Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama the Uplifter

As everybody knows by now, Barack Obama won big in South Carolina: He beat Hillary Clinton 55 to 27. The results are even bigger than this implies because a few months back Clinton had a double digit lead over Obama. Obama won not because he has a better program than Clinton, but because Clinton is a political fighter whereas, Obama is an uplifter with a broad vision for the country.

Almost every blog I visit, whether it leans Democratic, Republican or Indepent, I read rave reviews of Barack Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. I love the way Ezra Klein puts it:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

It appears Obama's speeches inspire Klein to write such terrific prose as above.

What does Bill Clinton say?

Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice.

In other words, he is saying that Obama won because there are so many blacks in South Carolina. This is ridiculous. According to exit polls, he won among all subgroups except women. But the Clintons are introducing the "race card" into the campaign. I know that the Clintons are not racists and that Bill Clinton desrves the appellation, "the first black president." But they are introducing racism in order to win. Here is what Reed Hundt says:

The Clintons are thus running their own version of the Republican Southern Strategy that worked so well to elect conservatives from Nixon through to the current Bush. Ironically, the Clintons themselves spent their political careers battling against that strategy. Defeating it in the border states in 1992 was central to Bill Clinton's election.

But the Clintons' use of the tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove inevitably contributes to the perception that Hillary Clinton is running a campaign that is trapped in the past, where race has always mattered much in elections.

In his soaring speech, Obama answered the Clintons:

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

The campaign is a battle between those favoring the old throat-cutting campaigns and new campaigns of uplift, such those of Barack Obama. Not just campaigns. Governing too. Take your pick: Would you rather have Democrats and Republicans in constant irrational combat, or do your want a government that works and that we can be proud of.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 28, 2008 4:47 PM
Comments
Comment #244098

Goodness gracious I feel I must get on my knees and kiss the feet of saint barack. I agree he can really woe the crowd. I was a barack supporter but I find this all very scary. We should be voting for someone because they have the experience and the ability to be president not because they can give a good speech. Personally for me talk is cheap and the more the media and americans jump on his bandwagon the more I feel we need to step back and make sure that he truly has the stuff to be president. Seems not to long ago we had another American who was able to charm the folks and we are still feeling the negative effects of Reagan.

It remains to be seen if he can have the same effect on the republicans. I’m not sure that just because he wants it and we want it that it means we will have new campaigning and republicans and democrats holding hands, compromising, and getting along. Some how I doubt the republican smear machine can be taken apart that easily.

Politics has always been a dirty business. Even in the earliest days there was back stabbing, mud slinging, and do anything to get elected behavior. That is politics and I think it is naive to think that it will change. I would love to see it be different but wanting something doesn’t make it so.

What we don’t need is a democratic candidate who can not stand up to the republican smear machine. Right now Barack is preaching mostly to people of like minds but what happens if he gets the nomination and is unable to sway the republicans and independents to join his crusade. There will be many people who refuse to even listen because he is a democrat.

Posted by: Carolina at January 28, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #244099

I meant WOO not woe and I even previewed it before posting.

Posted by: Carolina at January 28, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #244101

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It’s called “Rubber Stamps R’ Us”.
Here is an excerpt: “Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation’s history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and “Honest Abe”). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these “rubber stamps” have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party’s (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?…” Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Posted by: Elsylee at January 28, 2008 8:02 PM
Comment #244103

Hitler wooed and uplifted the crowds aswell.
Isn’t Chavez pretty good at that also?
A leader cannot be picked by how he speaks alone.
What exactly is he going to change and how will he do it?

Posted by: marie at January 28, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #244106

The person I knew who supported Obama the most, was an excellent gambler, good at picking winners at the track. Obama might just be the lucky choice. After 8 years of the Decider, Nucular and “Is our children learning?”, maybe people are enjoying Obama’s overreaching oratory. I do not need to be uplifted by politicians, and Obama slams his opponents as well as anyone, while acting like the victim when anyone says anything about him that is not flattering.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 28, 2008 8:45 PM
Comment #244108
I know that the Clintons are not racists and that Bill Clinton desrves the appellation, “the first black president.”

The Clintons use race to get them what they want; power. Whether they use it to get and keep power or try to tear down an opponent, I don’t for a minute believe he deserves the appellation you ascribe to him. It is ludicrous.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2008 9:45 PM
Comment #244112

I have to side with Rhinehold here. Whether by design or just habit, the Clinton’s have the experience of every dirty, conniving, clever, and deceptive trick in the book at their disposal. I would respect them if they didn’t use them. But, they are using them, and that sets Obama on a higher rung in my opinion. A little inexperience with D.C. ways of getting things done could actually be quite refreshing for Americans absolutely fed up with political accumen at political warfare.

A focus on a future with hope and goals which the American people can reach for with the help of the President is vastly preferable to one who says they will do it all for us on Day 1, which of course, we know she can’t and won’t.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 1:23 AM
Comment #244119

Paul,
First of all, Ezra Klein is dead wrong.
Obama’s speeches DO excite, inform and inspire, right along with elevating peoples spirits. Because the simple fact is, nobody can manage to do what Barack Obama has done using only charisma alone. No, a person has got to have an amazing amount of intelligence in order to write and deliver speeches as consistently articulate and inspiring as Barack Obama’s are. (Yes, he does write his own speeches, although I understand he does use an editor to keep them sharply focused and to the point.)
The man has quite obviously got a powerhouse combination of Intelligence AND Charisma going for him.

Secondly, I thought I’d give Clinton’s full quote because I find it so funny and ridiculous:

Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.

Barack also won IOWA, Bubba. Oh, and if Obama is nothing more than Jackson in ‘84 and ‘88, I guess we should all assume that Hillary’s campaign will be about as successful as Mondale’s and Dukakis’s were, huh? :^D
What’s really amusing about Bubba’s nasty race baiting here is that not very long ago everyone in the media was claiming that Obama “wasn’t black enough” to win amongst black voters, and that the wife of the “First Black President” was sure to do well there. South Carolina proved both assumptions about as wrong as anyone could possibly be wrong!

Personally for me talk is cheap and the more the media and americans jump on his bandwagon the more I feel we need to step back and make sure that he truly has the stuff to be president. Seems not to long ago we had another American who was able to charm the folks and we are still feeling the negative effects of Reagan.

He’s no doddering old fake like Reagan. Those who have taken the time to look into his background know that Obama has got all the Right Stuff.

This is a guy with degrees from Colombia University and Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), who after a 104 years, became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Then he was a community organizer, a professor who taught Constitutional law, and finally a civil rights lawyer. He then entered politics, won an election to the Illinois State Senate, served from 1997 to 2004 and topped off those years by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (giving an extremely memorable speech, as usual). Then, he ran for the U.S. Senate and won in a landslide victory (this in an an election year that saw a vast majority of GOP gains). During his time in the Senate he has served on three Senate Committees: Foreign Relations (He is Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee for Europe), Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs.
Now of course, he’s running for president and is up against Hillary (a woman with less legislative experience than he has under his belt, but who does know how to fight as down and dirty, and as lacking in class as Karl Rove) who everyone had previously dubbed “The Inevitable Democratic Nominee.” Except, due to Obama’s obvious intelligence, sincerity, integrity and charisma, the assumption of Hillary’s “inevitability” seems about as realistic as Obama being “too black for white folks” (Iowa) and “too white for black folks” (South Carolina)!

I just hope that Super Tuesday doesn’t deliver us Mondale, oops, I mean Dukak… er, I mean the Two Headed Hillary Hydra that is the Clintons.

Let’s pick a really good candidate for the job, shall we? One, or should I say two, that aren’t so universally loathed and hated by both the Progressives AND the Conservatives the way the Clintons are.

Democrats do want to WIN this election, right?

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 29, 2008 2:51 AM
Comment #244124

I also think it is time to stop demonizing the “other” and look to the future. I personally found it tiring and old hearing Hilary happily bash Bush last night with delight at the prospect of hearing his last state of the union address. I continue to find her as polarizing and angry and argumentative as I always found Bush. and by doing so, it continues the polarization of the parties and of citizens.

I think it would be really nice to have someone in office who truly lives the principles of consensus and unification and connections. I liked that Kennedy reached over and shook Hilary’s hand last night, I wish Barak had done the same, actually. Like in a family, all this squabbling and fighting and back-biting is draining the country—draining it of money, of ideas, of energy, of creativity, of life and vitality. The only ones who thrive for years in an atmosphere like this are those who get energy from conflict or make money from it——and I see Hilary get energized from a fight. WHich says to me she will continue enabling this kind of atmosphere if she were president. we are tired of it—-

Posted by: judye at January 29, 2008 7:30 AM
Comment #244152

“Seems not to long ago we had another American who was able to charm the folks and we are still feeling the negative effects of Reagan.” Posted by: Carolina at January 28, 2008 06:24 PM

Negative effects of Reagan, I hardly think so. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts have proven once again to be the correct policy. Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest 4-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006. These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of GDP. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 Billion in 2006, and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Tax cutting without concomitant spending restraints is our primary economic problem and President Bush addressed that last night in his SOTU address. He vowed to veto bills containing pork. Had he done so from the beginning of his presidency the country would be in great financial shape and his polling numbers would be much higher.
Both Clinton and Obama are advocating huge spending programs combined with tax increases. This is exactly the wrong prescription for our ailing economy.
I believe the last two candidates standing will be Romney and Obama. In some ways this reminds me of the contest between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy was lacking in experience but had the looks and demeanor which appealed to many voters. Nixon had vast experience but on TV didn’t look as good as Kennedy. I have read that those who listened to their debate on the radio thought Nixon won while those watching on TV gave the winning honors to Kennedy. This time around it will be Romney in Nixon’s shoes and OBama in Kennedy’s shoes. I think this match-up will be extremely close with the winner being Romney as his experience in both private and public leadership will give him an edge with the majority of voters wanting that experienced hand in resolving our financial troubles.

Posted by: Jim M at January 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #244158

Jim M said: “The Reagan and Bush tax cuts have proven once again to be the correct policy.”

If you call cutting taxes while raising the national debt and limiting the next generations financial and economic options to overcome its own challenges the correct policy, I and most fiscal conservatives want no part of it.

A true fiscal conservative demands spending be cut first, then taxes, in order to not produce deficits and debt and service costs on that debt. But, it is clear you don’t buy into fiscal conservativism, so, why is it you aren’t voting PayGo Democrat, again?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #244159

I’m undecided about who & which party I’m voting for, but found this great article called “Black Voters and a Twist of Bias” on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59
WOW- all I have to say!
Here is an excerpt: “Last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic Primary produced the widely expected result of a Barack Obama victory. From the beginning of the week, it was the ethnic composition of the State in question which was amply discussed by both the Media and it’s multiple pundits. It was here and through other sources that we discovered that 55% percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina were African American. An interesting number when you consider the “coincidence” that Obama actually won the election by exactly the same margin: 55%. Of course, many in Clinton’s campaign have used this demographic reality to spin their defeat, vociferating that they had always expected to loose from the start. It should be noted that it has been this exact attitude which they have ridiculed Obama’s camp for, insinuating that they had proved to be “sore losers” by not admitting their own failures in stating their case to the American People. As we all know, in modern politics, no campaign is free of idiotic childishness, sadly resurfacing the reality that our current political existence is dominated by whining imbeciles of the lowest ilk. Nevertheless, the Clinton Campaign’s affirmation (victory based on a unified ethnic constituency) is valid, especially when we consider the data.
The Primary’s exit polling, presented by all major networks, were utilized by analysts to determine how was Obama’s, Edwards’, and Clinton’s support spread throughout different social markers. Their results indicated that 80% of the Black vote, and only 20% of the White vote, went towards Barack Obama. Regarding most White voters in the State, you could easily identify their split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The significance of this racial division is crucial in understanding the fate of Barack Obama’s campaign, and the Democratic Party, if they chose to face the General Election with him at the helm.…” Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59

Posted by: Elsylee at January 29, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #244172

Obama follows the teachings of his pastor, Lewis Farakan.

The tenets of his Church of Christ ascribe the devotion to Africa.

I’d just as soon have a President who is devoted to America…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #244175

Marysdude:

I could have predicted this comment, was just waiting for it. Too bad it’s wrong.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #244177

Marysdude
His pastor is the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. and devotion to Africa does not mean he is not devoted to America.

Posted by: kctim at January 29, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #244179

“But, it is clear you don’t buy into fiscal conservativism, so, why is it you aren’t voting PayGo Democrat, again?”
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 01:39 PM

Obviously David, you did not read all that I wrote in that post. By PayGo, Democrats mean we PAY more taxes while they GO like hell to spend more. Does that help?

Posted by: Jim M at January 29, 2008 5:26 PM
Comment #244180

That can not be the real Marysdude, who is an all around good guy.

Black church groups, some of whom have been involved in doing relief work in Africa, are understandably concerned about all the disease and mass destruction that have occurred in recent decades, and the lack of any reporting of most of it by the U.S. media, but hey Britney Spears was crying on the sidewalk with her dog, Obama snubbed Hillary at the SOTU, there is another asteroid in the sky, some person we don’t know went into rehab, and a good actor is still dead, that is the infotainment news.

If you are a billionaire, you can pay to plant tall tales in the news about people that you do not like, and years later, they will not only be repeated as facts by posters in forums like this, but taken as being representative of the character of those individuals, forgetting the ultimate source of the stories.

Rpblcns and Independants like Obama as an opponent. That should be enough to get Hillary the nomination.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 29, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #244181

kctim,

The name of his church is ‘Trinity United Church of Christ’. Item 4 in their Ten Point Vision states in part, “A congregation with non-negotiable commitment to Africa”. Visit and click on their ‘Trumpet’ magazine to read an interview with Mr. Farrakan. Sorry, about calling him the pastor, however, he IS a pastor, and is read and bears influence in Obama’s church.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #244182

Sorry the link failed…www.tucc.org

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #244183

I, personally, would rather have a president with a ‘non-negotiable commitment to America’.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #244184

The Trumpet is a crackpot religious magazine, available for free at the train station in Evanston. I have read it for laughs many times. They had one good story years ago about the properties and value of water. It is anti-semitic and armageddonist at the same time.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 29, 2008 6:27 PM
Comment #244186

The truth is, no candidate will have the experience to take on all the issues. What we’re seeking is a good manager, Somebody who can run things and get things done right. Obama, If I understand it correctly is a Harvard educated lawyer who specialized in constitutional law.

Any president we have is going to have a cabinet of advisors. The real question is whether the person is willing to listen to folks advice, willing to transcend politics to deal with the issues at hand.

Currently, I think Obama is the best person for that job. His rhetoric and his campaign are centered on a more open-minded approach to government. That, more than anything else, is what we need. It’s Bush’s closed mind, his hyperpartisan approach, his corruption and inability to follow constitutional law that has made his administration such a devastating disaster for the country. We need a new approach, and I don’t see the Clintons taking that new approach.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 29, 2008 7:05 PM
Comment #244187

The United Church of Christ was an attempt to combine Dutch Reformed Churches with Congregationalist churches, and I think some Presbyterian churches, although that might be the United Church of Canada. Our next door neighbor when I was a kid was a Presbyterian minister, and he did not become UCC. His son was also a minister, and did missionary work in various places around the world. Many congregations of all those three have Korean and Taiwanese services. The Methodist church here has English, Spanish, and Korean ministries. Those congregations may have dedications to foreign countries of their own, but BOO, Africa is somehow scarier.

To end on a patriotic note, here is a video of the Freshman Fifteen performing the National Anthem at NU day at Wrigley last year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AgX9XQUF4

Posted by: ohrealy at January 29, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #244188

I have an Idea that Obama would do well with.

He should start having a swear word in every sentence. That swear word should be “bleep”.

I would much rather hear someone say bleep instead of needing someone else to substitute it.

So bleep Obama. He hasn’t got a bleepin chance.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 29, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #244190

ohreally,

Yep, it’s me, the all around good guy. I just doubt Obama’s character and motives. That dosen’t mean I’m not a good guy…does it???

I must admit that this ‘all around good guy’ is for Hill/Bill though. That may be one reason I’m so doubtful about Obama.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 9:08 PM
Comment #244191


Stephen,

Do you remember if Bill operated like old school when he was in the White House? Do you remember if he was afraid to try different ways to get things done? The Clintons are tried and proven inovators and at least Bill proved he could cross the aisle. Why do you think Hill can’t do the same? Plus we desparately need to improve our foriegn relations. Who could do that better than Bill?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 9:17 PM
Comment #244195

Marysdude said: “The Clintons are tried and proven inovators and at least Bill proved he could cross the aisle. “

The advantage of being FORCED to positive action by a Congress controlled by the opposite party. Amazing what good compromise can produce. Then Bush and a one party government was elected. And it all went to hell in a bucket. Now, America is knee jerk reacting and going to install ANOTHER one party government, of the OTHER Party.

“When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn” Bob Dylan once sang. Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally. One party government swings back and forth do not advance our nation in meeting its challenges and accomplishing its goals. Each party cancels out the previous party’s plan and progress and invokes its own new plans right along side its renewed corruption.

The irony is that these swings being party control occur with more than 90% of the incumbents always being reelected. Think there could be a connection? Hmmm!!! Perhaps a bipartisan design to keep it this way?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #244197

Stephen said: “What we’re seeking is a good manager”

More than that. We are seeking, whether we realize it or not, a person who can admit they don’t know and don’t have all the answers but is educated enough to grasp and decide upon the best options the world of experts and empirical data have to offer.

Obama and Clinton both, in different ways, make the case they are that person. Edwards can’t get traction, I suspect, because he his plans and agenda and modus operandi are set in concrete implying he thinks he has all the answers. And of course, he doesn’t.

This propensity to believe one has all the answers and they are the right ones, is why I can’t support McCain or Edwards, though I admire their integrity and constancy.

I want more details on their plans from Clinton and Obama, but, I also insist on hearing from them that they will be open and receptive to better options if they present themselves. You know, the exact opposite of GW Bush.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 9:44 PM
Comment #244201

David,

I understand your frustration that a valid contender can’t be found by a third party. If one could be found even I might be tempted to go that way. Nader and perot both had positive influence on policies and legislation following their respective runs (several runs by Nader). But until there is a valid third party contender it behooves us to select the best of those who are actually in contention. My vote will be for the best best form the democratic party, hence Hill/Bill…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #244203

David,

By the way…if and when you wish to begin the revolution, I’m with you. Anything less than revolution will not change much, because the parties don’t run Washington, the buraucrats do, and only a revolution will unseat the realreal power structure.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2008 10:14 PM
Comment #244207

I only doubt Obama’s experience, not his motives or character. I think he lost his first attempt at a seat in Congress to Bobby Rush, and his election to the Senate was over a candidate who the Rpblcns wanted to get rid of, after his exwife’s accusations during the divorce came out. He has won a primary in a cornfield, and another in the birthplace of the Confederacy. It is not yet time for the coronation.

If he is nominated, the electoral college could produce the greatest disparity from the popular vote in history. States like SC have been carried recently by Rpblcns, sometimes with suspiciously close vote counts in statewide elections. It has sometimes looked as though they counted the votes in advance, and then came up with enough absentee ballots to cover the spread.

The largest urban centers are in states that vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and Obama could carry these with a very large plurality in the popular vote. To be elected, Obama needs to win states like Missouri, with medium sized urban centers. Maybe he can win Kansas, I don’t know, but his best chance of winning would be if the electoral college was eliminated before the next election, and that just is not going to happen.

If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party, I will be voting for his electors in Illinois, just as I voted for Hillary’s delegates in the primary. It is a long way to November, and the media is already examining his eyeline, posture, facial expressions, and body language. This will be the longest presidential campaign in history and I doubt Obama is up to it.

Hillary has been subjected to the scrutiny and hatred of the YouKnowWhat for decades and has come out of it as a respected stateswoman who does not resent her attackers. When they start in on Obama, I suspect that he and his supporters will make William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States, look like the senior statesman that he still is. He should be appointed as our UN Rep. He would stay in NY and out of the decision making process in DC.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 29, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #244209

Marysdude:

The name of his church is ‘Trinity United Church of Christ’. Item 4 in their Ten Point Vision states in part, “A congregation with non-negotiable commitment to Africa”.

Wow, imagine a congregation largely made up of African Americans making a non-negotiable commitment to Africa! It’s as though they’re saying that particular continent has a real surplus of problems, and that Jesus would approve of such a commitment! Really, how utterly shocking and unheard of!
If this keeps up, the next thing you know, the Jews might start showing an absurdly similar commitment to the State of Israel! And then the Catholics might start showing some kind of a strong commitment to the Pope over in Rome! And then the Buddhists might start thinking that Lumbini, and Bodh Gaya, and Sarnath, and Kushinagar in India hold some kind of special importance! And those who are Greek Orthodox might start showing some intense sort of allegiance to Greece!
God only knows where this might lead!

Visit and click on their ‘Trumpet’ magazine to read an interview with Mr. Farrakan.
Sorry, about calling him the pastor, however, he IS a pastor, and is read and bears influence in Obama’s church.

Uh, you really need to understand a couple of important facts here.
1. Trinity Church is a Christian Church.
2. Farrakhan is Nation of Islam.
An interview with someone who is a famous black leader from the viewpoint of a huge number of black people, such as Farrakhan is, does not then mean he bears any influence on or within Trinity Church. At all.

I, personally, would rather have a president with a ‘non-negotiable commitment to America’.

So, an American born U.S. Senator who is now running for U.S. president, and who was professor of Constitutional Law really mustn’t be expected to have a non-negotiable commitment to America, right? No, of course not. Instead, what we all need to do is focus on where the man goes to church, and who his pastor is, in order to discover everything we need to know about Barack Obama.

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He completed his elementary education in that city and then went to Virginia Union University. After three and a half years at Virginia Union, Pastor Wright left school and entered the United States Marine Corps. He transferred from the USMC into the United States Navy where he served as a cardiopulmonary technician. After six years in the military, Pastor Wright transferred to Howard University where he completed his undergraduate studies and received his first Master’s Degree. His second Master’s Degree was from the University of Chicago Divinity School. His Doctorate was received from the United Theological Seminary under Dr. Samuel DeWitt Proctor. In addition to Pastor Wright’s four earned degrees, he has been the recipient of eight honorary doctorates.

Therefore, all we really need to know about Barack Obama is that his pastor was a U.S. Marine, who later transferred to the Navy, got a couple of Masters Degrees, a Doctorate, and a handful of honorary doctorates.
Semper Fi, Obama. Oohrah!

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 29, 2008 11:12 PM
Comment #244210

Jim M.

Negative effects of Reagan, I hardly think so.

I know it it most likely a useless thing to state, but you apparently LIKED Reagan? I am curious as to why?

His “trickle down theory of tax and job ideas didn’t and still haven’t worked.Unless you actually benefited form it - and I know I didn’t.

He loved to spend money. It was Reagan who increased our deficient to over three times what it had been prior to his presidency. Over three trillion, I believe - but what’s a few billion here or there?

One of his most famous quotes was, jeez, “I forgot.” Paraphrased a little.

Other than being a fine actor, who acted like a good president,her had no problem taking credit for events that he actually had no major control over,i.e. the hostages and the Berlin Wall.

He wasn’t even President during the negotiations concerning the Hostages, and outside of yelling for media purposes, “Mr. Gorbachev, Please tear down this wall”, again after many years of long negotiations, also of which he played little no part, I fail to see what was so great about Reagan.

I think the most notable thing to happen during his term of office was when Nancy replaced the china. I suspect after twenty years, it might have some chips in it and need replacing again.

As for Bush, I must assume you mean Sr. and he wasn’t all that honest a President. “Read my Lips!!” What a farce!!!! Seems like he didn’t mind forgetting stuff too - like the Iranian-Contra affair.

Posted by: Linda H at January 29, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #244212

ohrealy:

I only doubt Obama’s experience,

Obama has a lot more experience than Bill Clinton did when he became the president. I personally find myself smirking whenever I hear how experience is now supposed to be considered the the Two-Headed Clinton candidacy’s biggest selling point. Especially when I remember how their inexperience in Washington had been touted as a major selling point in 1992.

Obama’s level of experience doesn’t bother me at all, and I believe that intelligence and integrity is actually of much greater importance than experience when it comes to selecting a presidential candidate.
I felt exactly the same way back in 1992 when I voted for Bill Clinton. While I still think that Clinton is highly intelligent, I no longer believe he has integrity. And yet despite that, I think it’s very sad how clownishly angry he has become while stumping for his wife on the campaign trail. Former presidents are always expected to act like elder statesmen, not political attack dogs.

I don’t think Hillary has enough real experience where it actually counts - though she obviously knows plenty about playing hardball political games. I also don’t consider her intelligent enough to deal with the kind of serious problems that George Bush has created during his two terms in office. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think she has any integrity at all, and I never did.

not his motives or character.

What about the motives and character of the political entity know as The Clinton’s? Have you any doubts there?

What with their total failure to reform health care in any way at all, and their GOP-like championing of Reagan’s trickle down economics, and Big Corporations, and their complete support of NAFTA, and the issues surrounding the ways they have financed their campaigns, and Bill lying directly to the American people about his extramarital affair (even if the lying had come as the result of a rabidly partisan, insanely expensive but taxpayer funded witchunt), I have to confess that as an American and a Liberal, I myself have got a steaming wheelbarrow full of doubts (and disgust) when it comes to the Clinton entity.

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 30, 2008 12:13 AM
Comment #244215

Democratic presidents who have had reverses, like Wilson with the League of Nations, Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs, and Carter with Iran, were more easily victimized by their own righteousness, and I think Obama falls into that category.

The idea that the Clintons lack integrity is the result of a well-financed advertising campaign, and the promotion of that idea by the media for over fifteen years now. The former POTUS has admitted to being the worlds most famous sinner.

What do you think your own reaction would be if you were subjected to those kind of attacks?
He was impeached basically because of a woman who never would have gotten near him if the Rpblcns had not shut down the government, so that interns were in places that they would not ordinarily be.

His successor, one of the most worthless individuals ever to give us the soberest years of his life, has not been impeached for more serious matters than anything anyone named Clinton ever did.

The legislative problems that occured in the Clinton administration were largely the result of the Bush41 reapportionment of the House, which ensured that there would only be one Democratic Rep in most southern states. This resulted in a Rpblcn majority until last year. The elections that occur just before reapportionments are the most undemocratic of all in terms of the electoral college. 1992 was a more democratic year than 1988 or 2000.

It is getting late, but on the NAFTA thing, we have to have markets for our products, and places to borrow when we are in debt, so we are probably stuck with it. Increasing Oil Prices should strengthenn local markets, and make shipping things around the world more expensive.

When microchip semiconductors were new, Morton chemical in Chicago used to ship whole planeloads of the raw material to Kuala Lumpur and other places, and whole planeloads of the finished product were shipped back. It seemed nuts to me then, and still does, but someone at the other end makes some money, and can buy some of our other products.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 30, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #244219

ohrealy said: “The idea that the Clintons lack integrity is the result of a well-financed advertising campaign,”

Yep, their own!

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 4:06 AM
Comment #244220

Marysdude said: “By the way…if and when you wish to begin the revolution, I’m with you. Anything less than revolution will not change much, because the parties don’t run Washington, the buraucrats do, and only a revolution will unseat the realreal power structure.”

There is some truth to what you say. But, the power you speak of does not rest in the bureaucrats in government, it rests in the party leadership and their supporters who control the politicians. I think your view underestimates the power of our Constitution and suffrage.

The power to remove a majority of corrupted parties and politicians from office in a sweep would be a revolution. And one entirely in the power of the people themselves to bring about. The Constitution and laws of this land create that option for the voters anytime they collectively agree to exercise it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 4:14 AM
Comment #244236
Negative effects of Reagan, I hardly think so. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts have proven once again to be the correct policy.

Reagan’s tax cuts necessitated Bush I’s tax increases and his defeat by Clinton…Clinton raised taxes and the economy still grew…

Pray tell how Bush II’s tax cuts helped the middle and working classes and the poor? They only thing they’ve done is to grow CEO salaries…we’re losing jobs, we’ve got the horrendous costs of petroleum, and our food prices are rising too fast…even the “market” is making its corrections and everyone with a 401K will again lose out.

Posted by: Rachel at January 30, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #244240

I would take Hillary any day over our current corrupter in chief. That is if I had no better options. I see Hillary as the better choice to continue our status quo, as opposed to any of the republican front runners, if it comes to that. But isn’t that a really sad reality? The reality that electing Hillary will ensure a continuance of hatred induced politics resulting in more non productive governance. It is the reality of the true current state of politics in this country that demands a distinct change in the way our legislators approach their work.

I wonder if there is any one person on this forum that can truly say to themselves that they are happy with the direction of hatred induced divisiveness our two major parties have taken to ensure that they will be the next to control the reigns of corruption. Putting Hillary in office will imo only serve to guarantee a continuance of the status quo. In other words business as usual. Now days experience in politics means that one knows which ropes to pull and which asses to kiss in order that they can insure their own self worth. I for the life of me can not imagine why I would be supportive of such obvious motivations. I understand there has always been corruption in politics but GW and our last congress took it to a new extreme and even openly laughed in its face while being accused of the same. Why should I think that Hillary, with all her experience and knowledge of the system would be any different? The fact is my instincts tell me that I should not. I do not see or feel any hint of conviction in what she preaches. I do not believe she has any chance of effecting an operational government that is capable of anything more than a one party agenda. I think this because strong hateful prejudices already exist between the Clintons and the republican party. To think that once elected all those prejudices will just magically disappear is a foolish and possibly devastating assumption in the face of the true state of our nation.

It is time for a leader that has the potential and will to reach out to all sides and honestly make considerations that are in the best interest of this country. Not just the best interests of their party or themselves. I see Obama potentially as the most realistic choice of being a true uniter with serious concerns for what is best for us all. He is not as far as I know owned by any influential wealth based entity at this point. It is that lack of years of exponential corruptive experience which makes him a relatively untainted person of credible character and probably our best chance at effecting any sort of positive change in goverment.

Posted by: RickIL at January 30, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment #244242

Tax cuts raise revenue (Reagan and Bush II years). Tax increases raise revenue (Clinton years). And now we have tax cuts growing CEO salaries, increasing unemployment, raising the price of oil, dropping the market and causing inflation. Those are some magical tax cuts!

More likely (I’m not saying fact here) than all of the above is Newton’s Law of Motion or those old T accounts from accounting days. Cutting taxes takes puts money in the hands of consumers at a cost to the financial markets. Inverse that for tax increases. The net effect to the overall economy is marginal at best.

Tax cuts don’t cause deficits; unrestrained federal spending causes those. Inversely, tax increases don’t reduce deficits; they just provide the government more money to spend. This realization from the late ‘80’s created a whole new political game of “targeted” tax increases or decreases based on political motives shrouded in economics. Oh, and had Bush I cut spending ala Gramm-Rudman-Hollings instead of raising taxes he might have kept his job in 1992.

Posted by: George in SC at January 30, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #244250

On continuance of hatred induced politics

You are blaming the victims of the hatred, for responding to unjustified attacks. Wait until they start on Obama, if he gets the nomination, and see how he responds. They are going to drag him into everything that Rezko did. Have you read the Chicago papers recently? It will be Whitewater part 2, but nobody wants to believe in a targeted, well financed smear campaign.

There was something this morning about McCain wanted to send more troops to Iraq, wanting to be the Nixon to Bush’s Johnson, no pun intended.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 30, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #244252


The Statis Quo sometimes leans to the left and sometimes it slants right. The Statis Quo will prevail irreguardless of who is elected president.

Posted by: jlw at January 30, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #244258

George in SC said: “Tax cuts raise revenue (Reagan and Bush II years).”

You really bought it hook, line, and sinker, didn’t you. If you listen to Bernanke’s Q&A with the House Committee a couple weeks ago, you will hear agreement between Republicans and Bernanke that tax cuts DO NOT increase revenues on net, they do stimulate the economy, but, the revenues generated by that increased economic activity DO NOT equal the losses resulting from the tax cuts.

That was a Republican myth - one which Republicans who have reviewed the numbers now admit, is a myth. CBO and GAO have both disspelled this myth, as well. Both Greenspan and Bernanke have also dispelled that myth openly before Congress. There are rare circumstances in which for a short term period stimulated revenues could equal tax cuts, but, only for a very short period, a couple of quarters.

You may want to research this a bit, and catch up with reality on this issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #244259

George in SC offerred another Republican myth: “Tax cuts don’t cause deficits; unrestrained federal spending causes those. “

Absolutely wrong and educated conservatives will tell you so. The fact is, to avoid deficits and debt, one must cut spending first, first to the point that no deficit is created, and THEN cut spending EVEN more to equal the amount of revenue to be lost by a proposed tax cut.

The reason Republicans added 3.67 Trillion to our national debt in 7 years was precisely because they cut taxes. They didn’t participate in the commensurately required spending cuts, first. Ergo, it WAS the tax cuts that caused the deficits.

True conservatives argue that when the economy is growing at 3% or more, you must raise taxes and/or cut spending, after a recessionary stimulus period, in order to recover the deficit created by the stimulus spending.

You cannot have one without the other. Spending and taxes MUST equal to have a zero deficit. ANY ACT or INACTION which promotes taxation less than spending equals deficits, or vice versa. They are inseparable, which makes a myth of the notion that taxes don’t create deficits. They most certainly do. Government requires taxes. Responsible government requires taxation at levels which equals spending. Politicians are responsible for BOTH tax and spending levels, simultaneously. If there is a deficit, taxes were too low AND spending was too high.

Republicans try illogically to make the argument that cutting taxes first will solve the problem. That is in fact what they have done for more than 14 years. Look at where we are. Rapidly working to make last year’s 9 Trillion into 10 Trillion.

Bush, btw, was the single biggest pork spender of any politician in federal government. The total of his introduced pork spending in his budget proposals exceeds by far any Democrat in Congress’s pork spending. Something to bear in mind when discussing spending as if it were a uniquely Democratic activity. Remember Bush’s Library named after Laura added to the Defense Budget?

Get an independent and mutually skeptical mindset toward both parties and your comments might not be so fraught with myth and misinformation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #244262

David-

You may want to read past the first line next time (which was a re-cap of an argument above). I trust they taught you Newton’s Law of Motion back in school.

Posted by: George in SC at January 30, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #244268

Obama says he will “Transcend Left and Right.”

It’s high-speech, please and thank you. But this can only mean take control and steer things left. Am I wrong? (Please don’t explain the merits of left vs. right.)

Would somebody please explain to me how this magical word transcend is accomplished.

How do you transcend the abortion debate?

How do you transcend the open border issue?

How do you transcend the taxation discussion?

I think it is this kind of eloquent, albeit meaningless, kind of promise is keeping Obama from really taking the driver’s seat in his party.

Posted by: Yukon jake at January 30, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #244277

Welcome to wonderland where people believe that the revenue achieved by raising taxes will be used by politicians to lower our debt. Fat chance. Give a politician a dollar and they will spend two. It reminds me of the cigarette tax. Cities and states found that raising the tax on smokes resulted in reduced income from that tax. Their answer, increase the tax even more. Now that’s really great logic. Please tell me when either Obama or Hillary told Americans they would use their proposed tax increases to pay down our debt. Both have proposed huge new spending programs. Some say we must first reduce spending, then reduce taxes. That’s great, let’s start today with the PayGo dems. (We PAY and they GO like hell to spend it). Dems have the remainder of the year to begin fiscal responsibility. I will be the first to cheer when, and if, it happens.

Posted by: Jim M at January 30, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #244281

George in SC said: “You may want to read past the first line next time (which was a re-cap of an argument above).”

Love it when my fellow debater resorts to a one liner to escape the debate rather than refute the points I made. Thank you for the concession.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment #244293
Dems have the remainder of the year to begin fiscal responsibility.

That was an interesting part of the State of the Union speech, Bush threatening to veto any bill with any increased spending or earmarks, etc…

It was a few years too late, so he gets no ‘kudos’, it is a great assist for his party though. If he can use his lame duck power to paint the dems as being fiscally irresponsible with his maneuver, he could help tip the scale for the reps in the general.

Does he have the will do follow through? Will he just fold like a house of cards (again)? It may be an interesting summer after all…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2008 9:18 PM
Comment #244307

Rhubehold:

Care to offer an opinion on Obama the uplifter?

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 31, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #244309

googlumpugus,

He doesn’t uplift me very much.

I figure he will win by default though…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2008 1:29 AM
Comment #244317

Does he have the will do follow through? Will he just fold like a house of cards (again)? It may be an interesting summer after all…
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2008 09:18 PM

Rhinehold, that is an interesting spin. When congress passes legislation loaded with pork it becomes the president’s pork when he fails to veto and, in your words, “folds like a house of cards”. Never mind that pork is usually squeezed into bills necessary for running the government and there is no line-item veto. Your words appear to completely absolve congress from any consequences for their actions. Isn’t that a little one-sided? Where was your praise for the President when he vetoed the so-called “Child Health Care Bill” that presumed 25 year old persons to be children and paid for this outrageous notion by further increasing taxes on persons who use tobacco. As a smoker, why am I singled out as the person who should shoulder the burden of this largess? Methinks that you only object to “pork” when it doesn’t further your parties political pandering. Should Hillary win the WH will you be supporting her “baby bond” give-away along with her other hair-brained schemes to give away tax dollars?

Posted by: Jim M at January 31, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #244321

On the cigarette taxes, if consumption of cigarettes is reduced, that would be a good thing, but people are just buying them on line, or buying the tobacco and roll your own kits. I knew someone who decided to grow his own tobaaco plants, but he died before before he ever got a harvest.

The reduction in smoking tobacco by the general population, increases the correlation between smoking tobacco and smoking other things, like from Craig X Rubin and Temple 420. People often smoke tobacco to help keep a buzz going after smoking other things.

One of the benefits of the invasion of Afghanistan should have been to increase the quality and supply, and decrease the price, but the CIA is probably keeping it all for themselves, and waiting till they can m,ake the biggest profit.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 31, 2008 11:59 AM
Comment #244326

Ohrealy:

Democratic presidents who have had reverses, like Wilson with the League of Nations, Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs, and Carter with Iran, were more easily victimized by their own righteousness, and I think Obama falls into that category.

So, having a president who is righteous is too dangerous, or something? Therefore, the Two Headed Clinton Entity is the only obvious choice for Democrats? Because those two have a truly glaring lack of righteousness?
What a totally bizarre point of view.
Maybe it’ll make you feel a bit better to know that Obama’s “righteousness” isn’t an entirely spotless affair? Although he clearly does have the integrity to be honest and up front about his mistakes. But, perhaps in your view such integrity and stark honesty is another too dangerous prospect to have in a president?

The idea that the Clintons lack integrity is the result of a well-financed advertising campaign, and the promotion of that idea by the media for over fifteen years now.

What a complete crock! This sounds exactly like something the rightwingers have been saying about Bush’s treatment in the media. Everything is the fault of the media - it has nothing to do with them!

You know, I could sit here and write out an extremely long list of examples of instances where the Clintons have displayed their complete lack of integrity that has nothing whatsoever to do with what has been said about them in the media, but instead, I think I’ll just give you a single telling example:

Hillary Clinton was, in her own words, “a Goldwater Girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit” while in high school, she was also the head of the Young Republican’s while she was at Wellesley College. (Remember that next time she starts droning on about her 35 years of “experience” and “fighting for change.”)
She now claims that in 1963 she had a very strong attachment to, and was inspired by, Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student. But, that is impossible if she was a booted and befringed “Goldwater Girl” in the presidential election of the following year.
Why impossible? Well, because Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 voting rights bill was not merely incidental to his run for the White House! In fact, Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists in opposing the Voting Rights Act of 1964 - which had been inspired by Dr. King.

Not only did Hillary show no integrity to the party she had loudly championed as both a high school girl and as an adult while in college, but she shows none now, in blatantly lying about her devotion to Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. She’s only saying that because she knows that this is what the majority of Democrats want to hear.
She is an opportunist who shows integrity or honesty, at all.

What do you think your own reaction would be if you were subjected to those kind of attacks?

Like Obama, I prefer to be honest, would dislike those who felt they had to lie about me in order to gain an edge or score a few political points. You’ll notice that I call myself veritas vincit. That means that I always think that truth should prevail, and that liars should lose.

He was impeached basically because of a woman who never would have gotten near him if the Rpblcns had not shut down the government, so that interns were in places that they would not ordinarily be.

So, it wasn’t really Clinton’s fault at all that he couldn’t manage to keep it in his pants? It was all the Republicans fault that Bill was faithless in his marriage?
Wow, the GOP really was extraordinarily powerful back then, weren’t they?! They managed to make turn an faithful, honest guy into a lying philanderer, simply by shutting down the government, and giving girls like Monica too much time on her hands… and knees.

His successor, one of the most worthless individuals ever to give us the soberest years of his life, has not been impeached for more serious matters than anything anyone named Clinton ever did.

No argument there. Bush and Cheney should certainly be impeached, but won’t be. And that’s the fault of our own Pelosi, who immediately took it “off the table.”

The legislative problems that occured in the Clinton administration were largely the result of the Bush41 reapportionment of the House,

That, and the fact that the Clinton’s were completely incapable of compromising with the GOP.

on the NAFTA thing, we have to have markets for our products, and places to borrow when we are in debt, so we are probably stuck with it.
Another poor excuse. NAFTA has been a disastrous policy that the Clinton’s championed to help their corporate supporters, even though it was sure to hurt Americans, and has. Posted by: veritas vincit at January 31, 2008 1:30 PM
Comment #244334

veritas said: “That, and the fact that the Clinton’s were completely incapable of compromising with the GOP.”

The welfare reform act refutes your comment above, as do many other such compromises with Republicans over the years, including the surplus budget at the end of his 2nd term, which never would have happened had Bill not had a Republican House and the Blue Dogs to deal with.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #244339

David R. Remer:

The welfare reform act refutes your comment above, as do many other such compromises with Republicans over the years, including the surplus budget at the end of his 2nd term, which never would have happened had Bill not had a Republican House and the Blue Dogs to deal with.

Yes, there were quite a few areas where no compromise was called for. But mostly that is due to the fact there is very little to no difference between the Clinton’s New Democrat (aka DLC, Blue Dog) positions, and those of the GOP.
What I was refering to in that comment was the Clinton’s complete inability compromise on the subject of health care reform. It seemed that Ohrealy was attempting to make an excuse for the Clinton’s failure in that regard by trying to hang it all on reapportionment of the House.

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 31, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #244350

Veritas,

I’m impressed with your balanced views of the Clinton’s. They are phoneys, and closet Republican shills for big business, but much of the ado about Bill’s philandering, Whitewater, etc. was a well financed smear campaign. He certainly holds responsibility for failing to “keep his pant zipped”, but then, I’m not really sure if I find that siginificant in a president’s ability to be fair or a leader. I’m not even sure if we can find sexual obsesses or dysfunction a fair indicator of integrity. It certainly is a new phenomenon and metric, if it is.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 31, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #244357

goodlumpugus:

I’m impressed with your balanced views of the Clinton’s.

You might say I am very tired of dynastic billionaire liars sitting in the White House. And this is true whether their last name be Bush or Clinton.

They are phoneys, and closet Republican shills for big business,

Couldn’t agree more.

but much of the ado about Bill’s philandering, Whitewater, etc. was a well financed smear campaign.

Again, I agree, but then he lied under oath and to the American people about his affair with Monica. I don’t think lying under oath should simply be dismissed. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

He certainly holds responsibility for failing to “keep his pant zipped”, but then, I’m not really sure if I find that siginificant in a president’s ability to be fair or a leader.

Yes, but a president lying under oath IS significant.
No doubt this is the reason that the members of the Bush administration have circumvented and tried to avoid being put under oath whenever possible.

I’m not even sure if we can find sexual obsesses or dysfunction a fair indicator of integrity.

I don’t see why not. After all, isn’t this exactly the reason the U.S. military gives for keeping gay people from serving their country?

It certainly is a new phenomenon and metric, if it is.

Clinton should have told the truth under oath and to the American people - even if he was being subjected to a transparently ridiculous and viciously partisan witchunt. The way I see it, that’s what an honest leader of true integrity would have done.
Do you disagree?

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 31, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #244365

v v, I like vero nihil verius. It is beter just to answer the previous writers in the thread rather than to extract quotes which disrupts the flow. People posting should be reading everything that was posted before that was relevant to the thread.

On the righteousness issue, this would be the difference between Carter and the Clintons, who were more pragmatic. I am personally not interested as much in the theory of what the government should be doing, as in the reality of what they are doing, which I call the objective reality. Theoretical answers are red state answers, so Obama should do well there.

My sister was also a Goldwater girl, so how would I find that objectionable? MLK was popular with churchgoing people in the 1960s, who might not have agreed with everything that he or Goldwater said or did. The idea that Goldwater was promoting at that time, which may have appealed most, was freedom of association.

This is all very old stuff, but on the whole sex thing, why criticize the president for any sexual behavior he might have done? He basically gave in to a stalker. Sex is good. People that have sex are normal, and those that don’t are uptight weirdos. If our parents didn’t do it, none of us would be here. If some one wanted to become the most famous corksoaker in the world, I say good for her, she got a job on SNL out of it.

People who investigate other people’s sex lives, are either very sick disturbed individuals, or hypocrites. A 17th century quote goes something like: Hypocrisy is the only vice in decay amongst us. Few men here dissemble their being rascals, and no woman disowns being a whore. Rochester, perhaps.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 31, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #244373
I like vero nihil verius.

If you believe in vero nihil verius, then you also believe in veritas vincit.

It is beter just to answer the previous writers in the thread rather than to extract quotes which disrupts the flow.

You can post any way you want to, and so will I.

People posting should be reading everything that was posted before that was relevant to the thread.

Personally, I believe that people aren’t stupid.

My sister was also a Goldwater girl, so how would I find that objectionable?

So, are you saying you happen to love that in a woman? Or was is it just the cowgirl duds you’re nostalgic for?

MLK was popular with churchgoing people in the 1960s, who might not have agreed with everything that he or Goldwater said or did. The idea that Goldwater was promoting at that time, which may have appealed most, was freedom of association.

Look, I think that the obvious has a better ring to it. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Someone who was in fact so strongly influenced by MLK couldn’t have brought themselves to vote for Goldwater when he so strongly opposed it - let alone dress up in cowgirl duds for him.

This is all very old stuff,

Exactly. I say it’s time to get rid of the old stuff, because it stinks.
And that’s why I’m voting for Obama!

but on the whole sex thing, why criticize the president for any sexual behavior he might have done?

Because he lied about it under oath.

He basically gave in to a stalker.

Oh, what a pathetic excuse.

Hey, why don’t you go try that one on your wife and see what she thinks of it?
:^D

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 31, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #244381
Your words appear to completely absolve congress from any consequences for their actions.

Then you are reading into what I wrote things that I have not said.

Isn’t that a little one-sided?

My pointing out a single thing in a State of the Union address is ‘one sided’? Sorry, you are once again assuming that I think things I simply do not.

Methinks that you only object to “pork” when it doesn’t further your parties political pandering.

Then you don’t have a single clue about what I stand for, obviously…

Hint, I’m a libertarian who thinks that the government should work within tightly defined bounderies that would require no income tax to sustain…

I don’t approve of ‘pork’ by any single politician…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 31, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #244458

Another example of the Clinton’s lack of integrity:

Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Raise Money, Get Clinton, McCain Meetings
White House Hopefuls Clinton And McCain Have the Most Fundraisers Who Lobby for Foreign Countries

Also, check out the video on that page entitled “Clinton’s Corporate Side.” It’s a short piece about her years working for Walmart.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 2, 2008 12:07 AM
Comment #244465

Voters should realize that we are in an economic and foreign policy crisis. We do not have the luxury of making the Democratic primary into this season’s “American Idol” — we need a candidate who can ANSWER questions, not just speak in broad terms of “change” or “unity”. We need a candidate with a CONCRETE PLATFORM, a Chief Executive who has the EXPERIENCE to be ACT QUICKLY and be DECISIVE and not just TALK about change but make CHANGE HAPPEN. This is HILLARY CLINTON. If Obama wants to ask someone what bills he should sign, maybe he should concede to HILLARY now since she has the answers. Its great that he got the youth “fired up and ready to go”, but he doesn’t yet know where to lead us — his policy is a moving target that we don’t have time for. Ibama would make a great VP for a decisive, experienced leader, and that Leader is HILLARY CLINTON. Enough with empty rhetoric - it got us in this mess to begin with!

Posted by: KC at February 2, 2008 5:12 AM
Comment #244469

KC, ITA, but your deluding yourself if you think there is any discussion going on in this forum. It is just the same old Drudgeite Clinton bashing taking a dump on all of us. Obama is just the new tool being used, and even he recognizes that. I have personally never met a Democrat who did not have a high opinion of the Clintons. The Drudgeites have been coming into forums like this for years, always claiming to be Democrats, or more liberal than you, but the same agenda that most of us were sick of ten years ago always comes back.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 2, 2008 9:25 AM
Comment #244490

KC,
Hillary has all the answers, eh? How was this for one of her “answers” in the debate the other night?

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution — not going to war, but going to the resolution — was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so that we would know what’s there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time, which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.

So I think I made a reasoned judgment.

The resolution that Hillary thought there was a credible case for was entitled:
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.
I think she is totally dishonest, and has absolutely terrible judgement.
Obama is a much better choice to lead this country.

Ohrealy, your comments are very typical among Blue Dog Democrats. Everybody who dislikes the Republican Lite corporate-owned DLC candidate like Hillary, and instead wants Obama to win the nomination for our party must be a “Drudgeite.”

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 2, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #244498

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Posted by: JayJay at February 2, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #244508

The 2008 election is on the wrong side of the reapportionment curve for the Democrats. We need both Hillary and Obama on the ticket, in that order. The Rpblcns will be doing more bashing later, why play into their hands now? They supposedly have 30 more stories on WJClinton ready to go after the nomination. On Obama, it will be Rezkogate and some kind of attack on his race or ethnicity. Come on, these are the guys that wanted to punish McCain for adopting a child from Bangladesh. Do you think they will stop at anything to get what they want?

Posted by: ohrealy at February 2, 2008 10:41 PM
Post a comment