It's Official Obama is running in '08

[Don Corleone]

I think Barack Obama is a principled man, courageous enough to take a stance, something that's rare in our political arena these days. Unfortunately, his stances aren't anything I happen to agree with, for practical reasons as well as ideological ones. But I do give him the high-mark as the most honest, direct and forthright politician I've seen in a long time.

Oh yeah, how'd that work out for Howard Dean?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is hilarious.

Actually, she is right on the button. Although it can seem ridiculous if looked at facetiously (especially her "African-African-American" label), grouping all decendents of Africans in one category is over-generalization. Not only is he not related in any direct way to most Afro-Americans (who are mostly descendents of slaves from West Africa), he has one black parent and one white parent. Like Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, and Vanessa Williams, they are touted as blacks, when it's equally accurate to call them "white".

Of course, I acknowledge in each of these cases that these people had to endure racism based on public perception of them as "black". But the whole situation demonstrates what I have been saying all along. Race is an illusion.

If that is so, then is not this:

It was only two generations ago that Afro-Americans were lynched, schools were segregated, and "mixed race" marriages were illegal in about half the states. I think racism is still lurking under the current facade, and in many cases is still blatant.

incorrect? It was not people from Africa (which includes Egyptians, Tunisians, etc.) who were lynched, but black people.

CR

[AntiochusIII]

I think Barack Obama is a principled man, courageous enough to take a stance, something that's rare in our political arena these days. Unfortunately, his stances aren't anything I happen to agree with, for practical reasons as well as ideological ones. But I do give him the high-mark as the most honest, direct and forthright politician I've seen in a long time.

Just a question, if he somehow beats the Clinton machine and gets nominated, and the Republican fudge up their primary and get either yet another Bushite, a Bible-thumper, or the average Washington hypocrite, would you vote for him?

I'd be interested in people's opinion on what is more important, ideology or the character and skills of the candidate :/

P.S. I'm not sure whether this Obama is a brilliant conniver who manages to deceives the whole nation on his character or if he's actually the real deal. It'd be interesting to know, for sure.

[Don Corleone]

It would really depend Antiochus. I don't know that the Bush camp have identified a succssor, so I don't have anyone to be wary of there yet. I'll be wary of anybody receiving George's endorsement prior to Super Tuesday '08.

If a guy got the nomination strictly for being a social conservative, and had no ideas on economics/foreign policy (as opposed to Barrack's, which I happen to disagree with) yes, I would vote for Barrack Obama.

If somebody with an even rudimentary grasp of how a free-market economy is supposed to work (and based on his stated positions, it is clear that Barrack Obama does not) I would have to vote for them.

[Geoffrey S]

I hope you get Obama vs. McCain. A win-win in my eyes, both decent men who have thus far been consistent and honest; as long as they surround themselves with good people they should at least be able to make the US credible once more. That Obama faces an uphill struggle is certain, but he seems solid enough to survive it. Though I worry that should he fail, his extremely promising potential will be unfulfilled; perhaps this is too early.

No way I'd like to see Hillary in the office. After two Bushes a second Clinton would make a mockery of the elections, and above all she's an untrustworthy scheming person and the very definition of 'flip-flopping'.

[Vuk]

I hope you get Obama vs. McCain. A win-win in my eyes, both decent men who have thus far been consistent and honest; as long as they surround themselves with good people they should at least be able to make the US credible once more. That Obama faces an uphill struggle is certain, but he seems solid enough to survive it. Though I worry that should he fail, his extremely promising potential will be unfulfilled; perhaps this is too early.

No way I'd like to see Hillary in the office. After two Bushes a second Clinton would make a mockery of the elections, and above all she's an untrustworthy scheming person and the very definition of 'flip-flopping'.

Obama v.s. McCain...I think I'd shoot myself...

[AntiochusIII]

It would really depend Antiochus. I don't know that the Bush camp have identified a succssor, so I don't have anyone to be wary of there yet. I'll be wary of anybody receiving George's endorsement prior to Super Tuesday '08.

If a guy got the nomination strictly for being a social conservative, and had no ideas on economics/foreign policy (as opposed to Barrack's, which I happen to disagree with) yes, I would vote for Barrack Obama.

If somebody with an even rudimentary grasp of how a free-market economy is supposed to work (and based on his stated positions, it is clear that Barrack Obama does not) I would have to vote for them.

Interesting. Indeed, I respect your position.

Obama v.s. McCain...I think I'd shoot myself...

Vuk: Who do you want to run for the Presidency, really? Patrick Robertson or something?

[Mooks]

I dont think a black muslim is going to be elected president. And neither is a woman(hillary clinton). Im not a racist or sexist, but alot of people wont vote for them on those 2 reasons.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think Obama would make for a fine vice president to the next president of the United States of America: Hillary Clinton.

[Stig]

I dont think a black muslim is going to be elected president.

A muslim?

sorry, but

[Don Corleone]

I think Obama would make for a fine vice president to the next president of the United States of America: Hillary Clinton.

Christ, you Frenchies really do hate America and want to see us collapse.

Obama I could live with as pres or as vice. But Hilllary's not just ideologically different. She has no moral fiber, and would be tyranical. If anything could possibly make me nostalgic for W in 2010, it would be 2 years of a Hillary presidency.

Again, it's not her femaleness or her ideological stance. I'd take Dianne Feinstein (generally viewed as Left of Hillary) any day over Hillary. It's her Clinton-ness that scares me. People like her are convinced that the rules just don't apply to her.

[Stig]

Are you afraid of Hillary?













woops, wrong pic sorry

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, from what I've gathered, if you don't vote for Osama, I mean Obama, you're a racist. But if you don't vote for Hitlery, I mean Hillary, you're sexist. I'm going to have to think this over while eating some fried chicken and watching Oprah, I'll get back to you guys later....

[Don Corleone]

You ever notice how Alan Keyes, who has run for president 3 times, somehow isn't black enough. But Obama, who's mother is white, is genunie, and as a white person, I can prove my open-mindedness by supporting Obama, but not Keyes.

Aah, the glorious spin machine of the Democratic Party at work.

[Devastatin Dave]

You ever notice how Alan Keyes, who has run for president 3 times, somehow isn't black enough. But Obama, who's mother is white, is genunie, and as a white person, I can prove my open-mindedness by supporting Obama, but not Keyes.

Aah, the glorious spin machine of the Democratic Party at work.

Don't forget Condi and Gen Powell. You'd think they were active members of the Klan like the rest of us white folks according to Tachi. Nothin more cute than white liberal guilt.
This fried chicken, dare I say, is DYNOMIIIIIITE!!!

[CrossLOPER]

I kind of hope he wins because it will shut up a lot of minority professional victims once and for all.

He's not black enough because his ancestors weren't slaves.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...584736,00.html

In before dancing lock.

[Marshal Murat]

Who stands a prayer of a chance, ironic since the other two are reverends...

I am moving to Britain if Hillary gets elected.

[CrossLOPER]

I am moving to Britain if Hillary gets elected.

No, you won't.

[Goofball]

Well, from what I've gathered, if you don't vote for Osama, I mean Obama, you're a racist. But if you don't vote for Hitlery, I mean Hillary, you're sexist. I'm going to have to think this over while eating some fried chicken and watching Oprah, I'll get back to you guys later....

Just wondering Dave:

What do Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama have in common that you would compare them?

And why in this context do you feel your eating fried chicken and watching Oprah have any relevance to the thread topic?

Just curious, you know, because you (as you've told us on so many occasions) are certainly not a racist...

[Xiahou]

Just wondering Dave:

What do Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama have in common that you would compare them?

Ask Ted Kennedy.

I think Barack Obama is a principled man, courageous enough to take a stance, something that's rare in our political arena these days.

Give him a chance Don- he's still relatively new to the national scene.

He's already said that American soldiers have been wasting their lives in Iraq. That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it- but the moment someone calls him out on the comment he backs away from it and apologizes. I mean which is it?

[Vuk]

Well, from what I've gathered, if you don't vote for Osama, I mean Obama, you're a racist. But if you don't vote for Hitlery, I mean Hillary, you're sexist. I'm going to have to think this over while eating some fried chicken and watching Oprah, I'll get back to you guys later....

ROTFLMEWAO

(Rolling on the floor, Laughing me ever-widening arse off)

[Goofball]

Ask Ted Kennedy.


Give him a chance Don- he's still relatively new to the national scene.

He's already said that American soldiers have been wasting their lives in Iraq. That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it- but the moment someone calls him out on the comment he backs away from it and apologizes. I mean which is it?

Have you got a direct quote on that Xiahou? The reason I ask is that two statements that are very much alike would have very different meanings. In this case, I mean the difference between:

"American soldiers are wasting their lives in Iraq."

and

"American soldiers' lives are being wasted in Iraq."

The former is unfair and untrue, but the latter I agree with without reservation.

[Xiahou]

Have you got a direct quote on that Xiahou? The reason I ask is that two statements that are very much alike would have very different meanings. In this case, I mean the difference between:

"American soldiers are wasting their lives in Iraq."

and

"American soldiers' lives are being wasted in Iraq."

The former is unfair and untrue, but the latter I agree with without reservation.

I'm sure a direct quote wouldn't be hard to find, but I'm curious on what you think the difference is between the two above statements. Care to spell it out for me?


Ah, here's the quote:

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

[drone]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is apologizing for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted."

During his first campaign trip this weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd in Iowa: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." (Watch Obama announce his candidacy)

He immediately apologized on Sunday, saying the remark was "a slip of the tongue."

During an appearance Monday in Nashua, New Hampshire, he apologized again, telling reporters he meant to criticize the civilian leadership of the war, not those serving in the military.

"Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken," Obama said. "It is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any (military families) felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown."

Obama made his second visit to New Hampshire on Monday, following his speech Saturday announcing his candidacy in Illinois on Saturday and a visit to first-caucus state Iowa.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm sure a direct quote wouldn't be hard to find, but I'm curious on what you think the difference is between the two above statements. Care to spell it out for me?:

Their lives being wasted puts the blame on the Bush administration, and implies the mishandling of Iraq by said government; American soldiers wasting their lives in Iraq implies the same thing Kerry implied a while back, that the troops are a bunch of slackers who have nothing better to do with their lives. It is quite a difference.

[Ser Clegane]

Nm...

[Goofball]

Have you got a direct quote on that Xiahou? The reason I ask is that two statements that are very much alike would have very different meanings. In this case, I mean the difference between:

"American soldiers are wasting their lives in Iraq."

and

"American soldiers' lives are being wasted in Iraq."

The former is unfair and untrue, but the latter I agree with without reservation.

I'm sure a direct quote wouldn't be hard to find, but I'm curious on what you think the difference is between the two above statements. Care to spell it out for me?

The job of the Commander in Chief is to use the military for the protection and benefit of the citizens of the U.S. The argument can certainly be made that the war in Iraq has served neither to protect nor benefit Americans. So in that sense, it would be fair comment to say that the current administration is wasting soldiers' lives.

On the other hand, the soldiers themselves have not wasted their own lives. They have chosen an honorable and worthy profession: serving their fellow citizens by serving in their country's military. Whatever we may say of the war in Iraq, we can certainly not say that the soldiers wasted their own lives, as they are doing what they are sworn to do.

Ah, here's the quote:

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

So it appears that I was correct. Obama did not say that "American soldiers have been wasting their lives" in Iraq. He said that the administration has been wasting American soldiers' lives. Big difference.

[Pannonian]

I'm sure a direct quote wouldn't be hard to find, but I'm curious on what you think the difference is between the two above statements. Care to spell it out for me?

One is active, the other is passive. If American soldiers are wasting their lives in Iraq, they are the ones doing the wasting. If American soldiers' lives are being wasted in Iraq, someone else is doing the wasting.

[Xiahou]

One is active, the other is passive. If American soldiers are wasting their lives in Iraq, they are the ones doing the wasting. If American soldiers' lives are being wasted in Iraq, someone else is doing the wasting.

It's an all volunteer army- I doubt there are many serving who signed up since the war in Iraq started that didn't think there was a strong possibility they'd be sent there. However, I don't want to get bogged down on this point as it's not the one that I set out to make.

My point on Obama was this:
If he really believes that the war was a mistake then he naturally would think that our soldiers lives are being wasted. So why, when called out on the comment does he back away from it so quickly? Is he now trying to claim that they're dying for a worthy cause, yet the war is a mistake and should never have been fought? This makes no sense. Of course, this is typical double-talk for any politician and doesn't really make Obama special in that regard- the reason I brought it up was in response to those who are claiming he's a no BS straight-talking politician.

[Goofball]

It's an all volunteer army- I doubt there are many serving who signed up since the war in Iraq started that didn't think there was a strong possibility they'd be sent there. However, I don't want to get bogged down on this point as it's not the one that I set out to make.

My point on Obama was this:
If he really believes that the war was a mistake then he naturally would think that our soldiers lives are being wasted. So why, when called out on the comment does he back away from it so quickly? Is he now trying to claim that they're dying for a worthy cause, yet the war is a mistake and should never have been fought? This makes no sense. Of course, this is typical double-talk for any politician and doesn't really make Obama special in that regard- the reason I brought it up was in response to those who are claiming he's a no BS straight-talking politician.

I agree. I would have been happier with him if he had stuck by his guns and explained it in the simple terms it has just been explained in in here. If he had just said something to the effect of "Let me be clear: I believe that our soldiers are honorably serving their country, but that this administration is spending their lives needlessly" it would have been much better than backpedalling.

Another case of politicians playing to the lowest common denominator and not trusting that the majority of the electorate can actually understand English...

But this doesn't make Obama any worse than any of the other candidates.