Well, there's a DJ in Detroit who was talking about this the other morning. His suggestion was simply some life insurance.. Al Sharpton for VP.

Kinda like Bush did with Cheney.

sad but funny but scary

This is one reason why some voters, some black women in particular, will not vote for Obama.

I remember what Colin Powell said about why he would never run for pres.

Assassination attempts can happen to any president but I do believe that presidents who challenge conventional political wisdom would be bigger targets.

Other than that, quit with the morbid thoughts. :(

First, I am being completely genuine in thinking that someone who has a question that can be answered by reading a book should read the book or stop asking the question (maybe not the whole book, necessarily, but flip to the part discussing the issue you care about... there's this thing called an index...)

And there are limitations as far as putting so much detail in the media. First, if you go to much into detail in a speech (or debate answer), you risk having a single detail be taken out of context and that 10 second blip becomes the clip that gets played over and over for the next two days. It is easier to control media spin to simply summarize your position, without details. It is just too risky sometimes to do it, and it is a shame that it makes for a less intelligent discourse.

As far as not putting details on a webpage, I honestly don't have a good answer. I honestly think he should be more detailed.

As I'm thinking about this issue though, I'm remembering an experience I had designing my sorority chapter's website. Someone from HQ wanted me to use all the weird sorority-specific words to describe something and then define all those words and wanted all sorts of detailed paragraphs on the org's this or that. I ended up only moderately incorporating her advice because while it was well-meant, I thought that putting a small novel on the internet diluted the more simple message that the chapter wanted to portray. Maybe (I have no idea on this) but just maybe that was a strategic call on the part of the website designer for Barack to keep the message simpler. I see many flaws in this logic applied to a presidential campaign website (as opposed to a sorority website), namely because people who want to hear detailed plans of a candidate are more likely to be on a website and the more detailed parts could easily be put into downloadable PDF files so that it wouldn't be distracting to others. So, in the end I agree with you that this info should be on a website.

And yeah, maybe it does seem like Barack shouldn't play into the status quo of politics+media by keeping his surface message fairly simple since he is the candidate purporting to be for a new type of politics, but I think he has preserved his commitment to change in other respects that he's more likely to make a difference with. And you do have to play by some of the status-quo rules if you want to be a viable candidate. If you don't, at best you can have a Nader candidacy... but I don't think he's in the position right now to change the way the media covers political campaigns so I don't really judge him too harshly for not being a better example in this particular arena.

But I have to say this: characterizing your comments as "observations" instead of "judgments" is really just a semantics game. Why observe something that isn't true? Would it be fair for me to "observe" that Ron Paul hasn't laid out specific enough plans simply because I haven't passively heard the information? That's not really an observation, or at least not a meaningful one. I don't know if Ron Paul has specific plans, but that isn't because he has failed in his duty as a candidate to educate me, that is because I have failed to be interested enough to see if the info is out there. What I know of him (mainly from an article I read in the Economist) is enough for me to know I wouldn't vote for him. However, I'm not out there complaining that the reason why is because he doesn't have a plan (simply because I haven't seen him on TV articulating it). I think if you like the surface of what a candidate says, but you want to hear something more detailed, then that's when you go out and actively search for the answers. If you're not interested enough to go out and look for it, then just call a spade a spade and say that -- that you just don't find the candidate interesting enough to pursue further.

Okay... so how many people are going to look at that long-ass post I just put up there and think "why bother" but then still assume that "skylark thinks Barack is perfect" or "skylark said she wanted everyone to read political books" without bothering to read the detailed post to find out?

Many, if not most, right?

Does anyone else see the analogy?

Okay this a horrible attempt at pretending you typed that long ass post to make an analogy. :p I certainly didn't read it because I have no REASON to assume it's anything more than wordier(?) redundancy.

If I typed "asdfjk;lasfdjlk;jljkl;fjlk;dsj;lsdfjsd;" for 10 pages but included the key to eternal life in the middle paragraph on the 10th page, can I blame anyone for not giving a damn enough to read until the 10th page?

If it is truly the key to eternal life, why preface it with a bunch of unnecessary hurdles and gatekeeping? Do YOU see the analogy? ;)

I have no doubt it was a 'strategic call' - in fact, I would almost guarantee it is. That's what works - Family Guy lampooned it, but the method is proven. Seriously, this was entirely what I was referencing before, and what spawned this entire path of discussion.

This is where we differ, and it is merely a matter of perspective - you're enamored with Obama (or, at the least, have determined he's the best option for your vote) so you would clearly prefer he "plays the game" and avoids anything that might hurt him. That's fine - it maximizes your personal utility.

I'm not so convinced that he actually would have the means or ability to make the changes he has discussed, and would like more explanation of how his vision relates to being President - a more effectual explanation, rather than a philosophical one (see where I'm going with the book portion?) - so obviously I disagree. I think we're both right, for ourselves (or our perspective).

This began because there was an assertion (by Drolefille) that Obama had more substance to his rhetoric than other candidates. An in-depth examination of his materials, specifically his website (to offset your concerns about limited time or ability to address issues in speeches or appearances) made this seem like it wasn't obviously the case - I'm not judging Obama on this, I'm observing that Drolefille's statement isn't necessarily factual, but rather an opinion.

Again, this argument fails for me, because it completely ignores that Obama burying the details of his message in a book released before his candidacy and then nowhere else is a form of limiting the dissemination of his message, which is exactly what other candidates have done (which was the original assertion).

Did anyone see Nightline (i think it was nightline) on ABC tonight? Obama is in Kansas promoting the mid-western roots and values that he got from his grandfather and mother. And I have no problem with that. But wasn't he the ultimate black man no less than three days ago? That's why I hate when race becomes the focus, because now (even though he's not really) it's just funny to see him look as if he's going back on his so called "blackness". The interviewer even had the nerve to ask him something along the lines he's promoting his "white family" to Kansas.

I'm so glad he got his butt whooped in Florida. Then he had the nerve to say that they're 50% -50% in reality b/c people were voting on name recognition because they were not allowed to campaign. Bullsh!t Barack! We just don't like you! It broke my heart to see Edwards still doing so bad...he deserves better. At least I can say I voted for him even though I'm glad Hillary won. (She even had her winning rally where I had my prom!! Had I known I would have gone!) It burns me-I'm seething-that we don't get to count! Why would our party burn us this way! If voting hadn't mattered to me, I would have stayed home.

Guiliani aka "Mayor 9-11 New York 9-11 WTC America" is apparently ready to put his tail between his legs (after coming in 3rd) and advocate for McCain (who only got 30-odd percent but it was enough to win when votes were split four ways!) It's about time! If you can't win in a state that has more NYers than NY then it's just a damn lost cause! Romney was second and Huckabee was 4th. I'm just praying we don't EVER see a McCain-Guiliani ballot! Or anything with Obama on it again for that matter.

^^^
Well, if Florida Dems wanted their votes to count so badly, they should have petitioned the state party to play by the rules. Front-loading the primary season is bad for the party, for politics, and for America. That's one of the reasons we've been discussing a lack of defined agendas. The candidates simply don't have the time because states who feel self-important keep moving their primaries up.

As for the Obama remarks, wow. just wow. He's never touted his race, black, white or otherwise. In fact, all of the pundits I've heard who've been watching the campaign say that he's been very deft at not bringing race into the discussion. It was the Clinton campaign that brought all that crap into focus, along with the media. I think what he's doing in the Midwest is paying homage to his roots as far as values are concerned. Midwesterners are a lot like Southerners. We have deep-rooted values. And I don't think you have to be white to have them.

Ok, let me start off by saying I am Obama fan, and I LOATHE the Clintons... BUT!!!!! The Clinton campaign didn't bring this in perspective. No, first, Obama didn't have the black vote, so the media brought it into perspective last summer. Then the recent stuff started when Clinton was connecting MLK's achievement to the importance of being president, by saying it MLK to do all this, and it took LBJ to do that. ALL TOO TRUE, and MLK was only in the mix due to the holiday. She didn't bring up the race card, she was merely making a statement that shows the importance of a good pres. THEN, the obama campaign (NOT OBAMA, but some of his supporters) called fowl that H.C. was under-minding MLK's achievements. This is where the media stepped in an made it a Black man standing up for a black man against he rich white lady. The race card also got played in FROM THE MEDIA with the whole issue dating back to this summer, that S.C. has a shit ton of black voters, and Obama wasn't black enough, and black votings wondering if the rest of America was not racist enough, so Obama could have a chance. That is how the whole race card jizz started, so don't give the Clintons the CREDIT for starting something that has come really important to the election (but shouldn't be). The only thing they were capable of doing was staying on the news, and there for playing into this whole race issue the best they could. Otherwise, you are letting the Clinton sound like masterminds, and really, they are more like Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters from 'the Jerk.'

I now loathe the Clintons as well. But don't take Bill's mastermind credentials away from him. I did mention in my post that the media also took the race ball and ran with it, but I can see what you mean as far as the Clintons using it. He was all, "Well, Hillary will probably lose in SC because all the blacks will vote for Obama", trying to make him a "black" candidate (whatever that is). And then after the election, once again he tried to marginalize Obama again by making a reference to Jesse Jackson's presidential bid in 1984 and 1988. He said, "Jesse Jackson won the state in 1984 and 1988 because he ran a good campaign in SC, and I think Obama has run a good campaign here." WTF? he could have compared Obama to himself in 1992, but he didn't. He did that hoping to stick it to Obama with whites in the states voting on Super Tuesday because he knew he had to do something to stop the momentum. So he took a page from the Republican playbook. yuck. Obviously, the man is slipping because everyone with half a brain realized what he was trying to do. But I think the main point I wanted to express is that Obama has been trying to run without being a candidate who is tied to a specific race.

[From the Washington Post]

Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.


But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."



Interesting.

Mock Con prediction
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

Time will tell if they are right.

Awwww.......so tell us how you really feel about Obama

This includes Florida results:

For the Republicans:
Magic Number 1,191

McCain 97
Romney 74
Huckabee 29
Paul 6
Giuliani 2
x-Hunter 0
x-Thompson 0

For the Democrats:
Magic Number 2,025

Clinton 232
Obama 158
Edwards 62
x-Biden 0
x-Dodd 0
Gravel 0
x-Kucinich 0
x-Richardson 0