US Elections 2008

[Vexx]

Actually, the more he talks - the more the press looks *stupid* for having painted him in such a two-dimensional manner. The former pastor pretty much roasted the mainstream press in a recent Q&A with them, running circles around them. Is there anyone left in the mainstream corporate press corp that can do simple critical thinking or does their entire skill set consist of hyperbloviating soundbites for maximum controversy?

Now the portion of the press that tends to actually do analysis and research (PBS, BBC, etc) is starting to pick up that the corporate media has failed yet again (or intentionally threw up another distraction depending on your opinion of them).

I'm at the point where I can't tell NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox from the National Enquirer anymore.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, the more he talks - the more the press looks *stupid* for having painted him in such a two-dimensional manner. The former pastor pretty much roasted the mainstream press in a recent Q&A with them, running circles around them. Is there anyone left in the mainstream corporate press corp that can do simple critical thinking or does their entire skill set consist of hyperbloviating soundbites for maximum controversy?

Now the portion of the press that tends to actually do analysis and research (PBS, BBC, etc) is starting to pick up that the corporate media has failed yet again (or intentionally threw up another distraction depending on your opinion of them).

I'm at the point where I can't tell NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox from the National Enquirer anymore.

Soundbites? His "soundbites" were not even taken out of context. He was wrong about the anti-semite Lois F, and wrong about the aids virus just to name a few. His black liberation theology really owned the media..yep.

The PBS crapjob was part of his PR campaign...yawn...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, the more he talks - the more the press looks *stupid* for having painted him in such a two-dimensional manner. The former pastor pretty much roasted the mainstream press in a recent Q&A with them, running circles around them.

I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a link? If not, do you remember the news source?

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'd be interested in reading that. Do you have a link? If not, do you remember the news source?

Well he sure owned Obama at the Press Club meeting. Pretty much implied that Obama is talking out of his ass like a typical politician when he disowned Rev. Wright's comments a few weeks ago.

[Vexx]

It was extended bit of NPR radio news article I was listening to as I went to work. If I can find a transcript, I'll link it.

Hage-bai, you're mostly talking in labels and soundbites yourself. You might want to back up a bit and actually *discuss* what you aren't happy with. For one, the "aids virus" meme you have taken out of context. His point was that with the US government's documented history of syphilis and radiation experiments - and their documented activities in running drugs for invisible money to use in CIA operations - that he wouldn't put it past them to underfund AIDS research on purpose. Labeling Farakkhan as an anti-Semite is a convenient way to dismiss a more complicated individual. Soundbites are wonderfully easy targets.

He also didn't say Obama was "talking out of his ass" ... those are your words. The guy is certainly controversial and full of hyperbole --- but I think the press finds him an easy distraction from the central issues. I don't think they expected to have a spotlight shone back at them.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It was extended bit of NPR radio news article I was listening to as I went to work. If I can find a transcript, I'll link it.

Hage-bai, you're mostly talking in labels and soundbites yourself. You might want to back up a bit and actually *discuss* what you aren't happy with. For one, the "aids virus" meme you have taken out of context. His point was that with the US government's documented history of syphilis and radiation experiments - and their documented activities in running drugs for invisible money to use in CIA operations - that he wouldn't put it past them to underfund AIDS research on purpose. Labeling Farakkhan as an anti-Semite is a convenient way to dismiss a more complicated individual. Soundbites are wonderfully easy targets.

He also didn't say Obama was "talking out of his ass" ... those are your words. The guy is certainly controversial and full of hyperbole --- but I think the press finds him an easy distraction from the central issues. I don't think they expected to have a spotlight shone back at them.

Please dismissing Farakkhan as a "complicated individual" is spin at its worst. The guy blames Jews for controlling black cultural expression. Blames the jews for controlling media and for pushing homosexuality on society.

"that he wouldn't put it past them to underfund AIDS research on purpose" ..of course the press is going to have a field day with this nutter.

[Vexx]

Not spin.... just not ignoring all Farrakhan's other attributes. Yes, Farrakhan has said things that were anti-semitic; he may hate Jews, but that isn't a complete description of his character, is it?

The press is only going to be able to "have a field day" if the basic point that the right wing in this country purposely underfunds or undermines programs that mostly aid the underclasses is smothered.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Hage-bai

"that he wouldn't put it past them to underfund AIDS research on purpose" ..of course the press is going to have a field day with this nutter.

They probably will, but it'd be nicer if they would explain the background of some historical events that have this guy fired up. The accusations sound warped and unrealistic, but if you look through history you'll find plenty of unbelievable events that really happened (but should not have, from an ethical standpoint). I'm not saying that I agree with this guy, nor am I a fan of conspiracy theories, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss what he's saying right away or call him a lunatic for it.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

You make it sound as if Obama made some racist remarks himself. If he did, I'd be right behind you in saying that yes, that's a pretty big deal and the president of the United States shouldn't be making remarks like that (and shouldn't even hold those sentiments, really). He didn't, nor did he say "well yes, I support what the preacher said." Condemn the preacher all you like, but condemning Obama seems like a bit of a stretch.

What I'd be more concerned with are sources of funding. Lobbyists are the bane of the will of the people, in my opinion, but I found a site claiming that Hillary stated that 'lobbyists represent the people' - perhaps that quote was taken out of context, but lobbyists represent the will of the corporations. Speaking of the will of the corporations, Obama has received virtually no money from businesses. In the big picture Clinton's campagin hasn't exactly been riding on funding from businesses or other interest groups, but see the difference for yourself. It's pretty well-known and established that politicians tend to be nice and do favors for people who give them large sums of money; sadly, this is the root of all of those jokes about buying or renting politicians. In my opinion, it should be illegal. I personally don't care that Obama's preacher is a racist since Obama has not stated agreement with the racist views; I do care that Clinton is taking money from corporate lobbyists while Obama is not. (However, note that both candidates have significant sources of money from undisclosed sources - it's possible that either of the two have taken more money from businesses and special interest groups than is shown there.)

What I was trying to point out was that if Obama was a normal politician, he would've been politically assassinated by many of these issues going on. I gave Hilary as an example of a politician who wouldn't live these things. I just find it funny that Obama gave one good speech after the reverend Wright thing and got off with that, especially considering that his speech had no real relevancy to the concerns of the Reverend Wright issue. And say what you will, that reverend is an American hater, and it will concern me that a President of the United States would go to a church like that, while not saluting the flag, have a wife who also appears to be angry at America, is friends with a terrorist, and is very elitist. Obama has not said clearly that he is any of these bad things that are floating around, but he is certainly pushing it with some of his past and present actions that appear to be unpatriotic. Like I said before, it's only a really big deal because I don't know that much about this man.

I can't really comment about lobbyists as I don't know too much about them. But even if Hilary gets money from corporations, what favors would she owe them? There is a cap of 3000 dollars for donations, I am pretty sure you would know that. 3,000 dollars isn't that much. As for undisclosed donations, I cannot comment.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

You make it sound as if Obama made some racist remarks himself. If he did, I'd be right behind you in saying that yes, that's a pretty big deal and the president of the United States shouldn't be making remarks like that (and shouldn't even hold those sentiments, really). He didn't, nor did he say "well yes, I support what the preacher said." Condemn the preacher all you like, but condemning Obama seems like a bit of a stretch.

What I'd be more concerned with are sources of funding. Lobbyists are the bane of the will of the people, in my opinion, but I found a site claiming that Hillary stated that 'lobbyists represent the people' - perhaps that quote was taken out of context, but lobbyists represent the will of the corporations. Speaking of the will of the corporations, Obama has received virtually no money from businesses. In the big picture Clinton's campagin hasn't exactly been riding on funding from businesses or other interest groups, but see the difference for yourself. It's pretty well-known and established that politicians tend to be nice and do favors for people who give them large sums of money; sadly, this is the root of all of those jokes about buying or renting politicians. In my opinion, it should be illegal. I personally don't care that Obama's preacher is a racist since Obama has not stated agreement with the racist views; I do care that Clinton is taking money from corporate lobbyists while Obama is not. (However, note that both candidates have significant sources of money from undisclosed sources - it's possible that either of the two have taken more money from businesses and special interest groups than is shown there.)

Just want to point out that the Evil Corporations are the not the only ones hiring lobbyist. Unions, charities, and any other special interest groups hire lobbyist. The Sierra club, Greenpeace and ALCU have lobbyist.

Lobbyist do serve a purpose and like it or not they are noly legal but also cover by the consititution under free speech.

[Theowne]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

But the difference between Clinton and Obama to me is that I've seen Clinton administration at work already,

Maybe we should just be a monarchy, then. Then every new president you would have seen at work already.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Theowne

Maybe we should just be a monarchy, then. Then every new president you would have seen at work already.

Please read my other posts, I did not suggest a monarchy.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

And say what you will, that reverend is an American hater, and it will concern me that a President of the United States would go to a church like that, while not saluting the flag, have a wife who also appears to be angry at America, is friends with a terrorist, and is very elitist. Obama has not said clearly that he is any of these bad things that are floating around, but he is certainly pushing it with some of his past and present actions that appear to be unpatriotic. Like I said before, it's only a really big deal because I don't know that much about this man.

I can't argue with any of the issues you've raised because aside from some of Reverand Wright's remarks, I haven't heard about his being friends with a "terrorist" or his wife "being angry at America." I put those in quotes because I'm skeptical that it's even the truth. I think that the ultra-patriotic like to use those phrases against things they dislike. For example, I could see why Reverand Wright would seem like an American hater if he's accusing the government of underfunding AIDS. Guess what - the government has done worse than that, so get over it. Criticising the government for some of its despicable, unethical, and downright wrong actions doesn't make you hate America, it means you want to iron some kinks out of the system.

If Obama or his wife aren't happy with the current state of affairs, then good. Because neither am I. And if they have the vision to change things, I fully support them - as long as the changes aren't harmful. I don't really understand why people want to hear leaders saying that everything is fine and peachy when they're not. Let's face reality. There are problems to be dealt with, and some of them are pretty high up in the system. In order to keep the society free and prosperous, we need to admit that they're there and fix them. Calling people "America haters" for pointing these things out is completely counterproductive.

I can't really comment about lobbyists as I don't know too much about them. But even if Hilary gets money from corporations, what favors would she owe them? There is a cap of 3000 dollars for donations, I am pretty sure you would know that. 3,000 dollars isn't that much. As for undisclosed donations, I cannot comment.

Ah, we're lucky to live during a time when you can see the impacts of corporate lobbying at its worst.

Read the beginning of this USA Today article please. You'll notice that many of the companies that were awarded contracts to work in Iraq - big, multimillion dollar contracts of government/taxpayer money - donated to Bush's campaign when he was running for president. You see, it isn't that donating makes the politicians automatically feel indebted. Money is involved - big money. Both the corporations and their politician friends stand to gain quite a bit if they all play it right. Donations from companies are dangerous not so much because they have the potential to give that donating company an unfair advantage over others (which would still be quite harmful), but because suddenly the interests of the company become the interests of the president.

When the president starts to care more about the company's interests (which are almost always short-term and tend to be exploitive), the interests of the society lose. Part of the reason why our environmental legislation has gone to hell is because those regulations force companies to pay up and be more responsible. It's in the best interests of the people to keep our lands clean not only to preserve natural beauty, but for our own health (look at China as an example of what happens when you slack on regulation vs. corporate activities).

The day that a politician takes money from a company and turns right around and doesn't give them preferential treatment will be the day when that politician no longer receives corporate handouts. Corporations want to make money. Think about it: why would they just be handing out money to politicians if there wasn't something in it for them?

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Just want to point out that the Evil Corporations are the not the only ones hiring lobbyist. Unions, charities, and any other special interest groups hire lobbyist. The Sierra club, Greenpeace and ALCU have lobbyist.

This is true, but who has more monetary resources? I don't know who started hiring lobbyists first, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if there were corporate lobbyists and lobbyists from citizen groups sprang up to counter them.

Lobbyist do serve a purpose and like it or not they are noly legal but also cover by the consititution under free speech.

Sure they're legal. But it's also legal to append completely unrelated legislation to a bill that's being voted on. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean that we the people or we as a society are benefitting from it.

What is the role of a lobbyist? To persuade a government official to do something favorable to the interests of the lobbyist's client. If you don't have lobbyists to represent both sides of the issue, isn't that unfair? Now the government officials would be persuaded by one side without hearing equal representation from the other. So now everyone needs lobbyists in order to ensure that their positions aren't eroded by competing interests, but lobbyists cost money. That automatically favors those with greater resources...

[Vexx]

Repeated for truth and whatnot:

There are problems to be dealt with, and some of them are pretty high up in the system. In order to keep the society free and prosperous, we need to admit that they're there and fix them. Calling people "America haters" for pointing these things out is completely counterproductive.

Its also designed to silence debate and discussion which benefits only those who profit from the dysfunction.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Regardless you must understand what the question "Was race a factor..." means for different people. Some may take it as a simple question regarding if they were being racist or not. Others may think well I voted for Obama because it would be cool to have a Black president. It may just mean that the idea of race came across their minds while voting. This might have nothing really to do with "he's black and I ain't voting for him cus o that!" Either way, the question is poorly defined, so I wouldn't take that as credible evidence of 15% of whites voting for Clinton because Obama is black.

I'm not sure why you seem so dismissive of the statistic of how many people won't vote for Obama because he isn't white. The question has been asked a good number of times already (some source duplication) and the results always come out that between 10% (which they always claim is low) and 20% (which they can't believe) of Americans say race is an important factor/they won't vote for an African American candidate. Race, like terrorism, is still at play in America no matter how much people try to dismiss it as a factor. Both Clintons have been, whether knowingly or subconsciously, using race cards in places like PA and hence the backlash that is the 9:1 votes against them from African Americans. Obama uses them too by trying to avoid any of them possible and showing he is like everyone. As long as there are people these cards work on, these cards will be played.

[Sazelyt]

I haven't read the script of Rev. Wright's speech that forced Obama to denounce him, but one thing is clear. That is not a small blow on Obama.

He and his supporters were criticizing Hillary for her vote on national security based on the -incorrect- information presented to her, in a brief period. Hillary was considered as not having the right judgment capability when it comes to governing a country.

However, if you compare both cases, Obama's case is even worse.

Obama had been with Wright for 20 years, that guy was Obama's spiritual advisor (at this moment, I don't care whether he rejects that or not, before he did not) for a long time. He and his family had a personal relationship with Wright. His wife made a speech drawing lines similar to Wright's. Obama was aware of Wright's position in many things. Thinking otherwise would be plying hopeful to impossible.

And, now Obama denounces him. Which Obama does that? The one that wholeheartedly supported him for a long time, or the one who politically denounces him to save his own personal career?

Unfortunately, I don't think Hillary will exploit that conflicted position as much as she can and is capable of, but Republicans have gained a quite nice weapon to use against him. Criticizing Hillary for her wrong judgment, while being not much different himself. And, that is the difference Obama has promised to bring? And, some say Obama is experienced enough. He is not there yet and I highly doubt the Presidency is the right place for him to gain that experience.

[Kyuusai]

I took an interest in Jeremiah Wright when stories about his controversy started hitting, shortly before it became a media frenzy some time ago.

I started searching for more on him, because, like Vexx noted, I knew that these issues are often more complicated than they sound. I also know that in politics, and especially when it comes to outspoken Christian leaders, people that sound controversial are misrepresented and words are twisted, from simple quoting out of context to hyperbole being portrayed as literal claim.

There are valid concerns behind many of the issues Wright brings up, and I was ready to dismiss the media shouting about him. However... as I looked deeper and actually started listening to some of his sermons at length and reading some of his writings and interviews, it became clear that he's simply a race-baiting loudmouth earning money from the church. He couches in quasi-religious terms political messages specifically designed to stir up the demographic he's preaching to. He may actually believe in "black liberation theology", but it makes him no less full of crap. He's about as much of a minister as the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson.

Many in the media end up looking pretty shameful when they go up against Wright, which just goes to show how ill prepared they are. *sigh* I wouldn't want most modern journalists writing for Highlights Magazine, much less the decisions that affect our nation and the world.

I don't hold Wright against Obama. Even if the things he's spouting were new and isolated (and, in fact, they aren't), sometimes church is kind of like Rumsfeld's description of the army: You go with the one you have, not the one you want.
Nonetheless, some of the... less than honorable things that I have read about Obama that have soured my opinion of him from "naive dreamer" to "Clinton-lite" are seen in or around his past statements when discussing religion.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I can't argue with any of the issues you've raised because aside from some of Reverand Wright's remarks, I haven't heard about his being friends with a "terrorist" or his wife "being angry at America." I put those in quotes because I'm skeptical that it's even the truth. I think that the ultra-patriotic like to use those phrases against things they dislike. For example, I could see why Reverand Wright would seem like an American hater if he's accusing the government of underfunding AIDS. Guess what - the government has done worse than that, so get over it. Criticising the government for some of its despicable, unethical, and downright wrong actions doesn't make you hate America, it means you want to iron some kinks out of the system.

Ah, we're lucky to live during a time when you can see the impacts of corporate lobbying at its worst.

Read the beginning of this USA Today article please

Obama's terrorist friends launched his career, here is an article about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovO8hFt8-c8

And if anyone is interested that is a video surmising some of the iffy things about Obama. It has the quote from Obama's wife, which cannot be proven to be angry at America, but it is something I personally get shook up by. And please, that reverend is talking about a little more than just ironing out the kinks in this country. The government supposedly doing worst does not make his statements any more justifiable.

The lobbyist thing is interesting, I'm surprised that this isn't made a bigger deal in political affairs today.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Repeated for truth and whatnot:

Its also designed to silence debate and discussion which benefits only those who profit from the dysfunction.

Ok, but what I'm arguing with here is the ideology that Obama is not linked to his pastor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA). This is not a matter of I'm trying to silence people here by calling the pastor an American hater or whatever, and this is definitely not because he points out things in our government that need fixing.

I find it utterly ridiculous that some Obama supporters are being so delusional about this nut case. My favorite argument of theirs is that they didn't show the whole sermon. I just hope this guy keeps talking so Obama's polls just drop and drop. I also love that Obama finally decides to drop this guy saying "He's a different man."

Originally Posted by bayoab

I'm not sure why you seem so dismissive of the statistic of how many people won't vote for Obama because he isn't white. The question has been asked a good number of times already (some source duplication) and the results always come out that between 10% (which they always claim is low) and 20% (which they can't believe) of Americans say race is an important factor/they won't vote for an African American candidate. Race, like terrorism, is still at play in America no matter how much people try to dismiss it as a factor. Both Clintons have been, whether knowingly or subconsciously, using race cards in places like PA and hence the backlash that is the 9:1 votes against them from African Americans. Obama uses them too by trying to avoid any of them possible and showing he is like everyone. As long as there are people these cards work on, these cards will be played.

All I said was that the question is not phrased very well, for all I know that racist factor could've been like 10% higher than suggested. I really don't doubt that there is racism in this country, having met people from the South I can assure myself that it is very much alive today.


Anyway, anyone catch Hillary going on O'Reily Factor?

[Ermes Marana]

Hillary Clinton is selfish.

Hillary Clinton will steal ideas.

Hillary Clinton will usually do whatever the polls say.

Hillary Clinton will change her values and plans in an instant.



For all these reasons, I would vote for her, and I hope she gets the nomination.


Why is it considered a bad thing that a politician cares about the polls? In other words, they care what the people want them to do (for selfish reasons of course).

Why is it a bad thing to steal ideas? Bill Clinton was known for stealing ideas, but they were good ideas and they worked.

Why is it bad to change your values and plans? If circumstances change, you have to change with them.



Obama seems too much like GWB to me. GWB is a "true believer" in the neocon manifesto, and because of this even when he is running the country into the ground he can't change course.

Obama also seems like a "true believer." I get the feeling, for example, that even if it turned out universal health care would be too expensive and actually decrease the quality of health care, and even if the polls said the majority were against it, Obama would still try to do it.

Because he "believes".


Hillary doesn't believe, and I think not believing is what we need in a president after the last 8 years.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Obama's terrorist friends launched his career, here is an article about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovO8hFt8-c8

And if anyone is interested that is a video surmising some of the iffy things about Obama. It has the quote from Obama's wife, which cannot be proven to be angry at America, but it is something I personally get shook up by. And please, that reverend is talking about a little more than just ironing out the kinks in this country. The government supposedly doing worst does not make his statements any more justifiable.

The lobbyist thing is interesting, I'm surprised that this isn't made a bigger deal in political affairs today.

That site you linked to calls them "the weather underground" - they were just known as "the weathermen" in my history books. They're an example of a domestic terrorist group, but they're nowhere near someone like Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski ("the unabomber") because all of their bombings targeted infrastructure and were intended not to take anyone's life - and they were successful. While this doesn't excuse their past actions, you need to be a bit more careful about using the term "terrorist" these days. I thought Obama was friends with someone who was setting up suicide bombers and attempting to take as many lives as possible - the weathermen seem pretty darn harmless by comparison. Unless you were intending to use the term "terrorist" for its shock value...

As for the video, I don't see what the problem is. Whoever put it together did a very good job, but their intended message is very clear. If you don't mind my asking, what's your ethnicity?

Regarding campaign donations and other forms of corporate goodwill, nobody makes a big deal over it because it's seemingly been going on forever. And do you honestly expect any politicians to take a stand against it? Why would they - it makes their task of fundraising a heck of a lot easier. Who wants to hit up thousands/millions of people for donations when you can just make friends with the CEOs of a few companies, wine and dine them at your ranch (sorry, expensive house), and be set?

This is not a matter of I'm trying to silence people here by calling the pastor an American hater or whatever, and this is definitely not because he points out things in our government that need fixing.

What's the point of calling him an America hater, then? "Because it's true"? Why not examine what he's saying, where he's coming from, and understand the issues he's raising and his frustration with the system? If you do that and still reach the conclusion that this man just hates America and that's it, then I'd be very interested in reading your thoughts on many of the points and issues he raises to see how you reached that conclusion.

My favorite argument of theirs is that they didn't show the whole sermon. I just hope this guy keeps talking so Obama's polls just drop and drop. I also love that Obama finally decides to drop this guy saying "He's a different man."

That they didn't show the whole sermon is a good point. If you took even three sentences out of this post to you, would you say that it was giving a clear picture of my thoughts and ideas? People are very quick to judge, but nobody wants to sit down and judge it fairly by putting it all in context. I haven't seen the entire thing in context, myself; perhaps he is rightfully earning those condemnations. I'm not going to be overly judgemental or self-righteous and make that call without seeing the whole thing and even hearing some explanations first, though.

Your bias has shown through what that middle sentence, though. You have clearly made up your mind, and I don't think that any of us can persuade you to think about it differently. I'll just state that on my end, even though Obama will likely get my vote (if he receives the Democratic nomination), I have not bought into the demonizations of Hillary and I am not at war with the Republican party enough to blankly say that I'd never vote for McCain. I am anti-politician as far as politicians these days have been behaving.

Originally Posted by Ermes Manara

Why is it considered a bad thing that a politician cares about the polls? In other words, they care what the people want them to do (for selfish reasons of course).

Because Hillary is a candidate, not in office. Does GWB look like he cares about the polls at all? Heck no. Did he care about the polls when he was originally running for president? Sure did. Of course they would - they're trying to appeal to as many people as possible when they're candidates. Even if your approval ratings drop to all-time lows, the public can't impeach you.