Go Barack! 

On a related note, I assume I’m not the only one who’s noticed that John McCain hasn’t taken half the heat Obama has for having the support of John Hagee, who in my opinion is far more vile than the reverend Wright.

He’s coming to Indiana soon, and I briefly considered going to hear him speak before thinking “It’s a bit of a drive, and gas is expensive, and I’m going vote for him anyway if he gets the nomination.”

In addition to guaranteeing an end to the war inside year one of the Obama presidency, his less-publicized opinion that marijuana should be decriminalized makes me like him even more. Sometimes he comes of as a little empty, but as Eddie Izzard says, it’s only 10% what you actually say that counts, and his other 90% is quite impressive.

Good grief, Les.  Are you sure that you *really* want us to have a black Jimmy Carter???

I don’t think we the people can afford Obama as president, like Dave suggested. Maybe Congress will keep him from doing all the EXPENSIVE things he wants to do. Maybe . . .

That was an impressive speech.  He even has some libertarians interested in supporting him after they read that.

Speaking of libertarians, there was a weird post today on the blog of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate.  Wayne Allyn Root (yeah, the late-night gambling “first bet free” infomercial freak) claims that Obama threw his grandmother under a bus in that speech.

Don’t hold it against the libertarians that one of the LP candidates is an idiot, though.  Root is not really a libertarian.  He’s just another wacky candidate like the LP tends to attract.  You’ll notice that Root’s domain is “Millionaire Republican”, not “Millionaire Libertarian”.

As for me, I just can’t decide whether to start calling him “Rooturd” or “Rootard”.  Decisions, decisions. 

Here’s the link to Root’s stupidity:

http://www.millionairerepublican.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080319-082029

I am skeptical of Obama, some comments he has made reek of American bamboozlement, but he has good policies so no real grief.

So long as McCain doesnt get in.I’m always wary when people are called a hero just because they endured hardship as a POW.Shit,if I caught an invading crashed pilot who dumped bombs and exfoliants on civilians - innocent or not,i’d say he’s the furthest thing from a hero and probably been quite happy to lock the prick up for good.
Leader of the free world? - *shudder*

Hes still a halfrican.

On a related note, I assume I’m not the only one who’s noticed that John McCain hasn’t taken half the heat Obama has for having the support of John Hagee, who in my opinion is far more vile than the reverend Wright.

That’s the point of Obama’s speech, it doesn’t matter what Hagee has said in terms of McCain getting his support. Do you truly believe McCain is accepting his endorsement because he agrees 100% with Hagee?

Are you sure that you *really* want us to have a black Jimmy Carter???

Are you really looking for a decent debate with that statement or a pissing war?

I don’t think we the people can afford Obama as president, like Dave suggested. Maybe Congress will keep him from doing all the EXPENSIVE things he wants to do. Maybe . . .

Right, so we might have to balance the budget and raise taxes to take care of our people in this country. Or we might have to realize that billions of dollars are wasted in the defense budget like spending $20 billion on cold war funding. How many nukes do we really need and how much is it costing us to continually manufacture them? Like any business man will tell you, “You have to spend money to make money.” Same applies for a country. Everything costs money. Ask a teacher what could be done to improve the schools or improve their instruction. Most will say the lack of budget funds is hurting both.

I am skeptical of Obama, some comments he has made reek of American bamboozlement

Any specifically?

Hes still a halfrican.

Isn’t this a bit of a conundrum for you racists? If you hate a full black man as much as the value of x. Than wouldn’t you hate someone who was half black half of x. Wouldn’t you care less about that person than the one full black? 

“I am skeptical of Obama, some comments he has made reek of American bamboozlement, but he has good policies so no real grief.”

Obama has policies?  Really???  OK, so… what are they?  Do you know?

Personally, I see something entirely different going on here.  I found a quote somewhere or other that sums it up rather nicely (can’t remember where I saw it though):

“The credulous are ripe pickings for the unscrupulous.”

So… which are YOU?  (We already know which group our blog host falls into.)

It seems Dave has issues with Obama. I’m game, what are they?

Actually I’m with Dave. What are his policies? Every thing is very general- “One America”

Ditto. (OOPS - wrong host) Uhh, I, too, am with Dave. What are his policies? He has a lot of charisma. But, then, so did Jesus, according to legend.

Have either of you tried, oh I dunno, perhaps checking his website for the answer to your question?

No, really, what are his policies? I mean, who is going to pay for the chicken in every pot, 40 acres and a mule? What is his track record for sponsoring legislation that would accomplish any of these “goals?” Sorry, I’m trying to get a priest politician to explain his magic recipes. Don’t look behind that curtain!!!

Hi Les, thanks for being a good sport! (Of course, I knew that you would.)

First—Obama is simply not qualified in any meaningful way.  Less than ten years ago, he was still a state legislator.  He’s only a first-term senator.  He’s never run any organization of significant size.

Being a compelling speaker doesn’t count.

Second—What we see before us now is little more than a cult of personality.  Obama utters his feel-good platitudes, and the simple-minded and intellectually lazy (we’re talking about a very large chunk of America here) lap it up.  The cunning and the cynical within the political class see this, and attach themselves to his coattails.  It is a movement that does not know why it is moving, or where it is going.

Obama is like the Pied Piper, and even Obama doesn’t know where he is leading the children.

Third—He is all smoke and mirrors… all style, and no substance.  OK, so he promises change… what change?  How?  What are the specifics?  Where is the beef?

I challenge any of you Obama supporters to spell out, specifically and in detail, why you think he should be President and, more importantly, why somebody like me—who is skeptical—should support him.  I will be genuinely surprised—no, make that shocked—if any of you can do it.

And lastly, there is the elephant in the living room: race.  If Obama is elected I can easily foresee a scenario wherein the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan will demand (and likely receive) inordinate access to the Oval Office, and they will also be emboldened with a whole new level of vindication and credibility that they simply do not deserve. 

All of the hateful, divisive and untrue things that those men have said over the years will melt away.  An Obama victory will give these guys a pass for all of the harm that they have done to race relations in America, and that is simply not acceptable.

While Obama’s message on race is perhaps the closest we have ever seen to being on the right path towards healing—unless he repudiates the politics of division and eternal victim status that the three stooges mentioned above are selling, Obama’s efforts will fail and probably leave us in worse shape than we were to begin with.

So… yes, the speech was great… but wrong. 
Remember, when a white guy makes an odious statement about race (i.e., Don Imus, Jimmy the Greek, etc.), the African American community screams in righteous indignation and demands that heads must roll.  But in Obama’s eyes, it’s OK for his pastor to say the same kinds of things.  That’s just wrong.

Therefore, Obama MUST either condemn Rev. Wright in unequivocal terms, or else he MUST condemn Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan.  He must do one or the other, or he is a hypocrite.

The last time we had an administration approaching Bush’s level of shittiness (Nixon/Ford), an outsider emerged who was able to skillfully play the public’s disgust and dismay.  That was Jimmy Carter.  We didn’t care that Carter wasn’t fit for the job; we just wanted somebody who wasn’t plugged-in to the Washington corruption mill.  We all know how that story ends, right? RIGHT?

Oh, and Les, I forgot to mention that I did go to the link you provided and am still unsure of what or how Obama will accomplish his “pie in the sky” offerings in his speeches, although they ARE well delivered. But, then, when has a charismatic televangelist or politician ever been able to persuade the sheeple to follow him? 

And lastly, there is the elephant in the living room: race.  If Obama is elected I can easily foresee a scenario wherein the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan will demand (and likely receive) inordinate access to the Oval Office, and they will also be emboldened with a whole new level of vindication and credibility that they simply do not deserve. 

All of the hateful, divisive and untrue things that those men have said over the years will melt away.  An Obama victory will give these guys a pass for all of the harm that they have done to race relations in America, and that is simply not acceptable.

While Obama’s message on race is perhaps the closest we have ever seen to being on the right path towards healing—unless he repudiates the politics of division and eternal victim status that the three stooges mentioned above are selling, Obama’s efforts will fail and probably leave us in worse shape than we were to begin with.

The undercurrent of your position seems to be that, because Obama is black, he should on some level be held accountable for divisive statements that some blacks have made in decades past. That puts him in one hell of a bind, doesn’t it? To the best of my knowledge, Obama has not endorsed anything Jackson, Sharpton, or Ferrakan has said. The common thread the four men share is...they’re all black. Let me ask you this: John McCain and Fred Phelps are both Christians. Should McCain apologize for Phelps?

Webs:

Do you truly believe McCain is accepting his endorsement because he agrees 100% with Hagee?

And do you truly believe that Obama endorses everything Wright has said simply because he has attended his church?

Leguru: No, really, what are his policies?

No, really, have you heard of Google?

Dave:

First—Obama is simply not qualified in any meaningful way.

Wrong. 3 links is all you need here… 1) Obama Myths. 2) His Record. 3) More on his record.

Being a compelling speaker doesn’t count.

Really? So being able to effectively communicate isn’t important? It’s scary that more people don’t weight this higher.

Second—What we see before us now is little more than a cult of personality.  Obama utters his feel-good platitudes, and the simple-minded and intellectually lazy (we’re talking about a very large chunk of America here) lap it up.  The cunning and the cynical within the political class see this, and attach themselves to his coattails.  It is a movement that does not know why it is moving, or where it is going.

Obama is like the Pied Piper, and even Obama doesn’t know where he is leading the children.

You realize you didn’t actually say anything here. None of this is debatable.

Dave the rest of your diatribe is pointless to argue. You say x about Obama with no support or reasons why. You say it’s all smoke and mirrors but give no examples? Again, I ask you are you looking for a pissing war or a debate?

Furthermore it’s not on us to prove why he is the best candidate? You came in here stating he is not the best candidate. The onus is on you to explain your position, not us to prove you wrong.

One more thing:

But in Obama’s eyes, it’s OK for his pastor to say the same kinds of things.  That’s just wrong.

Therefore, Obama MUST either condemn Rev. Wright in unequivocal terms, or else he MUST condemn Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan.  He must do one or the other, or he is a hypocrite.

This is a false dichotomy you’ve created to support your position. In fact what Obama can do is what he did. Simply state that he doesn’t agree with everything his pastor says, but they are friends all the same. Are you going to sit here and tell us you’ve never had a friend, family member, or loved one say something you disagree with. Or if they did you immediately disowned them? WTF mate?

Sadie stated the rest for me, Thanks Sadie…

And do you truly believe that Obama endorses everything Wright has said simply because he has attended his church?

No Sadie, that’s my point. I don’t hold either of them accountable for what their endorser says. I hold the endorser responsible. I don’t think McCain or Obama deserve to take heat for what a friend of theirs says. Like I stated to Dave, we all have friends or family that say wild things, but we don’t disown them because we know there is more to them than some silly belief.

I have very conservative friends that I hang out with even though I tend to be social on issues. They are my friends for other reasons than their political beliefs.

I’m short on time at the moment so I can’t respond as fully as I’d like, but let me just point out that what I said in my original entry up above was the following: “I’ll be honest and admit that I wasn’t too sure about Obama back when he first entered into the race, but as time has gone on he has continuously impressed me with his stance on the issues and the speeches he’s been giving.

My point being that I’m not completely sold on anyone at the moment. All I do know is who I won’t vote for and that’ll be John McCain because he’s sold out all his principles for a shot at the White House.

There are things I like about Clinton, but both her and her husband have been a bit more cozy with the fundamentalists than I’m comfortable with. I’m still learning about Obama myself and what I’ve learned is refreshing. More importantly his speeches are surprising in that they don’t tend to take the tact I’d expect of a politician.

This last one in particular is notable because it directly addressed the controversy over the remakes made by his former Pastor. Compare that to McCain’s outright pandering to nutcase John Hagee. At least Obama explains why he’s not disowning his pastor.

I know what you’re saying, Webs (regarding whacko endorsements), and I agree with you. My point certainly was not that whacko endorsements = complete agreement. I just find it telling about our culture that a. people view associations with whackos as wholesale endorsements of said whackos, and b. Obama is being hit much harder for his association with his whacko than McCain is for his association with his whacko. And sadly, I don’t think Obama is going to recover from this. The latest I heard was that Clinton was gaining a considerable lead on him in Democratic polls. 

Thanks Sadie, I did miss your point there.

And yes, that is a little depressing for someone that is a big fan of Obama. It still seems like a longshot for Hillary as she is pretty far behind in the delegates. She has to grab at least 20% lead over Obama in all the rest of the states last I read. I would like to see Obama get the nomination, however I wont be voting for McCain. So whoever gets the Dems nomination will get my vote.

Leguru: No, really, what are his policies

?
No, really, have you heard of Google?

Why should Leguru have to.  If a candidate at this level can not get a policy for government reported you have to wonder what policies he has.  I have been following the campaign via the news in the UK.  I associate Billary with Social provision,especially health care, McCain with a strong foriegn policy, and Obama with every one should be nicer.

It is not down to the voter to search out major policies- though it would be better if people looked behind the headlines, but rather for the candidate to make a clear statement of intent, and I haven’t seen that on the BBC.

Webs, you are a classic example of what is wrong with Obama’s supporters.

You complain that I cite no sources to support my position (as if I should spend my time researching a full dissertation to satisfy you), and you seem to think that this is the proper response to our complaint that Obama hasn’t been specific about his policy positions.  Sheesh!  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

This makes you basically the same as the 30% or so of Red Staters who would still support Bush no matter what (even if he ate their children).

Your ‘false dichotomy’ complaint is simply bullshit.  Sure, Obama can support or condemn whomever he pleases… but a hypocrite he shall be unless he subjects his own people to the same treatment that those people inflict upon others when the shoe is on the other foot.  Sorry if it’s inconvenient for you, but that’s where logic leads us.

And I note that my challenge to state specifically WHY myself or anybody else should support Obama remains unanswered. Big surprise, this is.

Obama’s been pushing health care too, and withdrawal from Iraq. In any case, a President isn’t a legislator no matter how confusing the fact might be after years of W. The Presidency is there to smile and look pretty for cameras, say nice things to Queens and Prime Ministers, kiss babies, and keep the services conflicted enough with each other that they don’t stage a palace coup. The President isn’t supposed to start wars, write laws, tell the government which laws to follow, break the law, and look like an idiot for international ridicule.

Frankly if all Obama’s got going on is being polite and giving good speeches we’d be in good hands. If all W had done during his Presidency is look concerned and hug survivors of the 9/11 attacks we’d all be better off too.

I’d have cheerfully elected 2000-election McCain, but that was a different, more principled person than 2008 McCain. I also don’t think it’s very proper to give Hillary another four year term as President, just because she’s running without the testicles front and center this time.

I’d still have preferred Joe Biden though.