If Obama takes a VP slot he's a lot dumber than I thought. He should get in the mix, drop out for some reason, and take another go in 2012 or 2016.

I live in Arizona, so I see a lot of informationa bout him and his campaigning. In 2000 he set himself up as a common-sense moderate, and now he is way too busy kissing up to the religious crazy conservative sect (Dobson, Bob Jones University- not to be confused with sane, fically-minded republicans, who do exist). He has made nice with the President despite the dirty, relentless, racist smear campaign that Bush's team warred against him (all those reports that he fathered a black baby, when I believe he and his wife adopted the child). It all is probably pretty sensible of him, in order to maintain a grip on the republican voters, but it's distasteful to me.

The reason I liked him to begin with was because it seemed as though he had that oh-so-elusive quality called integrity. Now I see him as just another politician doing whatever it takes to get voted into power. I would not vote for him.

James Dobson is not a Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell Christian. To lump him in with them is pretty far-fetched.

I find him and his Focus on the Family organization to be just as bad, if less prone to saying things that are utterly retarded (hateful yes, but just not as dumb as labelling Tinky Winky gay). Fear mongering and myopic in the extreme.

If FOTF saying things like "homosexuality is a sin" then yeah, i guess they're an extremist organization. Lets put them on a watch list. Its amazing who could be classified as a "hate-monger" these days...pretty much anyone who stands up for something.

I didn't say hate-monger, I said fear. I don't think they are necessarily promoting hate so much as they are profiting off of the fear that is already there in our society- fear of society's degeneration, fear of homosexuality, fear of other races- in order to promote their own agendas and make money.

They are way more dangerous than Falwell, etc. because they have the good sense to be more subtle with their language and agenda.

Dangerous to what YOU believe.

It isn't fear, its faith. Its what they believe, not merely some way to make money.

Did anyone else see the Fox News segment talking about Obama? Basically, they spread the word that he is a smoker and has been hiding it from the public. Since he has been hiding that, they decided to talk about what other things he could be hiding from the voting public, such as his real views on current issues.

Get used to it. You throw your hat in the ring and the gloves will come off.

McCain has waffled back and forth on his support for Bush and the 'war' in Iraq. Wasn't he an Independent at one time or something like that?

I am pretty sceptical about public figures promoting a religious agenda. I think 99% of them are in it for fame and glory and spreading the word of God is a DISTANT second. I wouldn't care if they were Hindu, Muslim, or Unitarian, I just think that people who really want to promote their beliefs do it day-to-day, not on tv or in the media.

Its perfectly fine to be skeptical of such people. However, I think anyone who was really aware of how Dobson is would have a tough time attaching such a description to him.

Do any of you think Obama and Clinton could be on the same ticket?

Random point: Humanism IS an outgrowth of Christianity if you look at its roots. In the late middle ages or early renaissance, depending on how you want to see it, Humanism was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with Classical/secular works and methods. I'm thinking Erasmus here, mainly. I'm also thinking of Humanism like "humanities" humanism, not "secular humanism," which in hindsight, I realize you might mean.

Certainly, today Humanism is closer to Deism than it is to Christianity, but I don't think it started out that way.

About Clinton/Obama, I was sort of joking about it in another thread. They do seem to complement each other.

Sorry for crashing your forum. I arrived here kind of accidentally. I was searching for a post on a similar topic.

Soror, I actually think that this is the GOAL. I think that they are just going about it in a round about kind of way so that no one thinks that that is what they are trying to do. I think that by both tossing their hat in the ring for *President,* the public begins to check *both* of them out...their voting records, etc. That, to me, makes for a more powerful ticket b/c then people like the Pres and the VP candidate (when one drops into that VP slot). Otherwise, who ever really takes the time to truly investigate the VP candidate? There is so little attention placed on the VP candidate that it's ridiculous as they (as was Former President Gerald Ford, RIP) could very well become President.

I think that this is the strategy.

Now, as to whether they could be Pres and VP, not sure what I think about that. Hillary, I like for feminist reasons but she is such a middle of the road politician that you never can really tell what you are getting with her. She thinks she's being cute (and smart) by playing the middle ground but I wouldn't risk my vote for President on someone that played the middle ground (unless I didn't have any other choices) - b/c I wouldn't know what to expect from her.

Here Here!!
 

Spoken like a true member of your ilk...let's not asses Obama's capabilities to become President on his viewpoints or the issues at hand but whether or not the fact that he smokes means he's as deceptive as some of his unethical Republican peers.

I guess this means that the fact that Bush believes God wanted him to win the elections he stole means that he's our divine leader and not a bumbling fool and a lunatic:rolleyes:

Incidently I watched about 2 minutes of BET's 2006 recap and they made jokingly referenced the possibility of Obama being shot if he actually got close to becoming president. This thought never crossed my mind until I saw this snippet...I wonder if this is likely in 2008.

Its funny about the double standard that Dems are held to as opposed to the GOP. To this day, I don't see how getting some head in the oval office is more serious than sending thousands of young men and women to their deaths to advance a corporate and personal agenda. Maybe Shinerbock has the answer to this???

^5

Girl, didn't you see Head of State ;)

If the Dems put forth any other ticket, they will be selling out the country AGAIN.

That may be the least intelligent post I've read on this board.

Of my ilk...lets discuss shall we? This is coming from a supporter (assuming) of the party that tried incredibly hard to paint President Bush as an alcoholic and cocaine addict. From the same group who voted to go to war, and now calls the President an idiot for doing so. The same group who accused basically everyone in the GOP of conspiring with Mark Foley, while celebrating Gerry Stubbs. The same group that called the President a racist when Katrina relief didn't go as they'd hoped, though mostly ignoring the complete failure of the city's black mayor.

I'm sure everyone sees the correlation between Fox going after Obama's habits and his imminent assassination. Thankfully we have people like you who pay attention to legitimate news outlets like BET and report back to us regarding the brilliant insights they offer.

Welcome to politics, obviously the subject is new to you.

You must have missed the part where the Democrats voted for the war. From reading your post, this doesn't surprise me. You don't really seem like the kind of person who is really keyed into what happens in the world of government. Why would you be? After all, you could just do what you're doing now, regurgitating talking points regarding things you know nothing about. Yeah, thats a much simpler alternative.

Summer, Hillary is going towards the middle because its the only way she can win the general, and currently she has a long way to go. If Obama stays in, she'll probably move back to the left somewhat in an attempt to win the primary, but after that its back to the middle. Hillary/Obama is a dumb ticket for Obama. Hillary will need a lot of help to win, and by help I mean the GOP candidate doing something pretty stupid. Why would Obama want to be a part of a losing ticket? When you become a VP candidate, you end up going to bat for the Presidential candidate (See: John Edwards). Obama has a similar reputation pre-election to what Edwards had, by being a unifying figure, an optimist, etc...Theres absolutely no reason to get into the mud for what will likely be a losing cause.

Hopefully the Democrats have strategists who think exactly like you.

Clinton/Obama...No!
 

I wouldn't vote for the Clinton/Obama ticket. Hillary is just a little too cold for me. However, my dream team would be the Edwards/Obama ticket. John Edwards is from the south, Obama from the Midwest. Both handsome and well spoken. Might be the ticket to beat...

Fire, that or Edwards/Bayh would probably be the best shot for the dems, IMO.

Fire, that or Edwards/Bayh would probably be the best shot for the dems, IMO.

firecracker,

What's the deal w/ Edwards? If memory serves correctly he neither carried North Carolina in the Dem. primary, nor did he help Kerry carry it in the general election.

I have nothing against him; he seems to be a moderate politican, someone to examine, but where does his electoral firepower come from in '08 in your opinion?

To be fair, I think it would have been next to impossible for almost any Dem to take NC. NC (with the exception of Metrolina) is a red state. Period.

Edwards is a little too green in my opinion. The environment is great, and important, and all that - but nothing you can base a solid campaign on.

I think Firecracker08 (not that I'm speaking for you ;) ) likes Edwards/Obama because they both are appealing to wide variety of a voting audience. Let's face it...2008 will be more than just your average Dem vs Rep race. A successful candidate will HAVE to be able to appeal to the majority of their party and a good portion of their opposing party.

This is one main reason why I think Hillary can hang it up. She is NOT appealing to the Republican party - not even to moderate Republicans. So even if the Dems used the Iraq war/deaths to play on the heartstrings of America in a "republicans are evil vote for us" sort of way, it still won't be enough. You have got to have crossover appeal plain and simple.

I fully agree with this post- if the Democrats actually put up Hillary Clinton for election it would be ridiculous. She is a hugely divisive figure. Not that theyw ouldn't, seeing as how their strategy int he past few years has been sorely lacking, but damn that would be dumb.

As to Edwards being too green, that is probably true, and completely sad. If there is one issue that we should all be taking to heart, regardless of race or class it's what is being done to our planet and the need for conservation to step it up. It won't matter if abortion is ever banned or not if there is no sustainable environment for those children to grow up in.

Edwards was golden pre-Kerry. I think Bayh/Obama could be good, but theres absolutely zero chance the Dems let Evan win the primary.

Golden based on what? He was a one-term senator from North Carolina with a nice presentation. Don't recall a major legislative accomplishment, but clearly that's not been a pre-requisite for high national office for some time now.

Don't know much about Bayh....yet.

Tony, I'm not judging him on his merits, but his ability to be a successful politician. Before becoming the VP candidate, he was the optimistic, don't-talk-bad-about-anyone candidate. Experience can easily be overcome with such things, this is America.

I really hope they will be.

Spare me...Bush probably was drunk and a cocaine addict, but I could really care less...This coming from a supporter (not assuming just sure) of the party that tried to impeach Former President Clinton for having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Unlike a cocaine addiction, adultery (to my knowledge) does not impede one's capabilities of performing as President. In fact, if it did Jefferson, JFK, and a whole host of other presidents would have been out on there azzes.

Yes, the Democrats voted to go to war because they were fed lies by the President and his sycophants in the CIA and in other parts of the government. An unfounded correlation was painted between 9/11 and Iraq; unfortunately, Democrats foolishly gave in to that idiot, and he is an idiot, under the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (as if we should be the only country allowed to have these weapons).

Let's go to school (speaking slowly): FEMA is an acronym that stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. I choose to place the majority of the blame where it's warranted.

I'm not sure that the President is a racist, though it wouldn't surprise me if he were. In fact, I would prefer it if he were racist because then I'd know that he isn't the incompetent President I believe him to be; that old women and children died after Hurricane Katrina's wake because he doesn't care about Black people and not because he didn't know what the hell to do or because he appointed the head of the Arabian Horse Association to manage national emergencies.

I'm sure you were the kid in kindergarten who couldn't color in the lines. I stated nor did I imply any correlation between Obama's habits and his imminent assassination. I also did not state nor imply that I was looking for news on BET...Did not I state that I glimpsed a 2006 recap in which individuals were making jokes?

If you have anything further to say (and I am sure you will) I will not respond. I have argued with a fool for long enough and pretty soon people will not be able to tell the difference.

You're already preempting by saying you won't respond? Given the complete lack of knowledge you possess regarding the subject matter, I would say that is a pretty wise decision.

1) The Coke- Obama has his own issues with this. I fail to see how the possibility of Bush using cocaine at some point in his life prior to him becoming President (or governor), impedes his ability to govern. Clinton was impeached because he broke the law.

2) Democrats were somehow used by the Bush administration...many liberals such as yourself use this, and it gets more hilarious each time. You're telling me people on the Senate Intelligence Comm were misled by the President? Even though they had the same access? Oh right, the CIA lied. I guess thats why most of the world came to the same conclusion, that Iraq had WMD. Even to this day, most rational people acknowledge that at some point WMD existed in Iraq. The intelligence lapse was losing track of what happened to them.

3) The simple fact that you're even trying to make fun of me is incredible. Yes, I'm well aware of what FEMA stands for. What you're obviously unaware of is how disaster relief works. Who responds first? THATS RIGHT! Its the local authorities and the state. Thats how it works, neat system huh? So yeah, when the Mayor doesn't order the evacuation until it is too late, thats a problem. FEMA obviously has problems, but then again we've never dealt with anything like that.

With that, good day.

I guess you missed the part where the White House AND the Congress were controlled by the GOP over the last 6 years. Hopefully there is more of a check and balance now. :rolleyes:

As far as the kind of person I am, you will never know. I don't put myself out on Front St like some people....


BTW, I guess my insight into the fact that WMD never existed in Iraq the minute the words left GWB's mouth makes me out of tune with the world. Considering I was right on the money....

Mccoy, the GOP did control, but that has zero relevance when talking about how democrats also supported the war.

WMD existed in Iraq. Fact. Ask the Kurds.

I personally cannot wait until Barak announces what he is going to do. I may have to make a trip to Springfield to see that for myself!

I am pleased to see Obama running and already the onslaughts and naysayers have come to the forefront, if not him to win the Presidency then at least a DEMOCRAT.We have had enough of the Republican agenda with its uncaring economic and international policies, and the atrocities of soldiers being killed in Iraq.

Obama mentioned in Time article
 

Thursday, Feb. 08, 2007
The New Black Nativism
By Orlando Patterson

To the surprise of many whites and dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among black Americans by a 40-point margin in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll. It is possible to read this as a positive development: black Americans have transcended racial politics and may now vote for the person they consider the better candidate, regardless of race. The sad truth, however, is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies.

So just what is the nature of black American identity today? Historically, the defining characteristic has been any person born in America who is of African ancestry, however remote. This is the infamous one-drop rule, invented and imposed by white racists until the middle of the 20th century. As with so many other areas of ethno-racial relations, African Americans turned this racist doctrine to their own ends. What to racist whites was a stain of impurity became a badge of pride. More significantly, what for whites was a means of exclusion was transformed by blacks into a glorious principle of inclusion. The absurdity of defining someone as black who to all appearances was white was turned on its head by blacks who used the one-drop rule to enlarge both the black group and its leadership with light-skinned persons who, elsewhere in the Americas, would never dream of identifying with blacks.

Black identity was historically progressive in another important respect: from very early in the 19th century through the civil rights movement, it was strikingly cosmopolitan. Black leaders took a deep interest in oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Pan-African movement and early black nationalism were part of emerging notions of black solidarity. Blacks took deep pride in the Haitian revolution, and black American missionaries played an important role in the Christianization of Jamaican and other West Indian blacks. Black Americans were also open to the inspiration of black immigrants: W.E.B. DuBois's father was Haitian; James Weldon Johnson's mother, Bahamian. One of the first mass movements of African Americans was led by a Jamaican, Marcus Garvey, in the '20s. An impressive number of black leaders and civil rights icons--Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Louis Farrakhan, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to list a few--were all first- or second-generation immigrants. Before them, West Indian leaders paved the way toward involvement with city politics, especially in New York. And this cosmopolitanism extended also to non-African peoples; Martin Luther King's engagement with Mahatma Gandhi is the most famous example. Like so many other West Indians, I have personally experienced this remarkable inclusiveness in the traditional practice of black identity. Becoming a black American meant simply declaring oneself to be one and engaging in their public and private life, into which I was always welcomed.

In recent years, however, this tradition has been eroded by a thickened form of black identity that, sadly, mirrors some of the worst aspects of American white identity and racism. A streak of nativism rears its ugly head. To be black American, in this view, one's ancestors must have been not simply slaves but American slaves. Furthermore, directly mirroring the traditional definition of whiteness as not being black is the growing tendency to define blackness in negative terms--it is to be not white in upbringing, kinship or manner, to be too not at ease in the intimate ways of white Americans.

Barack is married to a black woman, has spent years doing community work in the ghettos and is by lineage certainly more African than most African Americans. But black America's view of him is clouded by the facts that he is the son of an immigrant and that he was brought up mainly by middle-class whites whose culture is second nature to him. Although the Congressional Black Caucus, still strongly influenced by the civil rights generation, remains surprisingly liberal on immigration issues, the black middle class appears to harbor a hardening anti-immigrant sentiment--a Pew poll last year found that 54% of blacks see immigrants as a burden. More disturbing, however, is what that sentiment reveals about a growing pattern of self-segregation among the black middle class, many of whom, like the residents of Prince George's County, Md., seem to have largely given up on school and social integration.

This is tragic, for like all other once excluded groups before them, black Americans are in need of the social and cultural capital that comes from living with and in the white majority, the value of which is nowhere more powerfully demonstrated than in the enormous achievement and potential of Barack Obama.

Click to Print