Barack Hussein Obama

[August1991]

Not if you're one of the millions and millions people who are employed but trying to support a family on $10 an hour.

How many Americans support a family on $10 an hour? If Obama is seeking this demographic, he's going to lose. Not only because it is so small but also because the people earning $10 an hour aspire to more and they know damn well that no politician in Washington pandering to them will make a difference.

Americans are not so foolish to think that by claiming that what is wrong can be made better, one is "hating" America as it exists now. You don't really think that do you? Do you think the 80% or so who indicate they want change hate their country? That's ridiculous.

There's a differnec between saying "what is wrong can be made better" and saying "America is fundamentally wrong and needs to change".

The "hate America" crowd is in the latter group and Obama is pandering to their votes now. It might win him the Democratic nomination and support with some foreigners, but it won't get him many mainstream votes or the presidency.

As soon as John McCain wraps himself in the American flag, this election will be over.

Edited February 15, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

There's a differnec between saying "what is wrong can be made better" and saying "America is fundamentally wrong and needs to change".

The "hate America" crowd is in the latter group and Obama is pandering to their votes now.

So if you think the current political system in Washington needs a major overhaul, you hate America? I would think the opposite.

[August1991]

So if you think the current political system in Washington needs a major overhaul, you hate America? I would think the opposite.

You may think so but that's not what you posted above, and anyway it'll be up to ordinary Americans to decide if Washington or America is on the wrong track and needs a major overhaul.

I supect that Obama will spend a large part of the fall either preaching to a small choir or trying to explain himself to a larger parish. IME, most Americans are proud of America - and with good reason.

[BubberMiley]

You're right that if he dwells on the negative through the whole campaign, he'll lose. But I've never heard anyone consider "Yes, we can!" to be a negative message before.

[capricorn]

But I've never heard anyone consider "Yes, we can!" to be a negative message before.

As with any slogan "yes we can" will wear thin and at some point issues have to be debated. In the end, it is the issues that Americans care about and on which they will cast their votes. But then again, Americans may experience a Pierre Elliott Trudeau moment....

[BubberMiley]

The economy is going to be the primary issue of this campaign (nothing new there), and Americans will likely vote for whoever they think has the better plan to improve it.

[Black Dog]

I dunno who's goofier on tis thread: the habitually kooky Leafless or the usualy sound August.

Like Gore and Clinton, Barack Obama is smart enough and educated enough to know that free trade is good for America and good for the world. When Obama questions NAFTA and talks about jobs (when America has about the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years), he's just pandering.

Pandering....politicking..... what's the difference?

More generally, when he talks about "change" and "yes, we can", Obama is appealing to the "hate America" crowd. For the mainstream, this is ultimately not a message of hope. It's depressing. It states that America as it exists now is not good and everything mainstream Americans believe in is wrong.

Have you considered his message of change is less aimed at America itself so much as at the people who've been running the show for the last 8 years? Think, man.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Have you considered his message of change is less aimed at America itself so much as at the people who've been running the show for the last 8 years? Think, man.

But Senator Obama has been part of the same show. His message is narrowly focused on the votes he needs from like minded Democrats and Independents to secure his party's nomination. Such puffery will not sustain a general election run when he faces incoming mortars.

[Moonlight Graham]

Most scandalous? No, saying "Yes, we can" over and over and over again is scandalous, except when he tries to say something of substance and just sounds like John Edwards.

John Edwards is wishy-washy. He doesn't have a hard, concrete vision IMO, or strong leadership. He has too many "uhh i'm not sure" moments. During debates he would admit being wrong on his vote to authorize the Iraq war. How stupid. He wasn't wrong. The Bush admin lied to Congress & the public about everything, including in the NIE. And if he really was wrong, that's a pretty HUGE mistake.

When Obama says something about policy, he says it with a lot of conviction, and he can argue it well. See the last Clinton vs Obama debate on CNN right before Super Tuesday. His victory speeches & the "Yes We Can" stuff is just to rally the troops.

I just hope he is as real as he seems. Which history says is very unlikely.

[August1991]

When Obama says something about policy, he says it with a lot of conviction, and he can argue it well.

Exactly.

Obama is the same as Edwards except that Obama says it better. Or as you put it, Obama says it with convicton.

[August1991]

Pandering....politicking..... what's the difference?

There is a difference, BD. The difference is what is called a mandate and a reputation.

Reagan used it to good effect to confront the Soviets. Imagine BD. It is possible for a stubborn politician to get elected.

Have you considered his message of change is less aimed at America itself so much as at the people who've been running the show for the last 8 years? Think, man.

Alot of people voted for the current team in 2004.

But BD, I'll go deconstructionist on you. Hidden in Obama's message are all the code words of the "hate America" crowd. (For example, Obama has Hollywood on his side.) To the "hate America" crowd, America is the enemy. Obama is pandering to these people.

If you'll allow me a Canadian comparison. Pierre Trudeau (also a stubborn politician who got elected) knew that he could appeal to the bash-Quebec voters in English Canada. Trudeau was always careful about this and never pandered to them. I doubt Obama is genuinely a "hate America" type but he's certainly pandering to these people.

Anyway, I think Obama is just another George McGovern or Henry Wallace. Obama would make a good VP candidate for a sitting MOR Democratic president.

Edited February 16, 2008 by August1991

[CanadianOak]

Obama has really done nothing. 2 Years in the senate? He has not proved that he can lead yet other than being an excellent motivational speaker.

The only reason he's doing well is because of the Anti-Clinton vote and John Edward's crew coming to his base and everyone knows this -- the race issue.

I think it is easier said than done. Everyone knows this.

Not one of his bills were passed in the senate. Yet he talks of Change. What Change is he talking about when he hasn't changed a single thing in Congress to date? I find it nothing but pandering.

I like him as a candidate but the more I research on him, I find Hillary much better.

[kengs333]

Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan speaks volumes about how simple-minded Americans and American politics has become. Unfortunately, Clinton is so dull that she can't think of anything catchy to say at all. All she does is trumpet the fact that she has "experience". Big deal. Looks like Obama's gonna get it after all--his wins are getting to be quite decisive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan speaks volumes about how simple-minded Americans and American politics has become. Unfortunately, Clinton is so dull that she can't think of anything catchy to say at all. All she does is trumpet the fact that she has "experience". Big deal. Looks like Obama's gonna get it after all--his wins are getting to be quite decisive.

Yes, so simple minded that many Canadians gave up McCain for dead back in July and assumed that Clinton would be nominated without any serious challengers, just like many Americans.

Edited February 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

Yes, so simple minded that many Canadians gave up McCain for dead back in July and assumed that Clinton would be nominated without any serious challengers.

And you're basing this on what exactly?

[bush_cheney2004]

And you're basing this on what exactly?

Oh, things like Environics polls in Canada for election primaries in another country....so much for dull. Dull will be what may happen (or not) if Dion grows some balls and forces an election in Canada.

Oh, Canada: Our neighbors have election envy:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/325...08-1485604.html

It's OK...some people just like to watch.

Edited February 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

Oh, things like Environics polls in Canada for election primaries in another country....so much for dull. Dull will be what may happen (or not) if Dion grows some balls and forces an election in Canada.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/325...08-1485604.html

It's OK...some people just like to watch.

Ho-hum... Why do you always have to escalate things and try an offend people with anti-Canadian comments? Dion has nothing to do with this. All I wanted to know is what you were basing your opinions on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ho-hum... Why do you always have to escalate things and try an offend people with anti-Canadian comments? Dion has nothing to do with this. All I wanted to know is what you were basing your opinions on.

This is why:

"Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan speaks volumes about how simple-minded Americans and American politics has become.

We shall reap what what we sow.

[BubberMiley]

It's OK...some people just like to watch.

That's for sure. Interest in each country's politics clearly crosses both borders.

[Leafless]

This is why:

"Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan speaks volumes about how simple-minded Americans and American politics has become.

We shall reap what what we sow.

I'll bet it has not even occurred to most Americans who are Obama's big backers.

Socialists, particularly the Marxists from Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)and the Communist Party USA now dominate the US union movement.

Their intention is to use union money, muscle and manpower to move the US government further down the socialist road.

Barack Obama has close ties to DSA (particularly the Chicago branch)and has long been supported by the Democratic Socialists and their Communist Party allies.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-...mega-union.html

[August1991]

Obama Comedown Syndrome.

At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

...

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

NYT

I don't know how this will end but it would be a tough act to avoid saying anything of substance for 8 months so that voters can believe you will stand up for what they each believe in. At the moment, many people seem to think that Obama agrees with them.

[Leafless]

I'll bet it has not even occurred to most Americans who are Obama's big backers.

So the guy is a socialist, seems he was raised that way.

Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

[bush_cheney2004]

So the guy is a socialist, seems he was raised that way.

So what? Do you think this is a new phenom in American politics? The Democrats can choose to go with a socialist and take a beating in November. Only fools will say it was because Obama wasn't "white".

[Black Dog]

bc2004

But Senator Obama has been part of the same show. His message is narrowly focused on the votes he needs from like minded Democrats and Independents to secure his party's nomination. Such puffery will not sustain a general election run when he faces incoming mortars.

In a world where John McCain can be considered a "maverick outsider", Obama should have no problem distancing himself from the party in power.

August:

There is a difference, BD. The difference is what is called a mandate and a reputation.

Reagan used it to good effect to confront the Soviets. Imagine BD. It is possible for a stubborn politician to get elected.

You'll have to explain more because I'm not getting receiving what you're sending.

Alot of people voted for the current team in 2004.

And?

But BD, I'll go deconstructionist on you. Hidden in Obama's message are all the code words of the "hate America" crowd. (For example, Obama has Hollywood on his side.) To the "hate America" crowd, America is the enemy. Obama is pandering to these people.

Yeah because no one ever campaigns behind the idea of change unless they hate America. As for "pandering": SFW. Find me a politician who doesn't pander.

[Leafless]

So what? Do you think this is a new phenom in American politics?

In an era of cultural terrorism?

Yes.

The Democrats can choose to go with a socialist and take a beating in November. Only fools will say it was because Obama wasn't "white".

I share your sentiments and hopefully your right.