I would point out that of course conservative would feel Obama is too liberal.

That why they call them conservative.

...but the majority of the country is not of that opinion that an Obama presidency is unacceptable, indeed McCain is the one who'll need to build his standing to catch up.

What say you to that?

I would say that's why we'll have a debate and election. If Obama wants to win the Presidency, he's going to have to do it on the issues, not on platitudes and "rock star" status.


Aquilla

Then he's in enviable shape, that's all McCain seems to have left.

He's carrying the baggage of a party and administration that on the issues, is looking mighty scraggly right now.

...and all we seem to get in return are platitudes about (cutting and) running, Reagan, and religion.

I don't think the three "r's" are enough to declare McCain a more substantial candidate.

Support who you will but to imply Obama's candidacy is any more vapid that McCain's is not supported by the facts.

Obama's "candidacy"? What candidacy? He hasn't even won his party's nomination yet! If he does, then yeah we can talk about substance, we should talk about substance and I think McCain can win on that. Right now, we're arguing over whether or not Green Bay can beat New England in the 2008 Superbowl.


Aquilla

Speaking of rhetoric! I thought for a moment we were reading dailykos.com! Health care for Americans who need it? A phased withdraw from Iraq? Repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? Do you honestly believe these talking points fed by Moveon.org? In another thread, I have clearly pointed out that the income tax cuts benefited the middle class more than the rich. Phased withdraw is a funny way of saying "Leave the Iraqis to defend themselves and turn our backs on them". Health care for those who need it is a funny way of saying socialized medicine that we don't have the infrastructure or money to operate, unless of course we tax the life out of Americans that work and obey laws. Sometimes people are further left than the candidates and think the extreme left is moderate.

Rather selective editing, NT, even for a virulent, angry, bile-spitting black nationalist like you, don't you think?

Either we are going to unify as a national culture behind values that have proven they succeed, or we will rip ourselves apart and fail miserably. I see which way you would like to go, NT.

Perhaps it would have behooved you to quote a bit more of my posts above:



First off, let's set aside your strawman argument about reparations. What's John McCain or Hillary Clinton's positions on reparations? Do they have one? If this is such a huge issue, how can they not have a clearly articulated position?

I have not heard the word "reparations" used at any time in this presidential campaign. Not on CNN. Not on MSNBC. Not even on Fox.

No one has mentioned reparations as a huge issue. Nobody's mentioned it as a small issue either. Maybe because it's not an issue. At least not for anyone not named quick.

This is an issue only one place: inside a cluttered and dark closet of your mind.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "traditional White American values."

I'll repeat that for the hard-of-reading: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "TRADITIONAL WHITE AMERICAN VALUES."

There are only two value systems in this nation: Pre-Plymouth Rock values as practiced by the Indians and post-Plymouth Rock values practiced by everyone else who came after them.

I don't even know what "traditional White American values" are supposed to be.



moif, I'm curious. Did you listen to, as well as watch the video?

Because I did. I watched it and listened. Then I just listened to the video. Maybe something is lost in translation, but I did not hear Barack Obama ever say once, "Vote for me and make me the first Black president" or anything close to words of that effect. I'm listening to it now as I write this response.

There is nothing---absolutely nothing in Obama's speech that is a call to race. If anything, says the exact opposite. He says to set aside our differences over race and gender and the other artificial obstacles that keep us divided. He talks how Bobby Kennedy spoke to a predominantly Black crown in 1968 following the assassination of Dr. King.
"We have different stories but common dreams," he says quoting Kennedy. And then he references his own 2004 speech where he says there is no Black America or White America or Red America or Blue America.

Obama goes on to denounce divisive remarks by Pastor Jeremiah Wright and says though there is a tragic history in America of race, the nation wants to move beyond the divisions. The crowd interrupts his speech with a chant of "Yes, We Can" and he picks up the speech and say that the moment can't be lost to bring the nation together.

I have just finished listening to Obama's speech three times. Perhaps my perspective as a supporter has totally corrupted my ability to listen, dissect and process information, but I did not hear Obama employing race as a reason to vote for him.

May I suggest you request that a neutral third party---someone whose judgment and opinion you hold in high regard---view the video. I'm not looking for anyone to confirm what I already believe, but I am not unbiased on this. I could be the one who has it all wrong.

I love Chris Rock as a comedian. Comedians make people laugh. They can mine political situations for laughs, but that doesn't mean they are experts or even know what they are talking about. And a movie like "Head of State" is a fictional presentation of a possible scenario created by a screenwriter. It's not reality. I would not rely upon any comedian--even Rock---for particularly useful political observations.

At some point John McCain may make a reference to Obama (should he be the Democratic nominee) that smacks of a racial subtext. Thus far, I have not heard one single statement from McCain that I would consider racially loaded. Not a single one.

McCain has raised questions about Obama's lack of experience compared to his own. McCain has suggested Obama and Clinton would pursue a policy in Iraq that would imperil that country and leave America with a weaker, not stronger hand in the Middle East. These are totally legitimate areas to draw comparisons. McCain's criticism, while at time sarcastic and withering, has not been patronizing or contemptuous.

More than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, John McCain knows on a personal and intimate basis how painful scurrilous attacks on one's character, accomplishments and family can be. I would be extremely shocked if he were to wage a "win at any cost" strategy against Obama or Clinton.

That doesn't mean the fall campaign won't get nasty or dirty. I'd just be surprised if McCain were the first one to exploit racial or gender divisions to bloody up his competitors.

John McCain is going to run on the issues he considers to be important to the American people and he will explain why he thinks they are important, and why his position is the correct position to take on those issues. His opponent whether it be Barack or Hillary will have to address those issues at some point in the campaign and to be honest, I don't think either of them will have the answers that McCain has. There is no doubt that things could get dirty in some quarters, the AFL-CIO special interest has already announced a $53 MILLION campaign blitz they plan to run against John McCain. link

I'm sure we will hear from other groups like Moveon.org and there will be counters by GOP 527's as well. That's the nature of 21st century American politics. But, at the end of the day, John McCain can only win by being John McCain and I think he has a good chance of winning if he follows the course he has for pretty much his entire life. If we view AD as a microcosm of American Politics (and I'm not sure it really is), then when the debate goes into the gutter as it most surely will, you won't see John McCain following it there. But, you will see me there defending him.

Looking forward to it.


Aquilla

I've pondered this a bit of late because from the European perspective Barack Obama look like a clear favourite. I'd be inclined to believe he will be the next president but for some of the posts here on whch indicate the opposite, and for the small detail that in the Euro media both Gore and Kerry were predicted to win against GW Bush.

nighttimer

Theres not much more to say really. I can't fathom the depths of your denial with any hope of reaching the bottom. Whats the point? Anything living at that depth is naturally blind.

But in the interests of my own curiosity, I did what you asked. I don't know whether or not you'd consider my girlfriend to be impartial, but I can assure you she is completely indifferent to American politics, and has no opinions on Barack Obama (she is also politically my opposite since she votes for the Social democrats). I asked her to watch the video, and tell me what Obama was talking about. Her answer, was 'well, he's talking about black and white'.

nuff said as far as I am concerned.

Obama is not talking about the economy, or welfare payments, or tax rises, or US foreign policy, or alternatiove energy, or the conduct of the US military in Iraq, or the plight of third world labourers who manufacure the cheap toys we buy in the west.

He is talking about race.

And, there is only one reason for Barack Obama to be talking about race, now as in the 2004 speech to which he alludes, and that is because his central message is racial. He is the Black candidate, and let no one forget that! His message is vote for Change/Barack Obama, and change in this respect, as you yourself have made abundently clear means a black president in the white house (they really should rename that building).

And let me repeat myself for the heard of hearing, lest any one should confuse me for a nasty hate monger . I don't mind that Obama uses race as a political tool. I really don't. I think race is a question that needs to be addressed in the USA when you have people like Obama's ex priest spouting such bile and hatred as can be seen on You Tube.

What I'm answering here, is the accusation that Clinton and McCain are using/will use race as a political against 'post racial Barack Obama'.

Obama himself opened Pandora's box, and by his own admission he did it as far back as 2004.



edited for spelling

2. Is America ready for a racial minority to be President or will it take more time? Please specify how long it may take.

Sure America is ready for a minority as president, and I'll note some undeniable facts to back that. Lets look at Obama for example, then look at some of the demographics in states where he has done well. The truth is that he has a number of wins in all 4 corners of the U.S. including the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Including a number of states that are overwhelmingly white. All states as far as I know have a white majority anyway, making perfect sense of us using the word MINORITY to describe African Americans, Mexicans, ect ect.. Today the word minority has no other meaning than (A race that exist in fewer numbers than the MAJORITY) Back in the day it also implied that these races were not equal by law, and they were not seen as equals by society in general, of course that has changed.

I think my point here is that Obama is not where is, and winning, primarily because of the African American vote, they just don't exist in high enough numbers. Its the white vote that is most responsible for his success. He won in some states where the population was over 90% white, like Iowa for example. If America was not ready for a minority as president (simply because he is a minority) than he wouldn't be getting the white democratic vote, yet he's getting it. Its clear that the white vote (on the democratic side) is almost split right down the middle while the African American vote in most states has been very strong in Obama's favor, in fact in some states over 80% of the Democratic African Americans that voted, voted for Obama.

If he loses the primary it wont be by much at all, and seems unlikely, its clear however if he does lose (based on votes that have already been casted) that his status as a minority has not hurt him, in fact it may very well be helping him. His disadvantages are some of the valid ones you brought up, he has little experience, and as a conservative I obviously see him as far too liberal. These are valid criticisms, as for his race, well there will always be some people who not vote for someone outside there own race group, however today this has become such a minute factor that it is easily balanced out by those who will vote for him simply because he is a minority. in both cases, people like this thankfully don't exist in the types of numbers they once did in this country.

"Gee aint it funny" [see link later in post.] how birds of a feather really do flock together.

Holdingtheline uses the inflammatory “pro abortion” rather than pro choice. To him much of Obama’s program is “disguised.” Does Obama's program wear a Lone Ranger mask?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Scubatim seems fixated on using the word “funny” to describe much of Obama’s platform.

Neither provided any links to support their allegations. As the song says:


http://www.lyricstime.com/loretta-lynn-ain...nny-lyrics.html

If this is the best anyone can throw at Obama, get the moving van headed from Illinois to Washington.

1. If Barack Obama is not ready and/or qualified to be the first racial minority to be elected to the presidency, can you name a minority candidate who is?

This question is purely rhetorical. It cannot be answered. When will any candidate from a particular background be elected? I can't say until they step forward.

When will we have a Polish-American President? An Italian-American? When will we have a former fireman President? Which former teacher is ready to be POTUS?

None of these questions can be answered. If not the current crop of candidates, then who?

I don't see anyone asking "if Hillary isn't elected, what woman is ready to step up?" We'll "vet" her when she steps up. The question of electability is more related to issues, character, and likeability than it is to race, ethnic background or gender.

In this round, we can point to the fact that nobody wins a race for the White House by being a straight liberal. Running to the center is key, especially for Democrats.

2. Is America ready for a racial minority to be President or will it take more time? Please specify how long it may take.

Clearly the answer is yes if millions of people are willing to vote for Obama. Of course, that is millions of Democrats. In order to win the general, any candidate must appeal to the base of their party and a certain percentage of Independants.

Actually, BoF, my "funny" remarks has nothing to do with Obama directly. It has everything to do with the talking points and rhetoric of the liberal left. I don't think I ever called Obama's platform funny, did I? I find it humorous how the Democrats like to dress positions up with fancy dresses with words like "Phased Withdraw" and "Removing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy". In simple English, those to particular phrases mean turn our backs on the Iraqi people and bringing the biggest tax increase in history to the American people, respectively.

What makes you think many of us don't find the talking points of the "conservative right" equally hilarious? I really hate to put it that simply - liberal and conservative, left and right or hard to really pin down - but it's a nice balance to your simplistic statement. Symmetry is beautiful.

Then it would be more difficult for you to remain unbiased, I would guess. My grandma used to say, "Tell me who you pal with and I'll tell you what you are." I'm not saying this is true in your case, as I doubt you actually hang out with the guy on a regular basis. Or do you?




Yes, I hear he did that with Marthala (sp?) as well. But seriously, his stand on illegal immigration and his failure to admit that it is the cause of many of the woes Southern California is going through (not the least of which is an overburdened public school system).



What if he stands in the opposite corner of you? You'll vote for him because he's "not afraid to tell you where he stands?" If he's standing in horse manure, who cares how "honest" he is.



It's not the affair he had on his ill wife, though I find that to be a good indication of just how large his ego is, and how small his "compassion" (a word he so generously throws around in regards to how illegal immigrants should be handled) is.

If you want to see a mayor slime his way around the subject of illegal immigration, watch this.

I'm sure he's real likable on a personal level, over dinner at some hoity toity restaurant, being a big shot.

The video Moif linked to, if you watched it, is fabulous. Whether you want him to win or not--and I do not--Obama's Mar 15 speech that Moif linked says exactly what I, personally, want to hear from any candidate on race. If he does win the Presidency, we'll see if he can deliver.

As for this talk of assassination: While I undestand the discussion and the reasoning, the worst thing that could possibly happen for this nation is for Obama to be assassinated. The worst. We should all pray that does not happen.

Not really, not since he became mayor.






I have talked with him in the past about immigration issues and quite frankly if anything, I have a more "liberal view" on them than he does, and I'm sure than you do. Perhaps we'll have another immigration debate here on AD at some point and I'll weigh in there.





I doubt there are any politicians with whom I agree on every issue. Sometimes it comes down to a case of "better the devil you know". Could I vote for him as Governor against a Republican? Sure, there are some Republicans out there that would be a disaster in the Governor's office. Would I vote for him against any Republican? No, there are some Republicans I'd be happy to support over him. Tim McClintock comes to mind as one of them.






I think we should have an immigration debate in a separate thread.





You'd be surprised. Most of the best restaurants in Los Angeles aren't 5 star places, not even close.


Aquilla

Yeah, the current governator (sorry for the overused pun) would be a good example.



I guess we could, but it just seems like it becomes a racial argument, kind of like the Obama threads. A person cannot be against illegal immigration without having a degree of racism in them. It's frustrating to debate issues that are so clouded over with racial rhetoric.




Hey, I need names here. I'm always interested in learning about good restaurants that us average, hard-working citizens can afford.

Really? Because I am against people sneaking into my country, taking advantage of a broken tax system, breaking the law and costing our country hundreds of millions in tax dollars, I am a racist? How is that so? I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything along the lines of "Mexicans need to be sent home!" I have heard "illegals need to be sent home". That pretty much includes anyone and everyone that is illegal, to include Germans, Bosnians, French, Italian, Dutch etc. A statement that accuses those against illegal immigration as racists is one heck of a scare tactic!

I don't agree that there is a degree of racism in people simply if they are against illegal immigration, perhaps there is a degree of racism in all people but whether or not they support illegal immigration is rather irrelevant in most cases. There are even Mexicans against illegal immigration so thats silly. They are certainly against us going to Mexico illegally, and that doesn't make them racist either, it means they are smart and their not trying to kiss everyones rear by being politically correct, lol.

People riling up against illegal immigration often forget that there's a significant chance that they themselves could be children of illegal immigrants. Not Mexican illegal immigrants.... but Irish, German, Italian, Polish. Thousands of those nationalities "sneaked" into this country illegally using variety of means.
The country only prospered for it, in the long run.

First off, what statistics are you using to come to your conclusion; secondly, that doesn't make it right. Just because it has happened before isn't an excuse to allow it to continue. That is the most idiotic excuse for allowing illegal immigration to continue. The reason we are in such a terrible mess now is because we have allowed it to happen before. It needs to stop. It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the security of our country and our economy.