Are you high?

Are you an idiot?

I'm not the one who just authored an incoherent post based entirely in fantasy, so no.

Can you find one relevant quotation that supports this?

Seriously - these kinds of claims require some sort of citation, otherwise it's just silliness.

Can this be arranged?

Count me in with the people who can't figure out where this came from.

Wow - it doesn't look like anyone is putting Cindy McCain on a pedestal here. The discussion just seems to be about how acceptable it is to bring candidates' wives into the public debate.

I don't see anything wrong with Shiner's posts in this thread. He's not an Obama fan, and he doesn't think that Michelle Obama should be free from criticism. I don't see the problem.

Back on the subject - the statements of potential First Ladies don't make such a difference to me. It's interesting to see where they stand, but it's by no means determinative. If the potential first lady tries to make herself an issue in the campaign (like Theresa Heinz Kerry did during the last cycle), I think they open themselves up to some criticism. I don't think it deserves the same scrutiny as comments made by candidates, though.

Negative backfire? Yeah right! It's been proven time and time again that negative campaigning is more effective than positive or comparison campaigning.

Not sure how the post of mine you quoted was too-liberal-to-believe?

I think if anyone would speak their mind in America, truly speak their mind and opinion, SOMETHING they say will offend more the half of the country. PERIOD. Now, I do not condone racism, and I do not know if I could vote for a president if he or his wife make racist remarks. With that said, I support Michelle Obama from what I KNOW for a fact she has said (i.e. not this supposed crap), because she is out their saying her mind and letting it known. That is more than I can say on almost merely all politicians and their spouses. The video attached to this article offended me more then the article. I stopped the video after I saw some dumb jackass saying he has always loved this country because he has the right to bear arms while showing his 20 billion guns in the back. That is like saying 'I love this country because I can be excessive with showcasing my apparent masculinity.' Anywho, it is not fair to cast drastic judgement without proof, of course, if I saw a video of M.O. attacking "whitey" then I guess, for a second election in a row, I am reduced to wasting my vote on the libertarian party.

Rule number one....don't smoke crack.

With all due, honest respect for the following posters (and others) POVs, thoughts, beliefs et al this is what I was told yesterday:
1) IF the tape(s) truly existed, they would have been in the hands of the major, mass media by NOW.
2) They simply DO NOT exist.
So, as I think I posted before, we are all just going to have to wait and truly see just what does happen between now and Nov.
And at some point, someone can find this thread and post: "I TOLD YOU SO"!:p :eek:;):):D

Yep.

There's no way that this would not be reported if evidence exists.

It would be all over the airwaves, cable and print.

Wright was only saying what many say everyday. :) Perhpas in more colorful language that unfortunately blurred the message and offended some.

Those of you who don't exist with a head up your ass should know that this really isn't about being liberal. Or a Democrat. :)

^^ I agree. I would say more, but...yeah.

Ditto here.

This might be just personal preference, and maybe it's only because of my closeness to those who have worked on campaigns (my wife has worked fairly high up in political campaigns and administrations), but I wouldn't necessarily be posting what I heard from friends embedded in the campaigns, even in such a vague and anonymous way.

I never asked my wife anything about the goings-on of campaigns (I viewed it as a confidential, privileged relationship, on par with an attorney-client relationship, that was no business of mine), but if someone did tell you something, I wouldn't be posting it on a public message board. It just doesn't seem worth it to quell discussion when you could be revealing more than is public knowledge.

Maybe I have a hypersensitivity to this, but that's just my two cents.

I don't think it is impossible at all to hold information back. Now, if the tape is real I'll be surprised if they can hold it until Sept./Nov., but considering this story is just recently picking up steam, I wouldn't be surprised if someone was able to keep it under wraps for a few weeks.

The more controversial, the more difficult, of course. But if you think the GOP hasn't been holding back on things throughout this election cycle, I personally find that view extremely naive.

Shiner;
I agree-just change parties;)
HOWEVER-I just hope that neither side goes, for what ever "reason" to that type of plan.
And I include any and all surrogates in that.
For so many reasons including a rather strong wish not to have to buy a new TV or radio.....:eek::(;):)
It would be rather nice, IMVHO, to have a campaign on real issues and polices for a change.:cool:

I think whether or not a candidate and his family exhibit racial spite is a real issue. Same for the inquiries about Barack's feelings toward America.

I don't want to manufacture controversy, but a lot of this country fears a Barack Obama presidency, and the more light we can shed on his sentiments...the better. Perhaps that light will show he's not the fringe ideologue that many fear, but regardless, I think these are worthwhile subjects.

Or perhaps we all we find out just how far Right John really is:):D;)
Just as many questions can be asked about John as can of Barack.;)
So, as I said in my prior posting, I can only hope that the "punches" stay well north of the belt line.
If not, Shiner would you be able to help me with a new TV set??;):p:D
Or two.

I went out looking for clips that were specifically intended to "reveal" something negative about Rev. Wright. I found the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FC...eature=related

The person who posted the clip was clearly bothered by the comments. However, after listening to it more than once, I haven't been able to find a statement that was inaccurate/racist.

In the following clip, Rev. Wright helps to clarify where he's coming from (i.e. black liberation theology).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGR...eature=related

The comment "I think as a Christian, you should not separate by race in this day and age...we're all supposed to be united under Christ, aren't we?" is a lovely ideal but it is naive.

At 5:50, they really get down to the heart of the matter.

Whoa, SEC! Yes, I'm a liberal but please don't make associations that imply my agreement.

For what it's worth, I entirely disagree with preciousjeni on the subject of Jeremiah Wright. I find his words both hateful and offensive. I don't know how much of those beliefs are shared by Barack and Michelle Obama...my guess would be that it's more than they would like us to believe.

HOWEVER, if you really think about it, for the last 200 years whites in America haven't had any problem with having racist white presidents. I'm actually finding the righteous indignation of white conservatives sadly amusing and ironic. What I'm curious about is what exactly would The Obama's racist beliefs (if they had them) mean in concrete political terms?

If some mysterious tape of Michelle Obama does happen appear it will change some minds, but not all. If Obama is the Democratic candidate I will still vote for him. I'm far more concerned with other matters.

His speech was straight forward to me and many people. :)

"Colorful language" is just another excuse.

Nothing (and I don't believe in the existence of substantive and systemic "black racism," anyway) whereas overtly racist white Presidents have been able to push that agenda in the past, shaping much of AmeriKKKa's history.

First, I think grouping all white conservatives in together is pretty absurd.

Obama's racism (if it exists, I don't personally feel strongly about it) doesn't bother me because I think he's going to punish white people. It actually isn't a matter of race, as much as it is a matter of class. For a party that constantly preaches against divisiveness, they're doing an excellent job of trying to rally the country against the wealthy. For example, accusing the oil industry of being at fault for gas woes.

Rather, as I just indicated, I'm concerned about the class struggle Barack seems intent on facilitating. This is a very common theme among the socialist-leaning far left, and that is what concerns me.

Please explain further this "class struggle," because I don't see it. It seems more like his opponents are painting him as an elitist.

They are. And he is (my opinion, of course).

But yes, a class struggle. Pitting the lower and middle classes against the upper class and corporations. You'll see it in energy sentiments. You'll certainly see it in tax policy statements. This is very common among academics and other far-left individuals who want to see systemic economic shifts.

Now, if I thought Barack was simply using a political tactic to win an election, I probably wouldn't be overly concerned. Pitting one group against another is part of the game. However, I think this will extend deep into his potential presidency, because as I've stated many times on here, I think Obama is a true ideologue. I firmly believe he envisions a much more interventionist government, and this is his way of getting it.

No, I absolutely agree that he is. But, I've never thought that elitism was such a bad thing...;)

I do see what you're getting at. But, poor people have always pitted themselves against the rich (hell, even the upper-middle classes)--and they've never needed politicians to do it for them.

I agree that he is doing it, but I think he's doing this as a political tactic, and he'll show his true colors as someone who benefits from his connections with corporations and the super-rich.

Fair enough, I think it is simply him showing his true colors of being someone who loathes modern capitalism and favors massive government intervention. Of course, I don't think he'll say this is in the general, so we'll have to say it for him.

You think he even has that much substance? I think he may kind of identify that way because of his background, but what I keep coming back to is the sense that he doesn't really actually believe much of anything or anything that he could be 100% certain that he'd act on. He seems just kind of assembled of platitudes.

I'm one conservative who thinks the inexperience and lack-of-substance cards are the wrong ones to play. I don't think he's dangerous because he's green, I think he's dangerous because his agenda is too fringe to put on display at this point.

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of arguments to make to persuade others which is what I think you are saying with "cards to play"; I'm just constantly reminded about how little is actually there with him.

I don't think Obama and I share a sense of what the government's role ought to be, and that's primarily why I won't vote for him, but when I contrast him with Hillary, who I also wouldn't ever vote for, I'm struck by the contrast. I think she has specific ideas about what government should do and would somewhat ruthlessly get things done, and I'm not even sure if he has the first idea about how to translate the rhetoric and image into actually doing anything.

And while I think Obama's sense of foreign policy is a little delusional in terms of the power of negotiation, the only area where I think his presidency would be truly dangerous is in judicial appointments, which isn't something that fires that many people up these days as far as I know.

I agree mostly, but I do think Obama has the depth many think he lacks. I just think he is too smart to put it on display.

What are you going on? Is it something I could read or is it more from talking to people who aren't really going to go on record?

UGAalum, he's written two books. And they weren't ghostwritten either.

So apparently this "surprise" video is actually Michelle Obama talking about George Bush and saying "Why'd he" not "Whitey"

Unless there's another one which is probably just as silly.

I'm baaack!!! http://www.pledgepark.com/images/smilies/chucks.gif

A picture's worth a 1000 words!!! http://www.pledgepark.com/images/smilies/jumping.gif

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1...eoffva7ui9.gif

Welcome to the land of "real"... http://www.pledgepark.com/images/smilies/boxing.gif

Right, but it seems to point back to rhetoric rather than reality. The skills it takes to write inspirational somewhat political books and what it might actually take to govern and get stuff done may not be the same skill set.

Shinerbock seems to believe Obama will actually get stuff done and I'm curious why Shinerbock believes it. Anyone else is welcome to answer but reference to Obama writing books doesn't really deliver what I'm looking for.

(I think this is coming off as snippier than I mean it to. I'm not blowing your comments off because I generally find them interesting and insightful. It just seems like you're responding to a different question than I asked.)

Good gracious.

UGA, I'm not willing to say he'll "get stuff done," but I do think he has a pretty concrete agenda. I don't think he spouts fluff because there is nothing below the surface, I think he does that because what is below the surface isn't mainstream, easily-consumable liberalism. I think he is aligned with the fringe extreme-left most often represented in the realm of academia.

Maybe I'm wrong, and he's a typical opportunist who won't stray too far, like Hillary. But I certainly have my doubts. If he's elected, to start, I expect radical increases in taxation, new gun control legislation, increased deference to foreign authority, and jurists who are very flexible with constitutional interpretation. There is little doubt that he'll promote larger government and more socialistic economic policy. The only questions are how significant the shifts will be, and whether he'll be successful.

Unfortunately, Democrats will likely have large majorities in both houses, and thus I find it more important than ever to keep them from having a complete grip on both Congress and the Exec.