards to these lame attacks, rather than the defense. The Republicans are scared, that's why they're working so hard to get him out now.

ETA: I think preparing for a meeting with a foreign nation is much different than preparing for a debate. Most especially a debate that is being used to attack you as a person with frivolous crap. The man seems to be extremely intelligent and quite honest for a politician. As I said before, his greatest weakness is overestimating the intelligence of the American public. He has to immediately craft the best response that can be truthful without hurting the fragile egos of the listeners. When it comes to the things like guilt by association, how does one handle it? I mean, personally, me not being a politician, I'd be more then a little inclined to call the person asking the question an absolute moron. Having seen many of the debates, I do think he was quite weak in the beginning but he has improved significantly. Debating is a skill that needs to be honed, just because Clinton is better at it doesn't mean she's better for the country (and frankly her responses are so good at avoiding the actual question I'm not sure how she's better beyond having that prepared response to throw out no matter the question).

 

[ksinger]

Well, I''m going to have to say I was at least partially wrong. Brooks didn''t hang on as long as I "recalled" (getting old sucks). By the date, I''d say he was one of the EARLY rats off the ship. He ate crow on April 17, 2004 in a piece called "A More Humble Hawk".

But he WAS a hawk. And he IS pretty conservative. Now Kristol? Holy crap, he''s just scary. He publishes The Weekly Standard, and shows up from time to time to spar with John Stewart.

 

[Linda W]

I know this isn''t the correct thread, so forgive me please, but.....

WIDGET, WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOU!!!!! We miss you in the colored stone thread. Any new treasures???

Linda