The Twenty-Second Amendment is supposed to limit the president to two terms in office, but as you all can see, she is running for re-election. 

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.

Hmmmmm, wouldn’t that make him slightly more qualified than Abraham Lincoln, who had one term in the U.S. House of Representatives?  Or would you have considered yourself a Douglas man back in 1860 by that logic? 

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?

Camp David?  Having the balls to boycott the Olympics when it was hosted by a country that just invaded another (like we have now, and sure as death and taxes won’t see happen)?  Not negotiating under the table with Iran before and after his Presidency?  Habitat for Humanity?  Being tapped to handle a few delicate diplomatic situations that the State Dept. couldn’t be trusted not to trip up?  Maybe a Nobel Prize?  (Now, I’ll grant you, the Nobel Prize was kinda tarnished when they gave one to a war criminal like Kissinger.  All the same, it’s not like they just come in Cracker Jack boxes...)

FWIW:  The last straw that tipped me off the fence onto Obama’s side was the fact that Clinton (like McCain) couldn’t be bothered to show up to fight the good fight against the FISA bill.  Obama apparently could spare time from campaigning to do his job, even if it was a losing battle.

Moreover, I admire how Obama handled the brouhahaha by rising above the pettiness rather than the usual PR tactics of either A.) Ignoring it or B.) Throwing a longtime mentor to the jackals.  That’s a pretty darned novel response, particularly for an incident that could yet deep-six his run.  Politics seldom rewards anyone for pointing out the elephant in the room.  And if that’s how he behaves when other politicians would consider themselves cornered and in the crosshairs, I would say we have a keeper. 

And for Pete’s sake, anyone who’s willing to sack a staffer just for calling his opponent a “monster”?  If that’s the tone of campaign he’s running, I couldn’t care less what his pastor says in the privacy of their church, so as long as the guy’s not out campaigning for him.  In my mind, that’s quite different from the racist/sexist/homophobe/xenophobe so-called “pastors” like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, etc. who are happy to spew their bile on anyone they think will publish it.)

In practical terms, there’s an adage in business that giants who hire dwarves are doomed.  Giants need to hire other giants, even ones bigger than themselves.  The giant-in-charge needs to have the vision and the management skill to keep people on task while staying out of their way.  Frankly, I don’t think that Obama’s got the ego to hire all dwarves and party hacks.  Personally, I’m prepared to put up with mistakes from Washington outsiders if they’re honest mistakes, not born of the mix of arrogance, stupidity, and cupidity we’ve had for seven kleptocratic years of this jackbooted cluster@#$%^&*.

And I would hope to Mordor that we can expect a Frances Perkins or three out of the deal.  I don’t make the mistake of assuming that the President is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient.  But I do know that if Obama’s is smart enough to cash in on the charisma, he will attract qualified people into his cabinet.  In that sense, he’ll be ahead of the Clinton retreads who are probably already measuring their drapes. And certainly be a huge improvement on the cronyist hacks and the Bible college hayseeds that currently infest the Regime currently putting up its feet in the Executive Branch.

I couldn’t care less if Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan sleep in the Lincoln bedroom every emeffin’ night for four years.  Not that I particularly care for any of them--it’s just that they’re just a non-issue for me.  Even as a white person, I frankly don’t feel threatened by them.  Because in the larger world they don’t really have enough pull to do what I consider real harm to this nation.  The response to Katrina, the demonizing of immigrants, Strom Thurmond “youthful indiscretion”, the Bush Administration meddling in college admissions, and the “macaca” incident did (I think) more damage to race relations in a handful of years than any of the “three stooges” you want to think are somehow a threat to you could collectively do in their lifetimes.

You can try to write this off as classic liberal white guilt, Dave, if it makes you feel more secure.  However, even white, I’m also female, and so I’ve had a taste--mercifully rare--of discrimination.  Like I said, it’s been rare, so when I have walked into it, the feeling’s like being gut-punched hard enough to have the wind knocked out of you.  I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to grow up constantly on your guard against that feeling.  Because discrimination is real, and experiencing it will change your perspective on a lot of things.  Even when you know that having to work harder makes you better in the long run, it’s infuriating in the short term.  So I can, however dimly, understand the anger that these guys are (IMO) cynically exploiting.  But I just don’t see them as my problem--at least not one I’m going to get worked up about.  The harm of ignoring that anger, however, tantamount to ignoring cancer.

I have a much bigger problem with the flavor of bigotry that I see ever friggin’ week in the letters to the editor in white-bread middle America where I live. 

* The bigots who believe that all Muslims should be on watch lists and tossed off planes for praying. 

* The bigots who are so anti-choice they would ban any contraceptive because women who don’t want children are just selfish feminazis. 

* The bigots who believe that God sends planes flying into buildings or hurricanes slamming into levees because of feminists, abortions and gays. 

* The bigots who scream about their First Amendment right to plant crosses and Commandments in every public park, teach creationism and abstinence-only programs in schools, and criminalize any sex that isn’t man-on-woman-missionary-with-the-lights-off-and no-toys. 

* The bigots who think that killing brown people overseas makes us safer and gas cheaper.  (Or cheerlead even more war for bringing them closer to The Rapture.)

* The bigots who know d--ned well that their cheap-o plastic crap is made by slave labor in China but buy extra anyway because Sam’s Club had it on special. 

* The bigots who are offended at the word “ho” but snicker when someone calls Hillary Clinton a “bitch.”

* The bigots who want a Christian state and universally elect people who disenfranchise the poor--and oppose any sort of “welfare” as “socialist”.

* The bigots who want to ship every Hispanic who isn’t carrying citizenship papers in her/his back pocket over the border, but who will go ballistic when grapes are $10/lb and they can’t find a hotel for under $200/night.

THOSE are the bigots I worry about.  THAT’s the “entitlement mentality” that I consider dangerous to the nation. 

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.

I call bull$#!+ on that last point.  If Clinton were to be elected, would that give Andrea Dworkin (that bogeyman of the feminist-fearing crowd) a free pass (assuming she were still alive) because Clinton is a woman and made a few sharp remarks about not being a cookie-baking housewife?  Trust me, I had many, many reasons not to vote for George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004, but one of them was not worrying that it would legitimize the hate-peddlers on the right.  I was worried that they would have even more say in taking this nation further down the path to the Dark Side and help themselves to more tax money through faith-based initiatives and charter schools and lesser scrutiny of their electioneering tactics.  And I was right.  But I frankly don’t see how Obama’s going to have much time for your bogeymen.  IIRC, Sharpton was slamming Obama pretty hard awhile back anyway.

But I’m sure I’ll be poo-poohed as yet another naifish starry-eyed groupie.  Doubtless I won’t meet the criteria of your “challenge”.  I’ve only voted in 5 Presidential elections after all.  I only used to have to know domestic and international politics cold in college for the speech/debate team.  Prior to having internet access, I only managed to have a subscription to Time/Newsweek/US News even when I couldn’t really afford it and had to resort to asking for it as a Christmas gift.  WTF would I know about politics?  I’m just a True Believer, doncha know, snorting the Obama Kool-Aid right out of the packet because I’m to “lazy” to mix it with water.

And I suppose I’ll be accused of making “tu, quoque” arguments by pointing out that McCain only repudiated Hagee after Bill Donohue raised a stink about Hagee’s anti-Catholic screed.  (Note that neither could spare Word One about any other flavor of hate Hagee’s vomited into the microphones over the years--only attacks on other Christian sects.) And that McCain has been actively cultivating this crowd for years.  But part of the “entitlement” mentality mentioned above is that anything a white male does in the name of Jesus is okay--as long as he doesn’t piss off another white male.

Admittedly, if Clinton somehow pulls this out, I’ll hold my nose and vote for her.  We can’t afford four years of McCain after eight of Dubya--that’s the bottom line.  And in the interest of full disclosure, I expect to be living in Canada by the end of his first term, so I don’t have much more of a horse in the race than anyone else not from this country.  But in the meantime my support is with Obama.

To hell with voting for Obama. I’m voting for CubicleGrrl in ‘08!

Dave:

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.

You keep using the word hypocrite. I don’t think it means what you think it does. Obama has absolutely no obligation to apologize for hateful statements that others have made when the only common denominator he shares with them is his skin color. Your contention that Obama’s having a darkly-pigmented complexion necessarily makes him a Jesse Jackson or Louis Ferrakan type says far more about you than it does about Barack Obama himself. I’m not one to casually toss around the race card, but your harangues are seriously skating on the surface of outright racism in my eyes. That ain’t a good thing, son.

In the meantime I’m done with you, Dave. I couldn’t really care less that you are so adamantly against Obama, but it is obvious to me that in your zeal to oppose him, you have abandoned reason and logic. Oh, and what Cubiclegrrl said regarding Jimmy Carter. Buh bye.

Where’s the beef, folks?  I’m still waiting for somebody to take up my original challenge.  What’s the matter?

cubiclgrrl, first I was going to fisk your post, but then I saw what you said about Farrakhan, et al… and I didn’t even finish reading it, because at that point you lost all credibility.  But I did catch the richly ironic sentence where you accused ME of abandoning logic and reason.  Good one!  I blew coffee out of my nose, I laughed so hard.

Yes, sweetie, you ARE a groupie.

As an afterthought, I did realize that there is ONE thing that Obama can do which would lock-in my vote for him: promise us indictments against Bush and Cheney.  If Obama says he will do that, I would even volunteer for his campaign.

You won’t read something all the way through for context, yet you’ll condemn it. You blithely ignore any presentations that might work against your deeply held emotional responses. You’ve picked up a single semi-logical retort and you cling to it in the face of a torrent of logic as if it somehow immunizes you to criticism, which makes you no better than the basest of Creationists or the least clever of Conspiracy Theorists. Dave, you’re a moron.

Cubiclegrrl in 08!!! Can I write that name in on the ballot?

LH:
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.

Obama and every candidate since the inception of the presidential race have gotten their message out. If you live in America, own a TV and a radio, but you don’t know the policies of each candidate, you either don’t care, or you have been walking around with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears. The candidates have done their job.

Dave:

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.

I’ll bite… here is an example of how a debate works. The topic is stated: “Les is mentioning Obama and stating he will vote for Obama.” Then those disagreeing with the topic will state their position, usually with facts or reference to support this position, this would be you Dave (however you gave no references). It is not the job of those arguing the positive side to find references as to why they are right. It is the job of those on the negative side of the debate to support their thesis with reference. Then those on the positive side argue those points.

Now that you understand how a simple debate works I am sure you can see why others here have issue with your style.

Dave’s first comment:
“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.)

You come in and make bombastic remarks as to Obama, but neither support your positions with reference or really say anything insightful. Please look right above this paragraph for reference in your first comment on this post. This is why you have not been successful in communication your ideas, or winning anyone over.

Dave’s Second Comment:
Too long to repost, look at first page of comments and scroll about halfway down…

It is full of remarks, but you again show no references for what you say. And I have already argued those points in my previous comment.

Dave’s third comment:
(as if I should spend my time researching a full dissertation to satisfy you

No one is asking you to write a dissertation, but you lack support for your assertions, meaning they are pretty meaningless. Look at the top of this comment for tips on how to debate an issue.

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

Then you go on to ask us to support our position. Not our job. Don’t get pissy with people here cause you have no idea how to debate an issue. It’s your job to support your conclusions and other’s job to argue those positions. I have provided you with links and argued your positions. Just because you choose to dismiss my statements doesn’t mean you get a free pass.

How odd, Dave:  I thought that I was engaging you in a rational argument.  I don’t know where I accused you of being illogical or unreasonable.  (Actually, Sadie Jane was the one who accused you of that straight up--if you could be bothered to do more than skim.) Up until that point, you were doing better than most trolls here.

My apologies to your keyboard and/or monitor (as applicable) for the coffee--and for being owned by a wanker with the attention span of a ferret on methamphetine, of curse..  If you can’t make it through more than--what?--a third of what I had to say, then you’re just another troll.  As far as I’m concerned, Sadie Jane did me one better with her brevity.  Get it straight, jack:  Just because Obama’s black doesn’t mean that he has to apologize for every comment (right or wrong) that ever made a sissy WonderBread white person like yourself squirm.  Any more than I expect my Christian relatives to apologize for, say, the Crusades, the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew’s Day, the rape of Ireland, yadayadayada. 

But that’s been your tactic all along, hasn’t it:  Artificially raising the bar for anyone who doesn’t meet your cherry-picked standards.  And I can’t help but notice that you won’t take on Webs’ refutations head-to-head.  Is it getting a little hot in here for you? 

Like Webs said, this is how debate works, and I certainly remember that both sides had to have something to bring to the party--or the judges handed them their @$$e$.  If you can spare we deluded souls the time to read the remaining 2/3rds of what I had to say and respond to that on its merits, by all means do so.  You’re so cock-sure of your superiority, what could you possibly stand to lose?  You started this booger-flicking contest, troll-boy.  Let’s see you finish it.

This isn’t a debate, webs.  It’s a blog comment thread.  Everybody here is tossing around unsupported assertions, you and the debate-definer included.

The “empty suit” argument against Obama doesn’t really need a rigorous shakedown here, for the simple reason that it has been done elsewhere many times.  It is, in fact, a consensus position that is widely held.  I offered you folks an opportunity to de-bunk it, which should be pretty darned easy, and nobody has much to say.  Hmm.

“Cherry-picked standards” is the raw material of American politics.  You might want to spend a little time in front of the mirror before you throw that charge around.

I actually have a lot more to say here, but in re-reading your post I realized that the first time through, I had glossed over your descent into name-calling.  This, of course, always indicates that any useful exchange of ideas is over and done with.

And I note… STILL there has been no one able to tell me why I should support Obama.  But then… I knew that would happen, didn’t I?

Cripes… I got webs mixed up with cubiclegrrl.  Sorry.

MORE COFFEE!

Everybody here is tossing around unsupported assertions, you and the debate-definer included.

If by everyone you mean you then sure…

The “empty suit” argument against Obama doesn’t really need a rigorous shakedown here, for the simple reason that it has been done elsewhere many times.

Well if that’s the case you should have no problems posting a link right?

Dave you are the only one not providing links or references where necessary and you are the one making the negative claim. If you can’t support your assertions than no one needs to argue your points. You’ve done the work for us by saying this is my opinion, and there isn’t much point in arguing an opinion. You’ve already set an artificial standard that your arguments are right and no else can touch you and if they attempt to argue your points they are being illogical…

What’s important is the fact that Dave doesn’t have the seniority or experience to debate at all here on SEB, and the fact that he hasn’t disavowed his bigotry and racism suggests that he’s no better than Farrakan or Goebbels.

Dave writes…

And I note… STILL there has been no one able to tell me why I should support Obama.

I’m telling you right now that you shouldn’t support Obama. Not because of any failing on Obama’s part so much as because it’s clear you’ve already made up your mind. Whether or not you support Obama isn’t important to me. The question I’m most concerned with is whether or not I should support him.

Based on what I’ve seen and read I’m leaning towards supporting him. Nothing you’ve said so far gives me any reason to lean the other way just as nothing anyone else has said so far has given you any reason to change your mind either. I think some of your criticisms are overblown at best and baseless at worst. That and you’ve not really said who your preferred candidate would be so it’s not like you’re suggesting any viable alternatives.

This is probably one of those situations where we’ll have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. I was inclined at one point to actually try and post a summary of his policies, but they’re enumerated quite clearly on his website already and it’s clear you and the other detractors are either unable or unwilling to go look them up. That tells me any attempt on my part would be time wasted that could be better spent playing video games.

Dave:

This isn’t a debate, webs.  It’s a blog comment thread.

The blog entry itself is not a debate, it is an airing of the host’s opinions. The comment threads themselves usually turn into debates. You have entered the debate arena whether you like it or not.

The “empty suit” argument against Obama doesn’t really need a rigorous shakedown here, for the simple reason that it has been done elsewhere many times.  It is, in fact, a consensus position that is widely held.  I offered you folks an opportunity to de-bunk it, which should be pretty darned easy, and nobody has much to say.  Hmm.

As Webs pointed out, if what you’re saying here is so self-evident, we would expect to see plenty of supporting evidence (read: links) for it. You have offered us precisely zero corroborating evidence for your assertion that Obama is unfit for the presidency. What you HAVE offered us is unsupported claims about his supposed lack of experience and non-sequitors about his skin color.

And I note… STILL there has been no one able to tell me why I should support Obama

No one is interested in whether or not you personally should support Obama. Les has provided you a link to Obama’s site in order to answer some questions for you, but you dismissed that source out of hand. Cubiclegrrl offered you a very thorough explanation as to why she is supporting Obama, but you refused to read it. The only reason I have not offered you anything is because it was obvious to me from your very first comment that you would not be open to anything that did not support your prejudices against Obama. Others have offered you plenty to work with. Just because you don’t consider their offerings valid does not mean they haven’t answered any of your questions.

But then… I knew that would happen, didn’t I?

So then you admit that they only reason you’re here is to pat yourself on the back? Charming.

MisterMook, I agree with you in spirit, but there’s no need to Godwin the thread just yet. It is increasingly obvious that Dave is a jackass and has some fear of black people, but that does not exactly put him on the same level as Goebbels.

Webs, you reply to my point about communication came across as a bit of a sneer- I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way. I don’t live in the US, and he has managaged to get nothing into the news here, apart from glib ‘one nation’ slogans.  If you are at all objective, Clinton and McCain actually do appear to stand for something, BO seems a bit warm and fuzzy.

However, I’ve just been to the offial Obama website, and read the issues he has posted.  I assume the GOP is keeping it’s “Socialist” powder dry for the actual campaign.  Theres a lot there I can agree with.

Personally I do think the ‘experience’ thing is important- no matter what he’s done before, the highest levels of government are where Big Business plays hard ball- for some of these guys undermining a national government is just another days work.  Working in the British civil service its easy to see the Private Sector almost asset stripping parts of the Public Service, and getting away with it, because every one with a realistic chance of stopping it is too scared of the ‘anti business’ tag these guys will get their freinds in the media to slap on.

I’d like to see a Clinton-Obama Whitehouse, with BO as Veep with a real job, not the PR job that is usual.  I get the feeling HC and BO are actually quite close politically, hence the nastiness of the candidature campaign- there is no ‘clear blue water’.  Working together could really change US society.

Since when has seniority been a requirement for participation on this site?

Having said that, Dave seems to apply a double standard. He neither offers much of substance himself nor does he actually engage the other side, while he demands that the other side does a lot a more work than he himself can be arsed to do.

With comments like these

This isn’t a debate, webs.  It’s a blog comment thread.

he recused himself as a participant worth responding to.

Personally, I don’t believe anybody owes anybody else an explanation, in-depth or not, why he or she prefers this or that candidate. It’s more than sufficient to state that, say, one does not feel represented by Clinton and/or that one does feel represented by Obama. Even more succinct, “Obama isn’t Clinton” might already cut it for more than a few folks.

I guess my tongue wasn’t firmly in-cheek enough for everyone.

Last Hussar:

I’d like to see a Clinton-Obama Whitehouse, with BO as Veep with a real job, not the PR job that is usual.

Ever heard of the “Queen Bee Syndrome?” Check this recent news article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9159.html
I didn’t have time to look up an earlier one where she stated, basically, there would not be a democratic ticket with “those two names on it.”
If Nancy has her way, I don’t see a C-O, nor an O-C ticket in the near future.

Webs, you reply to my point about communication came across as a bit of a sneer- I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.

I apologize LH and Leguru. I realized in writing that statement it might come off that way, but you must understand how annoying it is to deal with this issue over and over again in every election. The issue of the voting masses not actually reading or understanding what their candidate stands for, and misstating the stance of other candidates. Not that Leguru necessarily did that, but the issue is somewhat frustrating.

In 00 it was all the statements about Gore in the media with bullshit like he said, “I created the Internet.” Suddenly he’s famous for something he never said. In 02 here in Illinois it was rumors that the Republican candidate Jim Ryan was a cousin of ex-Governor George Ryan (the two were not at all related and the rumor was spread because George Ryan was incredibly corrupt and was being indicted). Sure enough the Dem won and our state is slowly going down the tubes. Then in 04 it’s the swift boating and statements that Kerry is some how not as tough as Bush? WTF? He rushed his platoon out of a boat into the line of fire to take control of that area in Vietnam. That takes some balls.

But whatever I guess I should get used to it. It doesn’t seem like things are going to change anytime soon.

I don’t see a C-O, nor an O-C ticket in the near future.

Agreed. The dems would rather have Gov. Richardson on the ticket as the veep to grab the Hispanic vote that Obama and Hillary were having trouble getting.

(Sorry for being a little late to the troll-bashing, folks, but I hosted Easter this year and was playing catch-up for most of the evening.)

Dave, I explained why I support Obama.  Of the three brand-name candidates who has a viable shot at the White House, his positions best align with my priorities.  I don’t know you or your priorities, so “converting” you is more than a little bit of shooting in the dark.  If you want promises that he’ll cure cancer or whiten your teeth while you sleep, that’s your concern.  (For your sake, I sincerely hope not, b/c that’s iron-clad proof that you’re the breed of moron who actually wants to be lied to.) I’m an agnostic, which means that evangelizing is not exactly in my nature.

You’ve been asked to back up your own assertions, and have not once anted up.  If you can’t be bothered to sully your hands with any “debate” that you didn’t define to the last sub-clause of every rule, that’s just too bad:  It won’t hang here.  That’s just the way we roll. If you don’t like it, don’t let the door hit’cha where the Flying Spaghetti Monster split’ya.  Most especially if (again!) you can’t be bothered to do more than skim the ripostes to your posts.  And if you “descend” into patronizing terms like “sweetie,” don’t act surprised at the name-calling or the presumption of deciding who is or is not worth your typing.  As my Dearest is fond of saying, if you want to wear the white hat, you’d better make sure it fits.