OT: 2008 Elections

[TheHiddenTrack]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

It shows that we don't want a country that favors more government intervention (federalized healthcare, childcare, nursing home care, additional regulation, higher taxes, etc.) in our lives?

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I'm also getting sick of people who view politics like a sports game, which virtually stops any decent conversation when it comes to complex issues.

[Jared]

The quote I came up with was from his original statement on the issue...he may have made other statements, but I haven't heard them.

There have also been people who have come forward and stated that they were there during similar speeches, and that Obama was in attendance.

I don't think that is the case. This was reported in a column by William Kristol in the NY Times. However, the column cited a Newsmax article that was completely wrong (Obama was in Miami the day of the sermon in question), and the Times had to print a correction.

[Naples39]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

I agree with PK that this was a great speech that showed why Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, but this uproar was NOT about religion. It was about the political views expressed in a church. Criticizing Israel or calling this country US-KKK-A has nothing to do with God or faith.

Oh, I didn't realize that Obama said those things, I thought it was his pastor. Thanks for the correction, I now understand the uproar. I can't believe Obama made it so far spewing hate speech left and right.

Wow. Nice change of topic. If you're gonna respond to my post, you could at least, you know, actually respond to what I said instead of changing the subject and disputing something I didn't even say. Maybe you could point out the part of my post where I said Obama said those things?

[TheHiddenTrack]

I agree with PK that this was a great speech that showed why Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, but this uproar was NOT about religion. It was about the political views expressed in a church. Criticizing Israel or calling this country US-KKK-A has nothing to do with God or faith.

Oh, I didn't realize that Obama said those things, I thought it was his pastor. Thanks for the correction, I now understand the uproar. I can't believe Obama made it so far spewing hate speech left and right.

Wow. Nice change of topic. If you're gonna respond to my post, you could at least, you know, actually respond to what I said instead of changing the subject and disputing something I didn't even say. Maybe you could point out the part of my post where I said Obama said those things?

My point is that the uproar was created by remarks by a pastor in a church. Sure, his comments were political (also comments used in the context of a religious speech) but they came on a Sunday in a church. That's a religious service that shouldn't be used in a political way to go after a candidate. And in churches, where the people have historically been oppressed, church has been fundamentally mixed with politics in order to create change and give hope in the face of that oppression. So in my opinion this is uproar is still attached to religion, and still goes under the heading "religious lunacy" and "religion mixing with politics." Negating that context shows and ignorance that's at the heart of this controversy.

And what I meant by my previous comment was this controversy has nothing to do directly with Obama. Nothing he has said would lead anyone to believe he thinks any of the things that has created an uproar. The uproar has been created by video clips of his pastor preaching at a church (lunacy involving a pastor, shocking). My main point is that there shouldn't be any political condemnation for attending a church in this country, so this is still a religion issue. If attending a church has effected a candidate in a negative way than it should be obvious to anyone through that politicians words and actions.

[fsquid]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

[JRod]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

Or 3) white america wants to see him as these one of these two things?

[matthewk]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

Or 3) white america wants to see him as these one of these two things?

[matthewk]

I don't think that is the case. This was reported in a column by William Kristol in the NY Times. However, the column cited a Newsmax article that was completely wrong (Obama was in Miami the day of the sermon in question), and the Times had to print a correction.

I wasn't going off any particlar article. This was sometihng being discussed on the radio. What I heard wasn't a case of him being at that exact sermon, but rather being in attendance during sermons that were similar to that in terms of hate speech.

Update:
Apparently hisattendance is still up for debate. According to this artice: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/ ... x?id=72267

"Newsmax freelance writer Jim Davis reported August 9 that he watched Obama listen, nodding in agreement, to Wright's "United States of White America" sermon, apparently delivered during a 7:30 a.m. service on Sunday, July 22, 2007, in Chicago. Obama's campaign hotly denies the charge, providing as evidence a videotape of Obama delivering a speech that day in Miami at 1:30 p.m. The campaign admits that the senator was in Chicago during the morning of July 22, but denies that Obama attended church services."

[matthewk]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

I think it's the former. I do not think he is some closet radical black panther. A lot of what he said in his speech is true. However, he is running for the Presidency. This requires action as well as words, and so far his actions concern me. I do not trust his ability to lead our country once it requires more than just prepared speeches.

[fsquid]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

I think it's the former. I do not think he is some closet radical black panther. A lot of what he said in his speech is true. However, he is running for the Presidency. This requires action as well as words, and so far his actions concern me. I do not trust his ability to lead our country once it requires more than just prepared speeches.

I agree, plus his voting record is scary to me.

[Slumberland]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

Or, he sees people as more than the sum of their most outrageous statements, and doesn't feel compelled to jettison them for political expediency. There is the possibility that the good works that Obama ascribes to Wright might just be true, and that weighing the actual societal contributions of a man like Wright, who falls prey to hate but may act with love, and say, Sean Hannity, whose words are unfailingly patriotic but may do just as much to drive wedges and foster division, is a complex question. This may not be the case, but I think the speech he gave yesterday warrants better than the either/or choice you presented.

[matthewk]

Or, he sees people as more than the sum of their most outrageous statements

NOT. He called for Imus' firing back when he made his stupid comment. Imus was know to do a lot of charity work, but that didn't seem to matter in his case.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/18 ... us-firing/

[webdanzer]

Dem infighting starting to boost McCain?

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 22&sp=true

[Slumberland]

I read that link, Matthew...

“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview."

Oof!

In any case, I like the national conversation Obama was trying to encourage yesterday. Calls for resignation (i.e. Geraldine F.) do set some kind of tone for what appropo in the national discourse, but it all seems very "sweep it under the rug". Like you have to march towards public office with some perfect pod of people that hold no prejudices, and disavow any contact with anyone who might. I don't mind McCain's embracing of the Hagee endorsement so much as his unwillingness to acknowledge that there's anything problematic with Hagee's former statements. Maybe he does in private, maybe he doesn't care, or maybe he figures why worry about it until the media decides to train their fickle eye upon it.

[wco81]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

I think it's the former. I do not think he is some closet radical black panther. A lot of what he said in his speech is true. However, he is running for the Presidency. This requires action as well as words, and so far his actions concern me. I do not trust his ability to lead our country once it requires more than just prepared speeches.

I agree, plus his voting record is scary to me.

Some people are going to be predisposed to oppose him because of his politics, which is their prerogative.

This uproar gives those people an alibi.

Nothing he says or does during the campaign was going to change their minds.

[fsquid]

He didn't propose anything. He just made an "everyone is a victim" speech that is common with the left.

Look at his speech. Everyone is a victim. Minorities are victims of ingrained racism or prejudice. Oh really? Care to explain Condoleeza Rice? What about Clarence Thomas? Barack himself? I know many successful minorities. None that I know believe that this nation has tried to incessantly hold them back. Obama goes further and says the white people are victims, too. Whites are victims that they are found guilty for the sins of their forebearers. Great! More victims. And who can save us? Obama and the government?

You fail to understand and grasp what this speech was about. Tell me how you are going to fix racism with legislation. We have very few instances in this country our institutionalized racism. Those are so minor that they play a small part in American life.

Social issues are fought with social rhetoric to move the country forward in a progressive manner. In the 60s we could pass legislation to allow blacks to vote, or desegregate schools. Today the problems of race are socio-economic factors and not clear cut laws that are designed to keep a sector of the population as second-class citizens.

Here's why this speech was important.

- He silences the black anger crowd that just want to "get back" at white for centuries of discrimination. This is the answer to many blacks that felt, he wasn't black enough, or that felt is was apologetic to whites. He says this isn't productive and doesn't get african americans anywhere.

- He addresses misplaced white (subsequent immigrant groups) anger at minorities. Why is there such an outcry towards immigration and in the 60s towards blacks. Some it was white America losing jobs or feeling threatened and instead of looking at the corporations, they blame (continue to blame) those that will work for less.

- He explained what was wright's influence on him. He also answers in a way that distances himself from hateful racist remarks but illuminates why there so many blacks are disenfranchised. I think he does so in a manner that shows white america what black america feels, without blaming white america.

- He also tells african americans to take responsibility and that being the victim isn't going to help other blacks. He address the problems in black america, of fatherless children.

- In the final part of his speech, he address the socio-economic problems and challenges white america to look at why some african-americans are stuck in a cycle of despair.

- He tries to turn into MLK at the end of the speech but doesn't pull that off. Probably the worst part of the speech.


Look this speech wasn't a policy speech but a response speech. He know failure to do sure would turn the tide towards Clinton. These are the types of speech that shape policy. These are the types of speeches that raise to a national level, the importance of education and black responsibility. He does it a manner that doesn't blame or play victim, in essence, he's saying look there are problems of race and either we can fix them or play the blame game.

The more I read the speech the more important it appears to be. He doesn't just look like a candidate, he looks like a leader.

Sorry Jrod, I didn't see this one.

I think we all understand it wasn't a policy speech. Further, there were good parts to it. I just don't think the speech, as a whole was particularly good. In the end, he basically lays the blame for racial tensions at the feet of corporations, Washington insiders, and political lobbyists. Oh, really? The typical liberal boogeymen are still to blame. Further, he effectively states that everyone is a victim. Oh, really? Is he a victim? Why is it that many on the political left point the finger at others to blame them for their problems. I was always taught two things. One, when you point a finger at someone else, your are pointing three others at yourself. Two, placing blame isn't constructive. Dealing with the problem is. What in his speech, or any of his speeches, attempts to get at the underlying problems in American society (which can loosely be called a lack of personal responsibility)? Nothing.

You claim he distances himself from Wright. Clearly he did this week. What about the nearly 1,040 he sat in a pew and listened to the racial garbage preached by Wright. Look, to me if someone is important in your life, then you owe it to them to explain your differences, you may not be able to change their viewpoint, but you shouldn't hide your differences. When, until this week, did Obama do this?

Finally, why should he only focus on the black issue. Let's face reality here, American history is rife with travesties to all minorities. Look at American Indian history, the history of American women, the history of American Asians. Blacks do not have the sole claim to being screwed in American history, nor is theirs necessarily the most egregious (arguably, that belongs to the American Indians).

[pk500]

Dem infighting starting to boost McCain?

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 22&sp=true

I've been making this point since Super Tuesday -- this primary fratricide will kill the Democrats. Get used to seeing a lot of McCain -- he's going to be the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. from at least 2009-2013.

People can say all they want that speeches like Obama's talk about race are uplifting and raise the national consciousness, and they are and do.

But this isn't the 60s -- American voters don't want to dive into issues. They don't want to pick at wounds and start discourse that might create a better society. America has become a conservative nation politically, where even Democrats must move to the center to have any electability.

So as the primary battle between Obama and Clinton becomes more vicious, McCain will stay his centrist Republican course. He will look much more presidential, like much more of a unifying leader, than either the bickering Obama and Clinton simply by doing nothing.

The average American voter isn't the higher-educated, issue-oriented, well-read person who tends to visit this forum. Racism and NAFTA aren't issues that the average American voter cares about -- paying his mortgage, keeping his job and keeping terrorists out of his backyard are.

McCain and the Republicans have been much better in the last few elections about using the KISS theory to appeal to voters, especially swing voters. They will do it again, touching upon tangible issues to regular voters such as jobs, security and the economy instead of nebulous stuff like "change" or moral issues like racism that Joe Sixpack really doesn't care about, for better or worse.

Plus, the dwindling amount of coverage of the Iraq War and the lesser prominence of that coverage on front pages and Web covers also helps McCain. It's pitiful, both because of the war's scope and because we have people fighting there every day, but the war no longer is a front-burner issue to most Americans who don't have family or friends fighting overseas. So it's going to be harder for the Democrats to use the war as a wedge issue against the Republicans this summer.

Barring a huge miscue by McCain or a major downward shift in the economy or the war, you're going to see John McCain's left hand on the Bible held by Chief Justice Roberts on Jan. 20, 2009. That's not wishful thinking by me -- just my opinion.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Squid,

You obviously didn't read the speech in its entirety. He stayed away from the blame game. If you see that in his speech then that's the only thing you are looking for.

If he played the blame game, he would have been done with that speech. He doesn't he talked about and mind you TO, white america, explaining why a black pastor is saying this things.

He also said that this rhetoric doesn't advance black causes.


I think some people are looking for reasons to not elect Obama. Where as it usually is trying to find reasons why we should elect some people, like Clinton and McCain.

I too, thought, he was going to turn this is into a blavk versus white or pull an Al Sharpton. Instead he did what a really good politician does, invent his own way out by admitting culpability, trying to enlightened the electorate and then push forward with idealism.

I supported Obama before, but I hasn't entirely convinced he could be Presidential or showed enough to be president. The speech changes everything for me. Not because it was address racial inequalities because the speech showed a competent person able to lead the nation. I haven't seen that yet out of McCain or Clinton.

[JRod]

Barring a huge miscue by McCain or a major downward shift in the economy or the war, you're going to see John McCain's left hand on the Bible held by Chief Justice Roberts on Jan. 20, 2009. That's not wishful thinking by me -- just my opinion.

Take care,
PK

One problem with your feeling here PK. We haven't had a party fight for a nomination were there wasn't an incumbent (President or Vice) in a very long time.

Plus McCain and Obama could be fighting for the same voters here, where it has been shown, Obama does better with the independents than McCain.

Basically you have Reps and Dems voting for their candidate. Will a black candidate be enough to galvanize the right wing base to vote en masse for McCain. Clinton sure can get the vote out for McCain. The problem where Obama gets into is actually having the young and energized vote. But he's a different kind of candidate.

I think the election will be tradition if we see Clinton-McCain get the nods. By that I mean this fighting hurts Clinton more than McCain. Because Obama has the X factor this year. Eight years ago the X factor was the hardcore rightwingers. This year its the young and independents.

[TheHiddenTrack]

His situation presents the following predicament: either his judgement is extremely poor, or he is a radical anti-american racist.

Good call. I think it's pretty obvious he's another Malcolm X. As soon as he gets elected he's going to start shouting "My people this" "Give us a hand out or we'll kill you" "Black power!" "God damn America!" "We should Let the terrorists win!" "I'm a Muslim"

I think Obama gave people too much credit with his speech, like Jon Stewart said last night, a major political figure actually tried to talk to the American people like they were "grown ups." Sad. He should have just told everyone that he was a member of the church so he could keep an eye on the terrorists, probably would've gotten some of these fox news worshipers on board.

[webdanzer]

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I'm also getting sick of people who view politics like a sports game, which virtually stops any decent conversation when it comes to complex issues.

I agree! Your tact of condescension, snark and name-calling is a much better way to have a decent conversation about complex issues.

EDIT: Ah, oops! I see you've edited your "You're Stupid!" rejoinder.

[TheHiddenTrack]

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I'm also getting sick of people who view politics like a sports game, which virtually stops any decent conversation when it comes to complex issues.

I agree! Your tact of condescension, snark and name-calling is a much better way to have a decent conversation about complex issues.

EDIT: Ah, oops! I see you've edited your "You're Stupid!" rejoinder.

Not quick enough at editing. I should have left that part in there, but I thought I was getting lazy with my condescension. Had to put a little more effort into it.

It's very hard to have a decent conversation about complex issues in a forum like this, if you attempt it, you soon realize it's a waste of time. On this matter alone I don't think you can have a semi-rational point of view unless you've actually devoted some time to, at the very least, read a great deal about the civil rights movement (something like the Malcolm X autobiography or about Bayard Rustin or a number of other influential people, that's not going to magically give you an informed view but that's at least a start). Like religion, politics is another issue that people come at from an emotional perspective rather than a rational perspective. And then they create the "reasons" afterward that conform to their emotions. Everybody does this to some level, some more than others. Like the old saying goes, "You can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into." Try to explain evolution to a creationist, and see how far you get.

[wco81]

Polls show only 17% of the country wants the next president to continue with Bush's policies.

So far, McCain has said he will keep Bush's major policies, on the war and on the tax front, especially making the tax cuts permanent rather than letting them expire.

Economy isn't good right now but it could change by election time. And polls in 2004 showed a high percentage of people who believed we were on the wrong track. Bush won despite those numbers, even in states like OH which were economically hard hit.

McCain shouldn't even be close but I think war fatigue peaked about a year ago, even though about the same percentage of the country oppose staying in the war.

Economy is suppose to be the biggest issue but in some parts of the country, Clinton or Obama will have a hard time getting votes because of their gender or ethnicity.

Turns out in TX, Clinton got 119k votes from GOP voters crossing in and her margin of victory was 101k votes. Rush Limbaugh has apparently been exhorting his listeners to vote for Hilary, to "bloody" Obama and continue the contentious primary fight.

Of course, most of those 119k GOP voters in TX won't vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general.

[Jared]

Update:
Apparently hisattendance is still up for debate. According to this artice: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/ ... x?id=72267

I don't see how it's up for debate. Someone writing for a partisan "news" site made a claim that he has no evidence for, and that current evidence suggests is not true. That's a baseless claim unless the author comes up with actual evidence supporting his claim. And I haven't seen any other verified reports that this is true.

[moderator hat]
Just want to remind everyone to keep the conversation civil. Sarcasm is fine, frank discussion is fine, but let's not turn this into something personal between people.
[/moderator hat]

[Brando70]

The other thing is, by the time the election comes around, any infighting among Democrats should be over. I expect both Obama and Clinton to lobby loudly for the nomination, but I think once it's decided, they will both accept it and circle the wagons.

McCain has an advantage now because he's not fighting another nominee as well as the other party, but a lot can happen in the next seven months. If the economy and Iraq don't improve in that time, they will be difficult issues for McCain to explain because he's so closely associated with Bush's policies on those two items.