Question for Obama supporters

[Bär]

to me, in a word- Charisma.

...

Obama could sell an ketchup ice-cream cone to a girl in a white wedding dress.

Obama clearly has excellent NLP skills, it's the only way to account for so many people looking past his paper-thin experience, socialist/marxist leanings, and radical affiliations; he just projects confidence and authority, while he redirects and misdirects criticism. Pretty amazing.

Yes, I'm being hypnotized by a Commie Svengali. Lil' respect...?



C-Hop -

[Michael]

Obama's the fucking man. Clinton's the only president in my life that ever gave me the same feeling of calm confidence. except I feel that obama is more honest and has more integrity than clinton even.

I don't deny the importance of personality and charisma as leadership traits, but how do you judge integrity and honesty: by words and feelings or by proven track records? I don't see Obama or any of the other actors who are mass-marketed to us with a track record of honesty and integrity. Certainly not Clinton and I'm not even talking about his infidelity to his wife. In comparison, people who don't give many of us the right kind of feelings of calm confidence as Fong put it, such as Nader or Paul, have a very long track record of integrity and honesty. But maybe as Americans, we want it all: feel goodness, integrity, great looks, and never say anything that takes us out of our comfort zones.

[GrahamB]

A president not only has to have good policies, good advisors, and make good decisions, he also has to have the charisma to inspire people to follow him, and make people listen to him. Nader does not inspire me at all--he really can't make speeches. and he frankly doesn't have the aura--the qi-shi-- of a leader. like ron paul, I like a lot of his policies, but I can't see either of them treating with foreign heads of state. plus I like how obama makes decisions by considering other peoples' opinions and trying to make a win-win situation. this is vitally important for any negotiation, however small or large.

Obama's the fucking man. Clinton's the only president in my life that ever gave me the same feeling of calm confidence. except I feel that obama is more honest and has more integrity than clinton even. While hillary stooped to smear tactics and was constantly attacking obama's character, obama took the high road. That is the type of man I want for president. I think he'll be better than clinton was.

Heh heh, only on emptyflower could the answer to this question be 'Qi'

[C-Hopkins]

to me, in a word- Charisma.

...

Obama clearly has excellent NLP skills, it's the only way to account for so many people looking past his paper-thin experience, socialist/marxist leanings, and radical affiliations; he just projects confidence and authority, while he redirects and misdirects criticism. Pretty amazing.

A.Experience means shit. George W.Bush is the example.
B.Powers Of Persuasion are EXTREMELY important in leadership.
C.MANY other politicians use suggestion, as well as do the producers of your favorite products. I don't see you condemning them.
D.He's not a socialist- that was a grossly distorted interpretation of what Obama said.
E.He doesn't have radical affiliations.

The terms "radical" "terrorist" etc... are in this case the last acts of a desperate party trying to hang on to power.

The United States in general has had REAL ties to "radicalism" for many years...

AND, just out of curiosity,why is it that people are "radical" when they hold opinions other than that of White America?

IE: Rev Wright.

Rev. Wright holds a view of a segment of the population that is still very angry about Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, and current subliminal racism.

It's not a great thing, BUT it's a reality.

It's a reality in segments of the Black community that there is anger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

To say there is, is just devaluing and disregarding the feelings of a portion of society that has been devalued and disregarded for so long.

It's not your responsability to understand or to even care or try-

But in not doing so-

In not caring enough to try to understand-

In disregarding the opinions of people like Wright by writing them off as being "extremeists" is to emotionally perpetuate the same line of action as has been done to African Americans for so long.


And if you want to mention Bill Ayers, What the Fuck does anything Bill Ayers ever did have to do with Obama?

How is Barack Obama guilty of something that Bill Ayers did when Obama was 8?

If that's the case, then the University that Ayers works at as should be shut down for association with Bill Ayers.

Everyone Bill Ayers knows should be chastised and crucified for knowing him.

Barack Obama is not guilty of anything with regards to Bill Ayers.

That's the most fuckin ass backwards argument ever made in the history of the world, the universe and all corresponding membranes.

[chud]

A.Experience means shit. George W.Bush is the example.

I don't like Bush either, but experience is important.

B.Powers Of Persuasion are EXTREMELY important in leadership.

No argument from me there, and I do admire Obama's abilities in this department.

C.MANY other politicians use suggestion, as well as do the producers of your favorite products. I don't see you condemning them.

Well, they're not running for president.

D.He's not a socialist- that was a grossly distorted interpretation of what Obama said.

Yes, he is a socialist. See this thread and listen to his own words.

E.He doesn't have radical affiliations.

The terms "radical" "terrorist" etc... are in this case the last acts of a desperate party trying to hang on to power.

The United States in general has had REAL ties to "radicalism" for many years...

AND, just out of curiosity,why is it that people are "radical" when they hold opinions other than that of White America?

Bill Ayers was radical enough to blow up public property, participate in riots, and have to run from the law for it; if that's not radical, I don't know what is.

IE: Rev Wright.

Rev. Wright holds a view of a segment of the population that is still very angry about Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, and current subliminal racism.

It's not a great thing, BUT it's a reality.

It's a reality in segments of the Black community that there is anger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

To say there is, is just devaluing and disregarding the feelings of a portion of society that has been devalued and disregarded for so long.

It's not your responsability to understand or to even care or try-

But in not doing so-

In not caring enough to try to understand-

In disregarding the opinions of people like Wright by writing them off as being "extremeists" is to emotionally perpetuate the same line of action as has been done to African Americans for so long.

The things Rev. Wright said are despicable ("god DAMN America", etc), and Obama was right there listening for 20 years.

And if you want to mention Bill Ayers, What the Fuck does anything Bill Ayers ever did have to do with Obama?

How is Barack Obama guilty of something that Bill Ayers did when Obama was 8?

If that's the case, then the University that Ayers works at as should be shut down for association with Bill Ayers.

Everyone Bill Ayers knows should be chastised and crucified for knowing him.

Barack Obama is not guilty of anything with regards to Bill Ayers.

That's the most fuckin ass backwards argument ever made in the history of the world, the universe and all corresponding membranes.

So you speak for all corresponding membranes now?
Seriously though, no one is saying Obama is guilty of what Ayers did back then, just that he is guilty of associating with Ayers now, and this is questionable because Ayers committed terrorist acts on his own country and got off on a technicality. He should be in jail.

[nianfong]

obama is NOT socialist. he is very much a capitalist. see this interview:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... rian-moore

[C-Hopkins]

So you speak for all corresponding membranes now?
Seriously though, no one is saying Obama is guilty of what Ayers did back then, just that he is guilty of associating with Ayers now, and this is questionable because Ayers committed terrorist acts on his own country and got off on a technicality. He should be in jail.

Okay,Okay,

Bill Clinton Met with Yassir Arafat How many Times?

Why did he do that? Was it because he's a politician and that's what they do?

Obama is just that. a Politician. The idea that someone running for president is suspect because they interact in some around about way with a person that is considered to be a "bad guy" is Butt.

Look, as humans, we have to deal with all sorts of people on a regular basis. Judging Obama as being "bad" cause someone else is just isn't realistic.

And yes, I just got a call from the leaders of two corresponding membranes (one of whom is a radical ) and they both agree that this argument is spirious.

[nianfong]

[Steve James]

Well, I was watching Rick Sanchez on CNN yesterday, and there was a McCain spokesman making a similar argument: i.e., that Obama was guilty by "association". This time it was with somebody named al Khalidi (?) who, according to the spokesman, supported or was involved with the PLO (or Hamas, etc.). Then, he added that Obama also associated with known racists [edit: I meant "anti-Semites"]. So, Sanchez asked him, logically, to name one. Funny thing, the spokesman said that he couldn't name one, but that "we" already knew him (her/it) anyway. Sanchez repeated the question, at least three times; but the same response was still forthcoming. I won't say what I would say to that guy's face ... because it'd just get people mad. Anyway, let's just say I don't believe that Obama is a racist, but if he's elected, he'll have to deal with them ... because they're Americans with rights, too.

But, it turns out that McCain gave the same guy money ... in the same way the past Republican administrations have repeatedly given arms and finances to people we now call arch enemies. Hence the attempt to cleanly sever McCain from the past Republican policies. The pictures of officials shaking hands with Saddam, etc., illustrate to me the use of "guilt by association." It is used selectively. However, I wouldn't waste my time looking for candidates who are running who have had associations with racists.

I could go down the list: Obama's a socialist, but what exactly would he do that is more socialistic than what McCain plans, except tax higher earners more than those who aim less. I.e., a progressive income tax, which is exactly what we've had for the last ___ years. Ok, it's one thing to argue that there should be no (federal) income tax. Fair enough. But, saying that Obam's tax plan is socialist is just an attempt to associate him with the word "socialism" which, like "racism" and "terrorism" is bad --and anybody who'd support anyone who'd support them shouldn't be President.

As for Rev. Wright, well, everybody's read the story a zillion times. But, he said something like "We shouldn't sing "God Bless America" (when America is conducting illegal and harmful policies at home and abroad), "we should sing God Damn America." Maybe some people might find those words "despicable," but I say he's being honest. He served his country; he's allowed to have feelings about it.

To me, the critical thing is that none of this suggests that Obama would ever "say" those words or, more important, that he "feels" that God should damn America. Otoh, God --if He exists-- has HIS own ideas, and none of us can say what those plans are for the US. You might say that it's silly, but that's why there's a conscience.

In all this, however, I've been waiting for someone to really give me a good reason to vote for McCain. I've waited for the last 6 months to see a thread that says that any idea of his is good. He was quick to support the bailout, without asking a single substantive question at the hearing (I watched). That "single greatest transfer of wealth" in our country's history was quite "socialist", but McCain will suspend his campaign to get it passed. In fact, I haven't heard one new idea from McCain during the entire 2 year campaign, certainly nothing that anyone has started a thread about.

Frankly, I don't believe that he has any new ideas; and I'm not sure that he would have the ability to implement them should he win. I would not vote for him on those grounds alone. If anything, the past few years have shown that the old ideas and platitudes have not worked and are not working. I believe that the McCain presidency would essentially be an on-the-job training program for Palin. I think she's probably very intelligent, but I question her maturity. I do believe in the woman's right to choose whether she has an abortion or not.

Maybe most important, the sleaziness of the McCain campaign, which has generally turned assumptions and stereotypes into issues, has convinced me that they can not be trusted. I think they may very well win. I, however, have no faith that they believe in a "united" states other than as a platitude, like "true" or "real." They've said so much, so I don't have to "associate" them with anything. And, I won't even associate them with the bigots who vocally support them, or the loons who carve B's in their own faces. (That one, frankly, was about as expected to me as someone hijacking a jet and flying it into a building).

No disrespect to any of those who plan to vote for McCain, but I will be happy to tell my grandkids that I voted against him in this election.

[Bär]

Seriously though, no one is saying Obama is guilty of what Ayers did back then, just that he is guilty of associating with Ayers now, and this is questionable because Ayers committed terrorist acts on his own country and got off on a technicality. He should be in jail.

This association you speak of - do you know what you're talking about? They served on a nonprofit board together which was founded by an ambassador who served under Nixon. Obama was 8 when Ayers did whatever he did. How can that be construed as tainting his opinion or policies in any way? They did not consort and were only acquaintances. Do you think Ayers is really that dangerous still? Try learning the issue you're so up in arms about first before you parrot the next tv ad from McCain.

I've been on a non-profit board with a roomful of jackass idiot far-right wing neocon business people trying to run a history museum they knew jack to fucking squat about. I may be an idiot of my own accord, but does my association with them make me a rabidly capitalistic neo-con as well? That's intellectual dishonesty at the very best. You'll fail freshman English with that level of argument. Freshman high school English. What you're implying is that Obama is so mushy-headed that being in the same room with Ayers made him a 60's domestic terrorist, or that anyone else who comes within several feet of an old criminal shares that old criminal's crimes.

If you feel so strongly about guilt by association, then let's talk about McCain's association with Keating and the other 4 of the Keating 5. BTW that's a fact that the Obama campaign hasn't brought up in their political ads. All McCain & Palin have is bullshit, hysteria, Joe the fucking unlicensed plumber who doesn't know how to form an LLC and doesn't even come close to being able to buy a quarter-million-dollar business, and completely made-up crap non-issues that the squawking neo-cons swallow uncritically from a base of ignorance.

You also clearly have no earthly idea what socialism is about. American mainstream government is all to the right of the political spectrum being centrist at it's very most left edge. It's the neo-cons who are extremists being way out on the right. That party has been there since the Regan era and people have simply forgotten what a balanced political arena looks like.

You talk about Obama using NLP to hypnotize Obama supporters, but you don't mention that McCain can't be bothered to talk any real issues or get off of his canned talking points. We won't even discuss the non-starter Palin who I wouldn't want serving on my rinkydink city council, much less doing anything remotely like national-level politics.

You've got an old warhawk Keating 5 political dinosaur who can't get his head out of Vietnam-era politics and a willfully ignorant barbie idiot currently guilty of government scandal 44-year old grandmother as your candidates. Happy with that? Really? Now who's swallowed the kool-aid?

[C-Hopkins]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say something really un-P.C.-


I think McCain is good at exactly what he's doing.

Crashing.

[Walter Joyce]

Obama will be the first president in about 200 years that has such a deep understanding of our constitution. It's about time we had someone who understands the basic blueprint of our democracy. Don't underestimate the value of that quality.

Then you package it with his charisma, his beliefs in fundamental fairness, his skills as a negotiator, his passion for that which can be good about this country, his youth and vigor.

Nader, you've got to be kidding me. He is nothing but an electoral distraction. Good lawyer, maybe, good for consumer protection, yes, President? Are you joking?

And I'll take Obama's understanding of the Constitution over Ron Paul any day. Obama taught Con Law at the University of Chicago and is well respected, even by conservative constitutional scholars for his grasp of the document, the issues it continues to address, and the major players and arguments on both sides.

And his perspective as a moral realist, that recognizes the inherent tragedy of life yet continues to strive for the good despite it. Life ain't fair and never will be, he knows that, but yet he still strives to bring it as close to fairness as his abilities and those around him will allow.

All these qualities AND we as a nation have a chance to elect a black man for president not because of his race, and not in spite of his race, but because he is the most qualified candidate in the presidential race.

Just sayin' is all.

[chud]

I never thought I would hear Obama called a "moral realist"...moral subjectivist maybe, but not a moral realist.

[Steve James]

Re: guilt by association, what about G. Gordon Liddy? You know, the guy who broke into the DNC on Nixon's orders and who wanted to bomb .... Oh well, here's his story from any wiki, or his book.

In 1971, after serving in several positions in the Nixon administration, Liddy was moved to Nixon's 1972 campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President (officially known as "CRP" but to opponents known as CREEP), in order to extend the scope and reach of the White House "Plumbers" unit, which had been created in response to various damaging leaks of information to the press. At CRP, Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition.[4] These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored), kidnapping anti-war protest organizers and transporting them to Mexico during the Republican National Convention (which at the time was planned for San Diego), and luring mid-level Democratic campaign officials to a house boat in Baltimore where they would be secretly photographed in compromising positions with call girls. Most of Liddy's ideas were rejected, but a few were given the go ahead by Nixon Administration officials, including the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Ellsberg had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.[5] At some point, Liddy was instructed to break into the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel.

In 1980, Liddy published an autobiography, titled Will, which sold more than a million copies and was made into a television movie. In it he states that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a literal interpretation of a Nixon White House statement "we need to get rid of this Anderson guy".[10][11] In the mid 1980s Liddy went on the lecture circuit, and was listed as the top speaker in the college circuit in 1982 by the Wall Street Journal. He later joined with fellow ex-con Timothy Leary on a series of debates which were popular on the college circuit as well. Liddy remained in the public eye with two guest appearances on the 1984-89 television series Miami Vice, playing the role of "Capt. Real Estate," a character loosely based on himself.

In 1998 Liddy hosted a fundraiser at his house for John McCain's re-election campaign at which guests could have their pictures taken with McCain and Liddy.[7] Over the years, Liddy, who has referred to McCain as "an old friend," has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008. When David Letterman asked McCain about his relationship with Liddy, McCain said, "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison and paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."[8][9]

[Michael]

I'm glad I wasn't the one to derail this thread