Democrats & Liberals Archives

Run, Obama, Run

As everybody knows by now, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has decided to form a presidential exploratory committee, and that on February 10 he will formally announce - he didn’t say so, but it seems obvious - his candidacy for president. Just what I have been waiting for. Obama has all the qualifications for the kind of president we need today. He is a man of charisma, a unifier, filled with religious empathy and has a new approach to political problem solving.

CHARISMA

Obama practically oozes charisma. When he makes a speech, everybody is charmed. All the delegates at the 2004 Democratic Convention were smitten with his inspirational speech; he was an instant hit. On World AIDS Day, December 1, 2006, he spoke to the mega-evangelical Saddlebrook Church of Pastor Rick Warren. Though the members of this church are definitely against abortion while Obama is in favor of choice, after the speech, the audience gave Obama a standing ovation.

Unbelievable! A standing ovation! From the way evangelicals find fault with those who disagree with them, you would think they would listen politely and applaud politely. But no, they listened raptly and then stood up and enthusiastically applauded. Why? Because Obama spoke to the people in their language, indicated that he understood their position even though he disagrees with it, and appreciated them for what they were. This is real charisma!

A UNIFIER

Because Obama is black he will be able to bring the country together on racial and other issues that divide us. This seems opposite to the conventional wisdom. We know that there are still plenty of people in the country who would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. Forget about these; most of them are in the South, and they would not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway. As a black man who knows how to talk to whites, Obama would charm them and bring them to his side. After all the divisions we have suffered under Bush, all of us will welcome unity.

To show you that Obama is a unifier extraordinaire, read what he said in his announcement today:

For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together.

Who ever heard of such a thing - "a role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together"? Campaigns are for winning. In the process, they usually tear the country apart. I, for one, will be interested to see how Obama can use his campaign to unify us.

RELIGIOUS EMPATHY

In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," Barack Obama says that when he was young his parents sent him to many schools where he learned Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though he is a Christian, he understands the people of other faiths and knows how to talk to them. He is not merely tolerant but possesses empathy towards them.

Some say that his middle name, Hussein, will hurt him. I say, that it will help him in a similar manner in which his blackness will help him. He can go to the Middle East and talk earnestly about religion and how to separate hate from religion. He will have discussions showing how everybody benefits by quelling hate and boosting love - the essence of all religions.

A NEW POLITICAL PARADIGM

The big argument against Obama's running is that he is inexperienced. But perphaps this is a virtue. The current experienced politicians, on both the left and the right, spend their time savaging their opponents on the other side. They take any incident, whether related to politics or not, and build it up in a way to embarrass those they despise on the other side of the political fence. Personal defamation as political warfare.

Obama does not have this experience. He believes that the old political paradigm of liberals warring with conservatives makes no sense. We fight too much, find fault too much and demonize each other too much. In his announcement he said:

We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

Yes, indeed, we need a new political paradigm. Obama does not claim to have it yet. He is depending on the American people to help him find it.

WE NEED OBAMA

Run, Obama, run. We need you, Obama. Run, Obama, run!

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 16, 2007 8:04 PM
Comments
Comment #203606

Too bad he isn’t white. Of course the south most likely won’t be voting Democrat, but wasn’t the lesson of 02 and 04 “fight for all 50 states”?
(before you cons get your panties in a bunch, No. I am not saying I wish he were white, I’m saying too bad the South is so biggoted that there is close to zero chance of a non-white non-male getting any electoral votes in Dixie)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #203607

He should run.

The race in 2008 will be very different from the ones of 2000 & 2004. This is the first time since 1928 that NOBODY from a previous administration did not run, even in the primaries. It will be very interesting. This will be as close as we have come to a blank slate in 80 years. I wonder how many people will be voting in this election who voted in that one. I wonder if you can count them on your hands.

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #203608

Where does he stand on using the veto to hold deficits in check?

Where does he stand on saving Soc. Sec. and Medicare? (Don’t tell he’s for it. How will he accomplish it?)

Where does he stand on protecting our oil dependency in the Middle East - will he keep the military in that region to protect our dependency?

Where does he stand on state’s rights and national standards for education?

Where does he stand campaign finance reform and how?

Where does he stand on halting to a dead stop, vast majority of illegal immigration?

Where does he stand on continuing the failed policy of granting illegals amnesty?

Either you have knowledge of these answers, Paul, from Sen. Obama, or, you are endorsing him because you like him, and he is of your party.

For independent voters, who will make all the difference in ‘08, answers to these questions will determine whether a Republican or Democrat gets in the White House.

Like has nothing to do with getting my vote. I would vote for someone I didn’t like personally but would represent the nation’s and my issues answers, over a candidate I liked immensely, but, would not represent my stance on these issues above in large part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #203609

Dave

You do not have to make a bigoted statement about the south. There are more black elected officials there than anywhere else in the country. Virginia elected a black governor in 1990. It took progressive Massachusetts 16 years to match it.

Why is it okay to hate southerners?

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #203610

Oh yeah, it is Robert E. Lee’s birthday on Saturday.

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #203614

Perhaps his lack of platform is his most appealing of all. He can build policy from a point of inexperienc and truly surround himself with some objectivity. He is appealing in that he is not “fully” into the system. He has some questions: foreign policy ability, the issue with how he came into his Illinois residence, and his wife’s job, however, his committment almost makes up for his where his experience lacks. If he runs on a the platform he outlined “a new kind of politics” he might be more successful than we think.

Posted by: Honest at January 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #203615

CHARISMA: An anti-abortion crowd applauded Obama.

Good for them—this shows an open-mindedness and charity on their part which demonstrates that the Christian Right is not the bunch of haters they are stereotyped as by the left. This says as much about the qualities of the Christian Right as it does about Obama.

Would NOW or Planned Parenthood invite, much less applaud, a pro-life speaker? Think about it.

But how many of these evangilicals would abandon their deepy-held beliefs and VOTE for Obama over someone who shares their beliefs? Charisma is a nice quality. Al Franken has charisma too. Rush Limbaugh has it. Al Sharpton has it in spades. But people vote issues. Charisma is nice, but politics is not the Miss America Pagaent.

A UNIFIER: Like hell.

As a candidate, Obama unifies affluent liberal whites. Nobody else. He’s Howard Dean redux.

The African-American community does not see him as one of their own. Poor whites certainly do not. White conservatives may not dislike him—or even like him slighty better than they do any other liberal—but that doesn’t mean that they’d ever vote for him instead of another conservative—whether that conservative was white or black. Conservatives have time and again shown themselves perfectly willing to support Black public officials—such as Condi Rice or Michael Steele.

Frankly, I think there’s something pretty ugly about this giant white liberal fixation on Obama. It says that they’re only comfortable with African-American candidates who sound and act like affluent white liberals and are eager to vote for a black man—any black man, no matter how inexperienced—because of the color of his skin. Tokenism at its worst.

RELIGIOUS EMPATHY:

Even if it’s genuine instead of even more polished charisma, so what? Religions contain values. Those who vote based on religion are interested in those values as they relate to public policy. Not on some Oprah-like empathy for those who have different and often conflicting values. A right wing Christian won’t care if Obama says he has “empathy” for Muslims. A conservative Muslim won’t care—and would likely be turned off—to hear that Obama has empathy for the hated Jews. Empathy of this kind is nice for a talk show host or a psychotherapist. Not for a politician, who has ultimately to CHOOSE SIDES rather than just emote emapthy.

A NEW POLITICAL PARADIGM: Nonsense.

Content free cotton-candy sweetness in not a political paradigm. It’s hollow rhetoric.

It’s very easy to pull off when it doesn’t involve favoring one agenda over another—which a politician one day or another finally has to do.

Obama is a hard-left liberal. There’s nothing new about that. All that’s new about him is that he’s a black man who talks and carries himself like an affluent white liberal and doesn’t “scare off” those same white liberals by seeming any different from themselves.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 16, 2007 9:23 PM
Comment #203617

He appeals to the snivelling New-York-influenced politically correct minority by being a black man, but none of his ancestors were actually those slaves that the Republican Party freed back in the Nineteenth Century. He shares little with most “brothers” as his father came from Africa. Apparently, his mother is even a white woman. (Christians may draw their own conclusions about her morality.)

Obama appeals to drug-heads and drop-outs by glorying in his substance abuse. “I inhaled—that was the point.” Those are his actual words. You can bet that on the podium, however, that he’ll be trying to appear as “tough on drugs” as decent Republicans are.

One more thing. I ask all Christian Americans to consider this. Do you really want your Commander In Chief to have a name like Obama? Our enemies would mock us. They’d think we were about to attack them with spears, shields and crazy shouting rather than the finest fighting force in the world. Is that what you want for America?

Posted by: dave at January 16, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #203620

I hope he runs if for no other reason that he will raise the level of discourse. Great oratory does not mean he would be a great president but our best presidents have been good orators. They have a way of uniting us.Still I would not sell him any life insurance.

Posted by: BillS at January 16, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #203623

NOT ENOUGH POLITICAL EXPERIENCE. Give him a few years in the senate so people know where he stands.

Posted by: KAP at January 16, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #203625

Dave
(excuse me while I go throw up)
Is it tough to type with the white hood over your head?

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #203628

Dave,
Get a life, man! How about us non-Christian (but still God-loving) Americans? Do we not count? What, exactly, is wrong with the name “Obama”?

As for the truth about his drug use, maybe America is ready for a little truth. In stark contrast from what we hear from the white house now.

As for decent republicans, who would those be, Rush Limbaugh? Get real, my friend.

Oh, and your umbrage at him for not being a real brother? Heh heh. And did I just hear you question the morality of his Mama? Hmmm. You didn’t have anything to do with that “call me Harold” ad that ran in the congressional campaign, did you?

Posted by: steve miller at January 16, 2007 10:19 PM
Comment #203630

don’t feed the trolls.

Posted by: uh at January 16, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #203632

Dave said
“He appeals to the snivelling New-York-influenced politically correct minority.”

Don’t make us have to come down their and kick your asses again.

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #203634

I love him. I think he genuinely represents something new. And I love the reasons I’m being given not to vote for him: Because he’s black? Because his name is foreign? I thought my opinion of this country had hit rock bottom, but even I believe this country is better than that. Bush ran on being a centrist, a “uniter, not a divider”. O’Bama appears to be the real thing in this regard.

Posted by: Max at January 16, 2007 10:57 PM
Comment #203636

Max, I’ve never heard anybody say they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. I’ve heard many say, however, that they would vote for him for that very reason. Paul, for example, who mentions Obama’s skin color repeatedly in his post.

If Obama were white, would he get any attention at all? Would he even be considered qualified?

No friggin way. So much for the content of your character instead of the color of your skin.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 16, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #203647

Y’all want Obama to run for President but how many of y’all know where he stands on anything? Or if he stands for anything at all?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 17, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #203650

Jack,

I don’t hate southerners, I’m just a realist. Didn’t the McCain primaries teach you anything?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 17, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #203652

Ron,

I will vote for anyone not Republican next time around and again until the Dems screw up worse than the Repubs.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 17, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #203655

Obama doesn’t just have charisma, he’s got industrial-strength charisma. There is a difference, you know.
Of course he should run. No question of that.
Could he win the primary? Hard to say, but then it’s hard to say that of anyone at the moment.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment #203662

Loyal Opposition,

One of the first posts in this thread suggested he shouldn’t be the Democrat runner, because he’s black and won’t win the Southern vote. That’s what I was referring to.

Personally though, I think he is getting some attention because he’s black. That’s not why people are staying with him though, it’s because he’s truly able to bridge the partisan divide in this country. People get attention sometimes for the wrong reasons. I didn’t particularly like Bush getting the nomination, because he was Bush Sr.s son. With O’Bama though I feel the guy really means what he says.

What don’t you like about him? I mean, his positions? Or, don’t you know what you’re talking about? I read his book. He’s a little too mainstream (not enough left for me), but I’m willing to forgive it for a true uniter, not a divider.

Frankly, when Republicans respond to the mere suggestion that he’s running like this - it makes me feel pretty good.

Posted by: Max at January 17, 2007 1:59 AM
Comment #203668

I find Obama a very refreshing breath of fresh air. I’ve expressed that view here several times before. However, having read the article below, I’m now hav ing serious doubts. Certainly it’s important that a national leader can express him or herself powerfully and inspire people to follow. But they also must have the character to propose challenging and even difficult choices. This article does not inspire confidence in that regard. Indeed, it seems that Obama is making the the compulsory genuflections towards the neo cons and the vicious zionists. Nothing new here people. Just cynical politics/business as usual.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01172007.html

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 17, 2007 6:44 AM
Comment #203670

Dave

Change “aoutherner” to black, gay, Muslim etc and see how it sounds. It makes as much sense.

Posted by: Jack at January 17, 2007 7:34 AM
Comment #203671

Sorry - that should be an s

Posted by: Jack at January 17, 2007 7:35 AM
Comment #203681

Jack, ‘Change ‘(s)outherner’ to…’

No, it doesn’t, unless you want to repalce “I dont hate Southerners” with “I don’t hate blacks (gays) (muslims)” Then you’d be correct. My opinion of Obamas electability in the south stands supported by historical evidence although his candidacy would motivate black voters (and I guess the Klan vote as well). Deflection by irrelevent analogies and simple denial of a negative reality doesn’t work as a debate tool.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 17, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #203686

Dave

Racist and biggoted remarks such as yours are short sided and add no real relevance to this discussion. It is a shame that in this day in age such neanderthalic attitudes still exist.

All

Personally I love to listen to the man speak. He has a way about him that speaks of logic and a genuine desire for unity. I think it is that genuiness that is the main attracter for most. Another attribute in my opinion is that he has not been in congress long enough to become as overtly corrupted as most. As a result he probably has few obligations to those who might wish to buy him.

I do hope he runs. I see no harm in doing so. However I will reserve my vote until I have seen his agenda. At this point he has no need to lay one out since he is not yet officialy running. I think it only fair to withold judgement until he has presented himself and his platform.

Posted by: ILdem at January 17, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #203687

Paul in Euroland,

Obama very early on (before it was popular) said he was for military intervention when needed, but not for an unplanned war. He was supported Israel’s bombing of Hezbollah. He’s been very straightforward. I think I’m drawn to his commense sense.

Posted by: Max at January 17, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #203689

Jack,

Our last two Democratic presidents have been southerners. Its common knowledge that a candidate must get the southern vote to win, and that they usually will only vote for southerners. That’s frustrating, and so I think historically its valid to ask if southerners will vote for someone who’s black or, for that matter, a woman. As far as I’m concerned that’s a discussion about southern racism, and it’s not racist to bring it up.

During the last election it was truly sad to see many make it about Kerry’s having French roots, being too effete, etc. I hope you were outraged then too, because that truly did not add to the national debate. It’s embarassing these things need to be taken into account in this day and age in America, but if the last election is any indication they do.

Posted by: Max at January 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #203690

Jack,

“Why is it okay to hate southerners?”

I do not believe northerners hate southerners Jack. However, sad as it may be, the general idea shared by most northerners is that the south would never allow a black man to become president. I think these ideas stem from as long ago as the civil war to events as recent as the assasination of Martin Luther King, the KKK, and the formation of the Arian Nation. I do know these types of racism are not exclusive to the south but for some reason people just associate them with the south more so than the north.

It is not okay to hate southerners Jack. Or people of any color, religion, or geographic location for those reasons only.

Posted by: ILdem at January 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #203691

Paul in Euroland
Really not much of a site. Does the phrase‘“bitch if you hung them with a new rope” mean anything in Europe?

Posted by: BillS at January 17, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #203701

Paul in Euro
Stories such as your link provides and stuff like Obama being against gay marriage, are to be hidden from the non-political left and talked about when talking with Republicans.
Things like him being anti 2nd Amendment are to be hidden from the right.

Its all a big game. Nobody cares what the hell he stands for, just what party he belongs to.

Posted by: kctim at January 17, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #203703

Dave1-20-2009, The South is no longer the province of the white NASCAR Dad. Women, hispanics, and the all important Black vote in the South could actually elect Obama.

That’s why we need to know where he stands in terms of policy implementation on the host of issues I mentioned earlier. With Democrats sanctioning illegal immigration, and the bulk of them settling in the South of the U.S., a candidate like Obama, (previously known as a minority), will win in the South. It is only a matter of which election.

Democrats tolerance and promotion of illegal immigration guarantees that I won’t vote for Democrat incumbent or president. It ranks right up there with bankrupting the country for the sake of wealthy contributors by Republicans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #203704

kctim, truer words were never spoke. It’s why America’s future gets bleaker with each election. The majority of the American voters support either tweedle debt, tweedle dumb.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #203709

Dave1-20-2009
So you care really care who’s in office just as long as they ain’t Republican. Then there are those that don’t care just as long as they ain’t Democrat. Just what both mainstream parties want. That’s how they stay in power and we’ve ended up with the current crop of idiot up there in DC.


Dave

Apparently, his mother is even a white woman. (Christians may draw their own conclusions about her morality.)


I’m a Christian. So that means I’m supposed to think his mother is a whore or something?
I know several folks in interracial marriages. Some are good moral folks while others are nothing more than traps.
I don’t see where what race Obama’s parents or him are has any thing to do with his qualifications. Without knowing Obama’s folks I couldn’t say what there morals are.
The thing I have with him is he hasn’t said where he stands on the problems facing this country. But there’s time for that. If he has the right answers to the problems I’ll consider voting for him. If not then he’s wasting his breath with me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 17, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #203711

David Remer:

So you want to know where Obama is on the issues. Bush told us where he was on the issues. He was going to be humble in foreign affairs. He was going to be a uniter. He was going to restore the honor of the Whitehouse. He was going to bring jobs. Etc.

Did any of it come true?

We need a man of character and a man that can unify the country. We don’t need someone making promises and then forgetting them when in office.

We need someone like Obama.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 17, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #203717

Dave-01,
As a Southern, and proud of it, I am deeply offended by your assumptions of Southerners. For you to even use the word ‘bigot’ regarding the majority of Southerners is offensive. I have frequently found that people who have prejudices of their own seem to have a need to try to justify their own prejudice by accusing others as being more prejudice. If one has no racial prejudices they aren’t as likely to jump to assume another person has the same prejudice. Sort of like the adage

“…the pot calling the kettle black…”
Or perhaps, in your case,
…if the shoe fits, wear it…

ILdem
If you’ll let me, I’d like to set the record straight, regarding one of your southern)examples:

The Arian Nation was actually formulated in

Hayden Lake, deep in the forests of Northern Idaho, Pastor Butler began laying the foundations for an organization that would go on to become a major source of inspiration for thousands of National Socialists.

(http://www.Aryan-nations.org/about.htm)

For those needing an update on the South:

For almost 50 years, most of America’s integration problems have occurred in the Northern and Mid-Western states, not in the South. I was attending integrated schools in late 1950’s NC, long before integration became the law, merely because we only had ONE elementary, ONE middle and ONE high school.

The Northern and Mid-West areas of the country have had more major issues between Blacks and Whites, than the South. Virginia has had a black governor. Atlanta has a Black major, New Orleans, Richmond, and many other do as well. How many Northern State congressional members have Black members? My own area of SC (6500 Black, White, fairly evenly mixed, and a few Latinos and Asian citizens)has just re-elected an excellent(Black) State Senator. He is among several

Whether the Southern states would support a ‘Black’ candidate is not the issue here. Frankly what party he belongs to will have more emphasis on his being elected than his color, and that is very sad, however this situation occurs all over the nation, and not simply in the South.

In my opinion the issue should be whether Obama would be a good choice for president, does he have enough experience, and what is his stand on the issues. I know of a lot of Southerners who still wish that Collin Powell had not been tainted with the current administrations brush. Many are even wiling to accept his apology and would undoubtedly vote for him toady.

Dave,
I will vote as always depending on what information I can find regarding each of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, not simply because I believe George Bush and the former Republican Congress were wrong. Voting against any one based on what party they belong to strikes me as being utterly stupid.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 17, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #203719

Error:
My last paragraph was intended for Dave01.

As Dave, I can find nothing particularly redeeming in his post,so I choose to ingore it.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 17, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #203720

I see hollier-than-thou has reared it’s ugly head. It is really ashame that some “Christian” Americans have made an attitude that Jesus deplored such a big part of their lives.

Paul,

I agree, it is pretty much a crap shoot what you will end up with.

Posted by: JayJay at January 17, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #203723

I lived in Ohio until I was 19, I’ve lived in Texas since then. I am white.

Racism exists in both the North and the South.

The difference I noted was that more supposedly educated persons were quite willing to share their racism with me, because I was white, in the south.

I do believe that is changing. Often racist’s children are embarrassed by their parents attitudes.

While racism may have been more open in the South, it still exists in the North.

While it is still strong in America, I do believe it is dying. Slowly. Perhaps in 100 years it’ll be a marginal idea, but I have my doubts. I do acknowledge things have changed since the sixties.

Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #203725

As to Obama, while I’m not aware of any particularly negative aspects to his background, I frankly don’t get the charisma deal. It sounds more like an ad campaign to me. He’s as boring as any other politician, Ive seen. I don’t get the excitement over him, other than he’s black.

Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #203733

David/Ron/Linda/gergle

re: Prejudice
basis: We are all prejudiced. My mom had a particular disdain for Puerto Ricans (didn’t stick to me). As a Jew growing up in the 1960’s Bronx I was regularly assaulted by pre-Vatican II Irish kids for having killed Jesus (hackles still get raised). My wife as an Asian growing up in 70’s Boston got her rash of slant-eye crap. If you think I am not sensitive to the issue with biracial children then there is nothing to discuss. The question as I see it is, What do we do about bigotry? I, for one, am willing to discuss it openly and it’s effects it has and how my own unfounded biases are impacting my thought processes. When others are willing to admit bigotry exists, then we can have a discussion, rather than an insult session.
conclusion: The focus of my post was simple, McCains polls plummeted in the South after Bush unleashed a smear campaign implying the Senator had fathered a non-white child. The focus of the campaign was a picture of McCain holding his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. Therefore, I do not see that the South has evolved beyond race as a key deciding factor for national office electability. I am not convinced the North, West, or East have either but up North we have the remnents of “liberal guilt”.

re: Voting not-republican
basis: I am not a democrat. The GOP run congress had 4 years to reign in an out of control boob in the oval office. Instead they defanged ethics rules, stiffled debate, and raped the treasury. By allowing Bush to get what he wanted with Iraq etc…, Bush didn’t veto a single spending bill. quid pro quo.
summary: The GOP must be made an example of. It must be made clear to the politicians that this level of malfeasance is intolerable. Therefore, I voted for anyone not GOP. As kc pointed out “It’s all a big game” I go with “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” But, at least the Dems might have learned a lesson and someone has to stop Bush. They have 2 years.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 17, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #203736

Dave1,
I agree that a black presidential candidate will have problems in the South. I don’t think that was due to Bush’s McCain slurs, or that tactic was something new.

I do think many Republican candidates trade on the race issue, as do some Democrats.

I was really responding to Jack’s claim of bias against the South. It is a politcal reality that many candidates use.

Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #203742

gergle,

Perhaps this is semantics, I don’t believe it’s “due to”. I believe what happened to McCain is symptomatic. I agree that I have a bias against the South as being “more biggoted” than then North. But my contemporary experience still supports that notion.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 17, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #203754

Dave1,

Agreed, it is symptomatic. I think in my generation (I’m 49) there is more racism in the South, I’m not as sure about 20 somethings.

Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #203761

I have “zero” faith in Obama’s leadership capabilities.

When I watch Obama I get an instant replay of Manfred Mann’s Earthband’s version of Blinded by the Light. Not what I want in a President!

Posted by: KansasDem at January 17, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #203763

I hope Obama runs. Then he will have to define his stances on issues in a way he has not yet had to. If I disagree with him I will not vote for him, no matter how good a man he is. Better to have a good president and a bad man than a bad president and a good man. If he says nothing but feel-good rhetoric, I will not vote for him.

On the issue of the South being more bigoted, I think it is just more open about its racism, and not only whites. Yes, blacks and hispanics can be racists to. I don’t especially care what color Obama’s skin is. I wasn’t aware having darker skin affected one’s decision making ability. If someone thinks it does they need to seriously reevaluate their worldview.

Posted by: Silima at January 17, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #203765

Integrating schools is the single most influential step ever taken to end racial bias, as evidenced by the fact that racial bias is far less permeate amongst the young on average in our society today as compared to the 1960’s.

That said, many other factors have had some influence, and the problem is only diminished, not gone, by a long shot.

There is a huge growth in racial bias in L.A. taking place where Blacks and Hispanics are rivals for the same turf, black market dollars, etc., and this is afterall, the fundamental root to racial bias. Competition for limited resources and our species inherent tendency to discriminate as to who to rely on and who to compete with. Given such an easy and obvious discriminating factor as skin color and cultural background, competition for limited resources will naturally occur along those boundaries to divide competitive camps.

Most schools throw students into competition with each other along factors other than skin color, such as grade point average, athletic ability, and extra-curricular groups, which diminishes and largely eliminates on the basis of common sense, color or race as determinant in achieving grades, athletic belonging, or extra-curricular recognition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #203772
Why is it okay to hate southerners?

Jack, it’s because you people are soft on the WoS (War on Stupidity)…
oh, and relax… I’m just trying to address the charge that liberals don’t have a sense of humour.

Mind you, it has always puzzled me that the states that rely on the largest amounts of government handouts are the ones that consistently vote in favour of the party that promises (or at least claims) to cut those same big spending government programs.

Posted by: loki at January 17, 2007 8:36 PM
Comment #203773

As far as Obama is concerned he’s got my vote where style is concerned… he’s the only candidate that actually answers questions when asked them, even if some people aren’t going to like that answer. It reminds me of actual leadership.
Of course substance is more important than style, and there is no bigger issue where that matters more than the question over what are you going to do about Iraq… because we all know that Iraq is still going to be the problem two years from now… and none of the answers are nice ones.

Posted by: loki at January 17, 2007 8:54 PM
Comment #203824

Linda H.

Please forgive me if I gave the impression that I was implying that the arian nation originated in the south. Too be honest I had no idea where they originated. I was merely making the point that this is a common association made probably by a lack of knowing any better by northerners.

I can assure you that I could easily find as many biggots and racists right here in my own backyard as I could in yours. I was merely making a point that although it is wrong there is that stigmata hanging over the south in the eyes of many northerners. I am sure you would not have to look hard to find similar unsubstantiated southern stigmatas in regards to us northerners.

Posted by: ILdem at January 18, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment #203832

dave,
I must commend you. For someone who has crainum-anal inversion you do know how to use a computer.

Keep up the totally stupid comments.

Posted by: C.T.Rich at January 18, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #203841

Did you know that C-AI (recently determined by the AMA as a “disease”) is readily remediated by regular trips to the local library and a GED?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #203856

Since McCain is no longer the favorite of Independent voters, it seems like there might be an opening here for Obama.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 18, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #203954

Obama Just LOST. Hillary Flip Flopped and turned into a surrender monkey. Being a surrender monkey was obama’s only big issue. Now that Hillary has taken that away from him….it’s a whole different came.

Yesterday Obama was running for President. Today, Obama is running to be Hillary’s vice president.

That’s what the democrats are offering us. A corrupt Harry Reid running the Senate and a corrupt Hillary for the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 9:52 AM
Comment #203998

Dave1-20-2009

McCains polls plummeted in the South after Bush unleashed a smear campaign implying the Senator had fathered a non-white child. The focus of the campaign was a picture of McCain holding his adopted Bangladeshi daughter.

Your statement intigued me, so I have asked the 300+ members of my church to please tell me if they saw such an article. So far not one of them knows (57 at last count) what I am referring too - however it has not been long enough to actually confirm my suspicoins, which are that none of them has ever heard such an alligation. I just asked my mother-in-law, and her sister, one from Ok. and the other from California, and neither of them have heard about this alleigation either.

Would you please give the site\s where you found this information, and how you know it effected the Southern vote?

Therefore, I do not see that the South has evolved beyond race as a key deciding factor for national office electability. I am not convinced the North, West, or East have either but up North we have the remnents of “liberal guilt”.

You are of course entiled to your own opinion, even if you don’t know what you are talking about.

And frankly I don’t have the foggiest what “liberal guuil ” is much les means, and any definetion coming from you would be suspect in MHO.

ILdem,
Thank you for acknowleging your error. I tend to be critical of those who hang on to false beliefs, and taint any group of people with wrong information. I imagine the Northerns, Westerns, and West Castal areas feel much the same way. After all the “wordy dirty” UNION was first seen in the North.

Oopps, the phone just rang again. My current up-date is now 71 members who have no idea what you are referring too.

BTW, I will unfortunately be unavailble to the internet most of next week - but when I have heard back from the entire congregation (black and white, BTW) I’ll post my results. If I still can.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 19, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #204006

Stephen:
“Obama Just LOST. Hillary Flip Flopped and turned into a surrender monkey. Being a surrender monkey was obama’s only big issue. Now that Hillary has taken that away from him….it’s a whole different came.

Yesterday Obama was running for President. Today, Obama is running to be Hillary’s vice president.

That’s what the democrats are offering us. A corrupt Harry Reid running the Senate and a corrupt Hillary for the Whitehouse.”

Whine, whine, whine. Meanwhile, McCain’s popularity has tanked and his “straight talk” reputation has been killed off because he’s become so pro-escalation in Iraq. Yesterday, the GOP tried to kill off a sweeping ethics reform bill, and would only allow it to come to a vote with the assurance that they’ll get to vote on a proposal to give Bush line-item veto power before the Senate begins debating the Democrats minimum wage bill in the coming weeks. While today, former Republican House Representative Bob Ney got two and a half years in a federal prison for being a crook, and the House passed a bill completely overhauling the page program due to the actions of another former Republican House Representative, Mark Foley, sexual predator.

So, as the whining continues, Democrats are doing mighty good and looking mighty good in this country. Even in a brand new Fox News Poll the “Democrat Party” is enjoying a majority: 51% have a favorable view of Dems, and only 35% have an unfavorable view.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #204008

I hope my post with links showing the McCain adoption push poll gets posted…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 19, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #204107

Dave-1-20,

So far tonight I ‘ve received 167 phones calls. Not one of the members I’ve talked to has heard anything about McCain and an adopted child. I too hope your link gets posted. I am anxious to see where you have drawn your erroroneous conclusions.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 20, 2007 12:35 AM
Comment #204117

Linda H.,
I remember hearing plenty about that smear campaign in 2000 against McCain regarding his adopted daughter being his own out-of-wedlock (black) child launched by Bush supporters in South Carolina. Dave really isn’t drawing an erroneous conclusion with his comments, and I’m not sure why you felt you needed to make such an effort amongst your church friends to try to prove that he was, especially since a quick google search could have shown you that it’s true.

For instance, this op-ed written by Richard H. Davis, who was McCain’s campaign manager in 2000:
The anatomy of a smear campaign

I don’t know what state your in, but even if you and your 167 friends didn’t get one these calls, plenty of other people in South Carolina did and this racist, though wrong, accusation seems to have made an enormous impact.
According to Davis, since McCain had just had an amazing 19 point win over Bush in the state of New Hampshire, there could have been nothing else than this smear and the way that word got around about it that could have hurt McCain enough to make him lose the Republican primary at that point.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2007 3:01 AM
Comment #204201

Hi Adrienne,

Thanks for the back up. I had a post with 4+ links in it that flagged a “must review to ensure…something” server response. I must have been a little too obnoxious in my reply to be accepted after the review… Understandable I suppose, but this is certainly not worth a reGoogle and my memory is still fine.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 20, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #204237

He’s better than Hilary. He’s pretty enemy-less, for now.

And he’s got Oprah’s support.

Posted by: Oracle at January 20, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #204241

Hey,Jack why does Robert E.Lee,get his own day.Wheres the love for Ulysses S.Grant.

Posted by: thelibertine at January 20, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #204242

Run Gore Run,Run Gore Run,Run Gore Run,Run Gore,Run Gore,Run Gore Run,Run Gore Run,Run Gore Run,Run Gore Run.

Posted by: thelibertine at January 21, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #204246

McCain needs to be put back in the cage he came out of.He needs to wake up,this war sucks.McCain needs to stop being Bushes male hooker,and get his head out of Bushes ass.

Posted by: thelibertine at January 21, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #204275

libertine,

I think McCain’s a good man. I think, however that his PTSD makes him blind to the failure of the Iraq policy.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 21, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #204299

Adrienne,
I have found you to be very knowlegiable and factuful in our writing. I have read your posts over the past serveral months and usually agree with you, so I will ceed to your post regarding McCain having had an adopted child. How much this inflormayion influenced Southern voters I can not say.

I still can’t help but maintain that I and at least 257 other members of my community never heard such an accusation. If I did by some chance hear, and forgot, it obivisously had no influence on how I voted.

I will admit that for reasons unknown to me, as a currently registered Democrat, I found it amusing the number of Republicans sponsered calls my husband and I received over this past summer.

It is basically Dave - 01’s creditabllitly that I question. I also do not like one some making assumptions about things they obiviously have little to no knowledge about.

(Please pardon my spelling - I don’t have access to a spell checker at the moemtn.)

Posted by: Linda H. at January 21, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #204347

Linda,

You’ve managed to get away with calling me an ignorant liar. Since I know that’s not true, I guess we must talking about a case of self projection.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 21, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #204513

Dave1-20-2009,

I never aid I thought you were a liar. I simply said I questioned your crediablity. I’m still waiting for you to give the web sites, or books etc. where I can see for myself the MAJOR impact you implied McCain’s ‘adoption’ had on the southern vote.s

Posted by: Linda H. at January 22, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #204552

Linda,

OK, then I will assume then that your accusation of a lack of credibility doesn’t impugn my veracity, just my knowledge.
First, Adrienne had a great link. If you read it, you would see that McCains campaign manager believes that the bastard mulatto baby push poll was a leading cause of the Senators defeat. It’s the first link here:
Here’s the google I used tonight

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 23, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #204699

Dave1-20-2009,

As this is probably going to b the last post about this subject, I would like to tell you that had you posted the links you provided in your last post, I probably would not have gotten as irrate.
I would have said that while I considered it unlikely that SC had been influenced by such a push poll,I did not live in SC at the time, but instead resided in my beloved home state of North Carolina.

I have frequently stated that I consider myself to be “passin’though” this rather intersting state, however the people I have met certainly do not appeared to be as easily swayed as you implied.

In case you ae interested the finally poll at my church still maintains 297 (out of 350 - AMAZING RESULTS in my opinnion) all state they were unaware of the push poll.

Regardless, as I have always maintained the basic dishonesty of our ‘illustrious’ current leader, his involement in such a malalitous idea does not surprise me.

Thank you for giving me more reason to be grateful I have voted mostly Democratic for the several years.(I just can’t make myself vote a straight tickey) At least for the most part my conscience is clear.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 23, 2007 9:43 PM
Post a comment