The Cult of Obama

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


So, if one is not wooed by charisma and fancy speeches

What are they to do?

Well, you can study the issues and the candidate's stance on them and make a decision based on that. You clearly feel that Obama is not yet seasoned enough to manage the presidency and that actually IS a legitmate reason not to support his run at this time. But the argument can be--and is being--made that while his "experience" may be little, his judgement is sound. We can argue back and forth on that topic and I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the intellectually lazy position of saying "He is charismatic and give fancy speeches THEREFORE he has no substance." I do have a problem with the assumption that all Obama supporters are wooed by his charisma and fancy speeches. You are correct--his charisma shouldn't be such a huge factor. But it shouldn't be a factor for OR against him.

(Though, granted Irvine has made a pretty compelling case for why that charisma and charm might be--gasp!--an actual asset!)
 
maycocksean said:

(Though, granted Irvine has made a pretty compelling case for why that charisma and charm might be--gasp!--an actual asset!)



i know, right?

can you imagine? charism and charm being political assets!?!?!

:lmao:

in what world!
 
Angry Barack Obama bombarded by media

BY MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Tuesday, March 4th 2008, 1:51 AM

SAN ANTONIO, Tex. - An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The Clinton campaign has long complained that Obama gets soft treatment from the press corps. But Monday's exchange was no pillow fight.

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said. His camp still disputes the memo's account of the discussion.

The questioning then turned to Obama's links to ex-fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who went on trial in Chicago Monday on corruption charges. A reporter asserted Obama hadn't fully answered journalists' questions on Rezko.

Obama insisted he had - during a past news conference with Chicago media. But another persisted that questions remain unanswered, such as ones about fund-raisers Rezko held for him.

Obama replied, "These requests, I think, can just go on forever. ..." He said the "pertinent" information had been provided.

When Obama declared the press conference over, one reporter yelled that he was dodging questions just minutes after claiming he wasn't.



Obama is not ready for prime time!

2008 should have been his chance to learn the ropes.

My concern is he will be taken a part, piece by piece.

And squander what might have been a very promising career.


Hillary could take this crap for an hour.

She is so battle tested and scared up, she would not even flinch.
 
deep, you've really confounded me. i really see no basis for your support of Hillary other than your need to tweak those who support Obama, and to mock Obama himself.

it does seem like she's going to win OH. and this might very well be to Obama what South Carolina was to McCain in 2000.

what i am getting sick of is the portrayal of those who support Obama has having somehow drunk the Kool-Aid. and i would say that Obama supporters are very different from Bush supporters.

most of the reason for my support of Obama over Hillary is because he's the next step. he gets us out of the Baby Boom. he gets us away from Karl Rove politics and careful legalisms and Boomer narcissism. he is calm, careful, reasonable, and does not anger quickly, if at all. compare this to the "me, me, me" speeches of Hillary, to her talk of the VRWC, to her paranoia, to her legion of yes-men, to her continuous streak of self-pity, right down to the very fact that she sees herself as destined -- in a way that GWB thought of himself as destined -- to be the first female president.

we have deep problems in this country. note that the Republicans nominated the only adult on their side who was running for president. they rejected the dick swinger (Giuliani). they rejected the android (Romney). they rejected the Christo-fascist (Huckabee). they went for the only plausible candidate in the room with a history of bipartisanship and appeal to both sides of the isle.

there is not a single Democrat in the House or Senate who is as polarizing as Hillary Rodham Clinton. there is a not a single Democrat who is as unappealing to the vast masses of blue collar white men. there is no other candidate where those with only a passing familiarity with politics -- which is most voters, as most voters have other things to think about -- feel as if it's a perfectly legitimate argument to dismiss Hillary as a "bitch."

Obama will not part the seas and defeat this combative system and we'll suddenly live in an enlightened world. no one thinks that. but what we do know is that, of all possible candidates, the one most likely to breath new life into this weary, tiresome, exasperating, and immensely self-destructive political playbook of us vs. them, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. she is a log on the smoldering embers of Rovian personal destruction. she is gasoline to the nearly snuffed out cigarette butt of Vietnam-era irrationalities.

it is somewhat her fault. she has conducted her campaign in a manner similar to how Bush has conducted his presidency. she (and her husband) and Bush the Junior are opposite sides of the same coin, and i want a new currency.
 
deep said:


Hillary could take this crap for an hour.

She is so battle tested and scared up, she would not even flinch.

Now who's drinking the kool-aid? We've seen plenty of flinching this campaign from her...
 
Irvine pretty much nailed it. What I will say is that I've become increasingly nauseated at watching the depths to which the Clinton campaign will stoop. This past week and a half has been nothing but pure filth. Yesterday alone we had her saying that "as far as she knew" Obama was not a Muslim (excuse me, what?) and then this stab in the back. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." So basically, we have a Democratic candidate openly declaring that the opposition party candidate is better than someone from her own party who could very well be our nominee. WTF? Literally, I don't know what to think other than that she's decided that if she can't be the nominee, then she'd rather see Obama lose to McCain and she's actively giving McCain ammunition for his campaign.

We need serious change. I don't see Clinton offering us anything but more of the same divisive politics that we've endured for the last eight years. She can't even manage a civil campaign, how can I trust her to be anything different as President?
 
Irvine511 said:


it is somewhat her fault. she has conducted her campaign in a manner similar to how Bush has conducted his presidency. she (and her husband) and Bush the Junior are opposite sides of the same coin, and i want a new currency.

I :heart: you, and I would only add to this that in her campaign she has valued loyalty over competence, and that scares me...because it is awfully familiar...
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
Yesterday alone we had her saying that "as far as she knew" Obama was not a Muslim (excuse me, what?) and then this stab in the back. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." So basically, we have a Democratic candidate openly declaring that the opposition party candidate is better than someone from her own party who could very well be our nominee. WTF?

Yeah, it's quite :barf: worthy...
 
why worry about Ohio when you can win Kansas?



[q]Daily Dose: Poll: Obama would have shot at winning Kansas
By Dr. Bob Beatty
Special to The Capital-Journal
Published Tuesday, March 04, 2008

For the Past three decades, Kansas has been a reliable, easy win for the Republican presidential candidate.

Since 1996, the average margin of victory for the GOP standard bearer over the Democratic Party candidate has been 21 points.

But a poll released Feb. 22 by Survey USA that matches Republican Sen. John McCain against Democratic senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama reveals data suggesting something that hasn't been contemplated since the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot election.

The GOP candidate might not be a lock in the Sunflower State.

It's still a long way from November, but the poll shows many Kansans are keeping an open mind about Obama, and it adds weight to those who think the Illinois senator would make a stronger candidate than Clinton in the general election.

Here's why:

1. McCain beats Hillary Clinton easily

The statewide poll of registered voters shows McCain would defeat Clinton by 24 points in a general election matchup, 59 percent to 35 percent, with 6 percent undecided.

Among several groups of voters, McCain has substantial leads. Men prefer him by 39 points, young people by 26, and in western Kansas, he has a 30 point lead. In voter-rich eastern Kansas, he leads Clinton 58-38, and in the Wichita area, McCain is up by 16 points.

Even among women, a group Clinton has done well with in the Democratic primaries, she loses to McCain by eight points.

The only groups in which Clinton leads McCain are those who consider health care or the environment the No. 1 issue in America. For every other issue — the economy, immigration, social security, education, terrorism, even Iraq — Clinton has less support than the Arizona senator.

2. McCain beats Obama, but it's closer

In contrast to Clinton's numbers, the poll shows Obama is within striking distance of McCain, garnering 44 percent to McCain's 50 percent with 7 percent undecided.

Where is Obama picking up support that Clinton didn't get? He actually beats McCain among women (by seven points) and young people (by six points) and does 20 points better among men than Clinton.

But the key for Obama in Kansas is with independent voters. Where Clinton loses to McCain among independents, Obama wins that group from McCain by 21 points. Obama also beats McCain among self-described moderates by 14 points, a group Clinton loses by 12 points.

Among issues voters, McCain beats Obama among those who are concerned with immigration, terrorism, social security and education, but Obama wins among Kansans worried about the economy, the environment, health care and Iraq.

Geographically, Obama loses to McCain across the state, but he is within five points in both the Wichita area — where Obama's grandparents are from — and eastern Kansa[/q]
 
Insert caption here:

r315812455.jpg



:lol:
 
From the Washington Post:

I'm Not an 'Obamabot'

By Ayelet Waldman
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; 1:21 PM



Linda Hirshman doesn't think very much of people like me. As a white woman with a law degree, I am in that "plurality of elite" women she suggests are traitors to their sex. To Hirshman, my decision not to support the candidacy of a onetime Wal-Mart board member who is the descendent of a wealthy Chicago family, but rather a former community organizer who is the son of a single mother, makes me "fickle," an "Obamabot" swayed by a movement, and quite possibly a spoiled brat who doesn't care about women less fortunate.

To say that I resent the implication is an understatement.

I'm a longtime Barack Obama supporter, not because I'm a snob in thrall to his sex appeal, but because I'm heartily sick of candidates who preach populism while accepting donations from PACs and corporate lobbyists. Obama has amassed an astonishing war chest from over one million individual donors, many of whom gave small contributions. Clinton, meanwhile, held a "Rural Americans for Hillary" fundraiser at the offices of Troutman Sanders Public Affairs -- the Washington lobbying firm that represents Monsanto. More like "Rural, Multinational Agribusiness for Hillary."

I support Obama not because I'm "fickle," but because of his principled and courageous opposition to the Iraq war. Clinton dismisses that opposition as mere words. Yet it struck me at the time, and it strikes me now, as a mark of his wisdom. He was prescient about Iraq, as he was prescient about Pakistan when he expressed doubt about putting all America's eggs in Pervez Musharraf's basket.

I support Obama not because I'm an "Obamabot," but because he generates trust across party lines. I heard independents and Republicans talk about this trust when I volunteered for Obama's campaign -- in Nevada, South Carolina, California and Texas. And I believe it stems, in part, from the fact that he has made government transparency a key stone of his campaign. Clinton, on the other hand, issues vague statements about revealing her tax returns and the donors to her husband's library, but fails to follow through. Moreover, when, during her husband's presidency, her health care reform project went down in flames, it was due in no small part to her insistence on secrecy, closed-door meetings and her refusal to allow the input of even many members of her own party.

Far from a betrayal, supporting Obama is a choice feminists can be proud of. He has proposed expanding the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to allow people to take leave to attend school activities or to care for elderly relatives. He has also proposed spending $1.5 billion dollars to encourage states to offer paid family leave, and he has called for a doubling of the funding for after-school programs. In fact, his credentials on issues affecting working women and families are on par with those of Clinton, whose gender makes it no more likely that she will be a better friend to working women than her upper-class credentials make it less likely.

Furthermore, when push came to shove in this campaign, Clinton proved herself willing to betray core feminist values. She allowed Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm to spearhead an effort to mischaracterize Obama's pro-choice record, emphasizing the number of times he voted "present" while a state senator and ignoring that his votes were part of a legislative strategy to protect abortion rights. When Clinton allows high level surrogates to perpetuate such deceptions, she undermines the credibility of the pro-choice community and betrays all of us who struggle to protect that right.

Hirshman's class argument is specious and depressing, especially since the candidate she lionizes as the working-woman's choice is a member of the very social elite of which she is so disdainful. In 2005, Clinton reported assets of between $10 million and $50 million (a range explicable, I imagine, only to someone who has that kind of money to begin with). In the same year, Obama reported assets between $456,000 and $1.1 million. While neither of these candidates' incomes remotely resembles the average of the people whom they seek to represent, the difference between the two makes decidedly odd Hirshman's sneering reference to Obama's "white-porticoed mansion."

We are lucky this year to have two such remarkable candidates running for president, two candidates who inspire passion -- as both Hirshman and my words make clear. What is also clear, however, is that nothing can be gained by making broad generalizations and unwarranted accusations. Let's continue this debate, but let's do so in a thoughtful and respectful manner, without resorting to insult.

This is for those of us (especially women) sick of being insulted because we support Obama.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom