Brando70 wrote:
It was aired and it didn't matter. If it did, Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in. There's no conspiracy to keep this hidden.
I agree there's no conspiracy. I disagree that it was aired and didn't matter.
It hurt him badly in the Spring, but he has rebounded. Then again he may have rebounded because the issue has been totally off of the media buffet since the Spring. That's another reason that the McCain campaign should really include Wright when discussing Obama's lack of judgment where Ayeres is concerned. His Mexican hat dance around the idea that he ever heard any of Wrights' stemwinders is another data point in the argument that Obama's truthfullness is not what it should be as well.
The need to argue that having wackos like Wright, Pflager, Ayers & Doern in one's background is way over the Average Allowable Nutjob Quota...excluding family, of course. There's nothing that any of us can do about that
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Teal wrote:I think there's something else to consider. Many are enamored with Obama for reasons that have little to do with his policies, his plans, his past, all that. He's young, he's energetic, he's well spoken (with a teleprompter, anyway I kid, he didn't stutter too much in the debate the other night), and, to quote Biden, he's 'articulate and clean'.
With him being in the lead either by a good margin or barely, depending upon whose polls you want to believe (I don't put much stock in any of them, really), people are going to start taking a closer look at the candidate, and not just the speaker. And when you dive beneath the surface...there's just not much there. And what IS there is dubious at best, while some of it is troubling. He's very liberal, and we've not elected an out-and-out left wing liberal, since Jimmy Carter. Clinton won as a centrist, and governed as a little of both.
Again, you're giving the American electorate way too much credit. I think there's just as large of a chance that an undecided white guy will not pull the lever for Obama because he's black as there is because he's too liberal.
Plus, if people haven't looked beyond Obama's rock star status in the first 14 months of his campaign, I find it highly unlikely that they will in the next 3 1/2 weeks.
I think the primaries give Americans a more up-close, unvarnished look at candidates than presidential campaigns. Candidates must really show the distinctions between themselves and those with very similar ideologies in the primaries, and that's a lot tougher to do than to draw a distinction from someone who is in the opposing party.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Teal wrote:Abso-f*cking-lutely, it should be brought up, addressed, and highlighted. If McCain had been a member of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" church for 20 years, it'd have been front page news every stinking day. You know it. And his politically-convenient 'disavowal' of Phelps' views wouldn't have mattered one bit, if that had happened.
Too much swept under the rug.
How can something be swept under the rug when it was all that was talked about for a month or two? It was aired and it didn't matter. If it did, Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in. There's no conspiracy to keep this hidden.
Who said it didn't matter? It's always mattered. What made it 'not matter' was the blowhards disguised as serious journalists saying 'this is much ado about nothing', just because Obama said so. Tell me I'm wrong about the comparison vs. McCain having a 20 year membership in a white church like that. Tell me. You won't be able to do it...with any credibility.
For people who aren't in protestant churches that often, let me illuminate you: People who spend 20 years under the leadership of a pastor absolutely adopt the worldviews of that pastor, or they see it for what it is, and leave very soon into it. He didn't. He's been indoctrinated, and marinated in that SOB's sick bloviating for 20 frickin' years. It makes a whole damn world of difference.
Teal wrote:I think there's something else to consider. Many are enamored with Obama for reasons that have little to do with his policies, his plans, his past, all that. He's young, he's energetic, he's well spoken (with a teleprompter, anyway I kid, he didn't stutter too much in the debate the other night), and, to quote Biden, he's 'articulate and clean'.
With him being in the lead either by a good margin or barely, depending upon whose polls you want to believe (I don't put much stock in any of them, really), people are going to start taking a closer look at the candidate, and not just the speaker. And when you dive beneath the surface...there's just not much there. And what IS there is dubious at best, while some of it is troubling. He's very liberal, and we've not elected an out-and-out left wing liberal, since Jimmy Carter. Clinton won as a centrist, and governed as a little of both.
Again, you're giving the American electorate way too much credit. I think there's just as large of a chance that an undecided white guy will not pull the lever for Obama because he's black as there is because he's too liberal.
Plus, if people haven't looked beyond Obama's rock star status in the first 14 months of his campaign, I find it highly unlikely that they will in the next 3 1/2 weeks.
I think the primaries give Americans a more up-close, unvarnished look at candidates than presidential campaigns. Candidates must really show the distinctions between themselves and those with very similar ideologies in the primaries, and that's a lot tougher to do than to draw a distinction from someone who is in the opposing party.
Take care,
PK
I agree, I might be giving too much credit. But to set up an Obama fall to racism is giving them too little credit.
Never discount the fickle nature of the American public. We can't even stand for our shows to be interrupted for a 10 minute speech to the nation from the president...
"Whaddya mean, Gary Unmarried's not on?! Who? Obama?! How dare he interrupt my show!"
Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?
Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.
How is this any different than McCain's comments? McCain could just as easily come out after this and said "How can you be confident in this economy? The market is dropping, people are losing their homes.".
McCain was talking about the American worker and our ability to produce. Obama took the comment out of context. The exact same thing can be done with the statement above.
There is a difference. Obama is talking about the future, when he mentions he is confident in the economy. McCain was talking about the present, in saying the economy IS fundamentally sound. If you can't see that difference, then I don't know what else to say. True, you can spin something any way you like, but we both know these remarks were not the "same thing" as you claim. The only similarity is that they both had the word "economy" in there. Nice try though.
True, they are not "exactly" the same. But just as McCain's comments were twisted out of context, so could this. That was my point.
McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong", not "Our economy is strong". If you can't see that difference you're in denial.
I did some more digging into the ACORN stuff, thought this was interesting even though it's old news now. Apparently an ACORN front group suddenly expanded the company's mission to "staging, sound, and lighting." Or not.
Teal wrote:
Jack, do you have a source to cite for that last sentence? Believe me, I'd be happy to give the turd to Obama, but where did you hear that it is in the Bailout bill?
It was on the TV broadcast last night. I will look for more details and....
"I'll Bring Em To Ya"
The point was that McCain went out of his way to say that this brilliant new proposal was all his and it's just not so. Just like he likes to take credit for initiating discussion against Fanny & Freddy, when he just hopped on board someone else's idea. Fact: McCain's warning came more than a year after legislation was introduced. He was not the sponsor and the bill failed to pass.
Actually, you missed the change in talking points. At first, the message was, like you said, that the idea was "nothing new"--that Obama had proposed something similar. The next day, it had changed to "this is a bad idea!"
Obama, in His mercy, has decided to forgive you for your transgression. Just don't do it again, or it's under the bus with you.
Never discount the fickle nature of the American public. We can't even stand for our shows to be interrupted for a 10 minute speech to the nation from the president...
"Whaddya mean, Gary Unmarried's not on?! Who? Obama?! How dare he interrupt my show!"
I think it's a very smart move. It will get him national air time and get his message into all the battleground states at the same time, where it needs to go. If he's got the money to spend on advert., then why not? McCain will probably follow suit.
greggsand wrote:
Exactly, anyone wondering about racism in America, feel free to frequent any town in Randolph County, IL (where I was raised). Sad but true.
Or the near eastside of Detroit where I was raised. Now if your white,you better be wearing a postal uniform or driving a car with a Dominos light on the roof, otherwise your f*cked. Racism is practiced by everyone. The "Bradley effect" will be trumped by the "White Guilt effect".
Teal wrote:
Jack, do you have a source to cite for that last sentence? Believe me, I'd be happy to give the turd to Obama, but where did you hear that it is in the Bailout bill?
It was on the TV broadcast last night. I will look for more details and....
"I'll Bring Em To Ya"
The point was that McCain went out of his way to say that this brilliant new proposal was all his and it's just not so. Just like he likes to take credit for initiating discussion against Fanny & Freddy, when he just hopped on board someone else's idea. Fact: McCain's warning came more than a year after legislation was introduced. He was not the sponsor and the bill failed to pass.
Actually, you missed the change in talking points. At first, the message was, like you said, that the idea was "nothing new"--that Obama had proposed something similar. The next day, it had changed to "this is a bad idea!"
Obama, in His mercy, has decided to forgive you for your transgression. Just don't do it again, or it's under the bus with you.
MY point was not if it was a good or bad idea...just that it wasn't his idea alone, as McCain so proudly claimed.
Pretty timely comment and discussion about the knuckledraggers, given this piece from one of CNN's stories today:
"At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.
One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.
"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.
McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet."
Teal wrote:
Abso-f*cking-lutely, it should be brought up, addressed, and highlighted. If McCain had been a member of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" church for 20 years, it'd have been front page news every stinking day. You know it. And his politically-convenient 'disavowal' of Phelps' views wouldn't have mattered one bit, if that had happened.
Too much swept under the rug.
This picture hangs in Obama's Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand office.
JackDog wrote:
Jeremiah Wright is the ultimate kunckledragger.
Racist!
I'm like Chris Rock. I hate me some (Fill in the blank).
You know. if I didn't know PK so well I would have swore his "kunckledragger" statement was aimed at Republicans. If true,his wife would cut his ass off for that one. I am calling her!!
I ain't voting for Obama because of his policies. I know many in my race that have no idea what his policies are but will vote for him because of his race. What do we call them?
This guy nails down the points that made my wife and I black conservitives years ago. He also nails down the reason we are not voting for Obama. If ya got 9 mins to spare,take a look and listen.
Never discount the fickle nature of the American public. We can't even stand for our shows to be interrupted for a 10 minute speech to the nation from the president...
"Whaddya mean, Gary Unmarried's not on?! Who? Obama?! How dare he interrupt my show!"
I think it's a very smart move. It will get him national air time and get his message into all the battleground states at the same time, where it needs to go. If he's got the money to spend on advert., then why not? McCain will probably follow suit.
Maybe, but the McCain camp doesn't have nearly the jack (no pun intended) of the Obama camp.
Teal wrote:
Abso-f*cking-lutely, it should be brought up, addressed, and highlighted. If McCain had been a member of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" church for 20 years, it'd have been front page news every stinking day. You know it. And his politically-convenient 'disavowal' of Phelps' views wouldn't have mattered one bit, if that had happened.
Too much swept under the rug.
This picture hangs in Obama's Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand office.
matthewk wrote:Well, since you're too lazy to finish what you started...
There have been too many unnecessary comments like this in the thread the last day or so. DEFCON level is now 2. If anyone is not acting respectfully to other posters (e.g., unnecessary comments like above), 24-hour temp ban.
matthewk wrote:Well, since you're too lazy to finish what you started...
There have been too many unnecessary comments like this in the thread the last day or so. DEFCON level is now 2. If anyone is not acting respectfully to other posters (e.g., unnecessary comments like above), 24-hour temp ban.
Brando70 wrote:
It was aired and it didn't matter. If it did, Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in. There's no conspiracy to keep this hidden.
I agree there's no conspiracy. I disagree that it was aired and didn't matter.
It hurt him badly in the Spring, but he has rebounded. Then again he may have rebounded because the issue has been totally off of the media buffet since the Spring.
I didn't explain myself very well. Wright had an impact, but not enough to derail Obama's campaign.
I don't think extended media coverage would necessarily change that. It's not like the media has those Men in Black wands that cause people to forget stuff like the Reverend Wright scandal. White people especially don't forget angry black men talking about whitey
The thing is, I don't think that changed pro-Obama opinion, because we don't see Wright in Obama. The same applies to Ayers. It's not that I condone Wright's views or what Ayers did. But I don't see those elements in Obama's actions or voting record. If I did, I wouldn't vote for him.
I kid, he didn't stutter too much in the debate the other night), and, to quote Biden, he's 'articulate and clean'.
