Obama on AIDS

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
stirring speech from the increasingly impressive Obama ... most noteable for how it speaks to both the right and the left in the same breath, very Bono-esque:



[q]Let's talk about what these efforts involve. First, if we hope to win this fight, we must stop new infections - we must do what we can to prevent people from contracting HIV in the first place.

Now, too often, the issue of prevention has been framed in either/or terms. For some, the only way to prevent the disease is for men and women to change their sexual behavior - in particular, to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. For others, such a prescription is unrealistic; they argue that we need to provide people with the tools they need to protect themselves from the virus, regardless of their sexual practices - in particular, by increasing the use of condoms, as well as by developing new methods, like microbicides, that women can initiate themselves to prevent transmission during sex. And in the debate surrounding how we should tackle the scourge of AIDS, we often see each side questioning the other's motives, and thereby impeding progress.

For me, this is a false argument. Let me say this - I don't think we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention - that in too many places all over the world where AIDS is prevalent - including our own country, by the way - the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired.

It was striking to see this as I traveled through South Africa and Kenya. Again and again, I heard stories of men and women contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act; because men had visited prostitutes and brought the disease home to their wives, or young girls had been subjected to rape and abuse.

These are issues of prevention we cannot walk away from. When a husband thinks it's acceptable to hide his infidelity from his wife, it's not only a sin, it's a potential death sentence. And when rape is still seen as a woman's fault and a woman's shame, but promiscuity is a man's prerogative, it is a problem of the heart that no government can solve. It is, however, a place where local ministries and churches like Saddleback can, and have, made a real difference - by providing people with a moral framework to make better choices.

Having said that, I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence. Nor am I willing to stand by and allow those who are entirely innocent - wives who, because of the culture they live in, often have no power to refuse sex with their husbands, or children who are born with the infection as a consequence of their parent's behavior -suffer when condoms or other measures would have kept them from harm.

[...]

But the reason for us to step up our efforts can't simply be instrumental. There are more fundamental reasons to care. Reasons related to our own humanity. Reasons of the soul.

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

For in the end, we must realize that the AIDS orphan in Africa presents us with the same challenge as the gang member in South Central, or the Katrina victim in New Orleans, or the uninsured mother in North Dakota.

[/q]
 
I absolutely love Obama! What a brilliant speech! I will vote for him in a heartbeat if he runs for president. He reminds me also of Martin Luther King Jr. as well. It would be amazing to see such a strong, intelligent :ohmy: , and caring man in the White House.
 
I'm excited about this guy. He's like a breath of fresh air. A democrat who's not afraid to talk about his Christian faith -- who knew.

Dangerous.
 
Love the guy. But there was a headline on Huffpo recently that rang true: "How long with the right wing let us love Obama?"

It's already starting, too. Twice in the last week, Bill O'Reilly has devoted two segments to Obama bashing.
 
LPU2 said:
It's already starting, too. Twice in the last week, Bill O'Reilly has devoted two segments to Obama bashing.

Did you see the segments? Just wondering what O'Reilly actually said in his "Obama bashing." Couldn't find much about it on the Huff Post website or the Google.

I do know that O'Reilly wants an interview, which Obama hasn't taken him up on yet. Seems O'Reilly would hold off on the badmouthing of a guy like Obama who he's trying to get on his show.
 
I would vote for Obama. If he ran for President, who would be a good VP?
 
Justin24 said:
I would vote for Obama. If he ran for President, who would be a good VP?

I think it's Obama who is running for VP this time around.

But a guy like Bill Richardson might be a good match as a VP, a little older and more experienced.
 
coemgen said:
I'm excited about this guy. He's like a breath of fresh air. A democrat who's not afraid to talk about his Christian faith -- who knew.

Dangerous.

Don't worry. STING will be here shortly to explain to us how the Dems shouldn't even bother fielding a candidate, and how Obama has no chance.
 
Bluer White said:


Did you see the segments? Just wondering what O'Reilly actually said in his "Obama bashing." Couldn't find much about it on the Huff Post website or the Google.

I do know that O'Reilly wants an interview, which Obama hasn't taken him up on yet. Seems O'Reilly would hold off on the badmouthing of a guy like Obama who he's trying to get on his show.

The first segment was mostly a media bash, questioning why they were giving him so much attention. He brought on Dick Morris to analyze his significance. They were sure to mention his middle name, Hussein, so the old people know to be scared of him. Oh, and as always with someone who, for whatever reason, isn't able to appear, O'Reilly again said he was afraid to come on the show.

The second segment was just last night. O'Reilly once again questioned why the media were giving him so much attention, but this time labeled him part of the "far left" so the old people know to be scared of him. Oh, and as always with someone who, for whatever reason, isn't able to appear, O'Reilly said he was afraid to come on the show.

He's not really bad mouthing him yet. Just setting up the play, so we know what to expect. But we already knew what to expect.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:


Don't worry. STING will be here shortly to explain to us how the Dems shouldn't even bother fielding a candidate, and how Obama has no chance.


and we're winning in Iraq, too.
 
coemgen said:
OK, that went over my head. I'm claiming ignorance. What are you saying, anitram.:scratch:

If you read this board, you will see that in the last week or so, STING has repeatedly (ad nauseum I might add) asserted that there is no point to even running against McCain. And that Obama certainly has no chance against him.
 
anitram said:


If you read this board, you will see that in the last week or so, STING has repeatedly (ad nauseum I might add) asserted that there is no point to even running against McCain. And that Obama certainly has no chance against him.

If someone like Obama doesn't have a chance against a guy who made a commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's school last year we're in all sorts of trouble. :mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Justin24 said:
I would vote for Obama. If he ran for President, who would be a good VP?

Either someone with tons of executive experience such as Richardson or someone with tons of international experience such as Clark. Bottom line: someone with tons of experience, period. I love Obama, but I'm terrified of the perceptions on his lack of experience, especially agaisnt someone like McCain.
 
starsgoblue said:
Obama is very intriguing to me lately. I just got his book the other day, haven't started it yet...

Which one? I recently finished Dreams From My Father and thought it was excellent. I'll probably get his latest after the new year. :up:

I'm fully prepared to vote for this man if he runs in 2008, unless Hillary gives me good cause not to. She has the Clinton name, which has all that sentimentality attached to it, but if Obama keeps going the way he's been going, that's going to be impossible to beat. :drool:
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:

I'm fully prepared to vote for this man if he runs in 2008, unless Hillary gives me good cause not to.

The Democrats putting Hillary Clinton on the ballot would be tantamount to political suicide. She's so divisive and has such a loaded past that I severely doubt she can reach many true independents.

An Obama-Edwards or Obama-Clark ticket would be nearly unstoppable, barring a major gaffe on Barack's part.

This is heartening. The two leading Democratic candidates are a woman and a multi-racial guy who's got some of the smartest ideas this side of JFK. This is the closest either group's ever been to the Presidency. What a step forward for the nation it would be if it were actually to happen.

I don't know if America is actually ready to elect a minority or a woman to the Presidency yet, and it may be the case that either candidate would be rejected based simply on who they are. Republicans seem to have a knack for that, though.

Either way, the idea of a non-white male winning the White House in my lifetime now seems like a very real possibility, and I can't help but think that it would be a great social benefit to the country.

Here's hoping...
 
DaveC said:


The Democrats putting Hillary Clinton on the ballot would be tantamount to political suicide. She's so divisive and has such a loaded past that I severely doubt she can reach many true independents.


Exactly. I've never really been a huge fan of Hillary's, but if she's it for the Dems (which may not even be the case, unless the other Dem bids prove unsuccessful) I may have to go that way. Guess we shall see how things go over the next year.

All that said, unless there's some huge skeleton in Obama's closet I am for him all the way. I even may sign up to be part of his campaign, if indeed it does happen.
 
i think HRC would be a much better Senate Majority Leader. or Supreme Court Justice. not a president.

i really do think that.

the Republcian Party is in tatters, stricken with infighting between libertarians, hawks, and religious conservatives. perhaps the ONLY thing that could get them organized would be the threat of another Clinton, particularly *this* Clinton, ascending back to the White House.

and if Hillary were to win ... from 1980-2016, we'd have had either a member of the Bush family or the Clinton family in the White House. dynasties are not a good sign in a democracy.
 
Irvine511 said:

and if Hillary were to win ... from 1980-2016, we'd have had either a member of the Bush family or the Clinton family in the White House. dynasties are not a good sign in a democracy.

Yeah, this distrubs me deeply. I don't want to see America go down that road. Blah blah all you want about the Adams family but fresh blood, please.
 
Back
Top Bottom