USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

Jacko is right. Let us avoid discussing these things and leave it up to the Republicans after we have a nominee

I have heard somewhere that that type of a response is the attitude..what was it?.... of a 12 year old?....we both know better than that....

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Jacko

The radical religious roots of black Barack Hussein Obama?....

The influence of the former president, liberal husband of the (overly) "strong" female Hillary Clinton?....

Does it always have to come to down to this (even amongst us liberals) when there is so much in both of them that is none of this?

We must resist this impulse to ever go in this direction my friends and they must be clear with all of us regarding their associations in each of these areas.

Why? This has a huge potential to blow up in the campaign's face with spectacular speed and vehemence.

Steve's criticized Hillary for sitting on the Ferraro comment and allowing her to resign without having to fire her. He has no such criticisms for Obama for doing the same because this is his pastor? Because the relationship is different? He need only "distance" himself, or worse, claim no knowledge of it?

This is the attitude that encourages the kool aid comments from the rest of the poltical world. I feel like I'm not even typing in English here...

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Why? This has a huge potential to blow up in the campaign's face with spectacular speed and vehemence.

Steve's criticized Hillary for sitting on the Ferraro comment and allowing her to resign without having to fire her. He has no such criticisms for Obama for doing the same because this is his pastor? Because the relationship is different? He need only "distance" himself, or worse, claim no knowledge of it?

This is the attitude that encourages the kool aid comments from the rest of the poltical world. I feel like I'm not even typing in English here...

What does Steve have to do with what I said?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Jacko

What does Steve have to do with what I said?

Because that's what sparked this debate and you've just said we shouldn't be discussing it!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Because that what sparked this debate and you've just said we shouldn't be discussing it!

I was responding to roni's focus on that particular Rolling Stone article and the point it was trying to make about Obama..I agree with JL!

Either way, your association of my comment with Steve's whole argument seems odd...

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I was responding to roni's focus on that particular Rolling Stone article and the point it was trying to make about Obama..I agree with JL!

Either way, your association of my comment with Steve's whole argument seems odd...

The Rolling Stone article is also about the pastor; they are connected to the topic of the speeches and need for Obama to reject them with the same vigor his supporters demanded of Clinton.

I only quoted you because you seemed to be suggesting we shouldn't be going there. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

The Rolling Stone article is also about the pastor; they are connected to the topic of the speeches and need for Obama to reject them with the same vigor his supporters demanded of Clinton.

I only quoted you because you seemed to be suggesting we shouldn't be going there. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Thats okay. I suggested that we should not go where my words suggested we should not go...nothing more than that....contrary to what roni said as he put words in my mouth, I never suggested we should not "discuss these things"....

"Radical roots of Barack Obama'.....puhleese... That would be like calling you radical or roni radical for some of your beliefs.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I have heard somewhere that that type of a response is the attitude..what was it?.... of a 12 year old?....we both know better than that....

You said we should avoid the impulse - I assumed you meant the impulse to discuss it. I may have misunderstood you. If I did misunderstand you, feel free to elaborate.

This is called vetting the candidates. The Rolling Stone has a history of better than usual campaign reporting - going back at least to Hunter Thompson in the early 70's, and this long article is in line with that history.

It is an indictment of the mainstream press that this type of in-depth reporting has been lacking, in my opinion. There is much positive and concerning in the Rolling Stone article.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Thats okay. I suggested that we should not go where my words suggested we should not go...nothing more than that....contrary to what roni said as he put words in my mouth, I never suggested we should not "discuss these things"....

"Radical roots of Barack Obama'.....puhleese... That would be like calling you radical or roni radical for some of your beliefs.

I am a radical I even have a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in my library.

And, black liberation theology, of which Jeremiah Wright is a proponent is also radical.

Please open a little wider - I have more words that would not fit there

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

You said we should avoid the impulse - I assumed you meant the impulse to discuss it. I may have misunderstood you. If I did misunderstand you, feel free to elaborate.

This is called vetting the candidates. The Rolling Stone has a history of better than usual campaign reporting - going back at least to Hunter Thompson in the early 70's, and this long article is in line with that history.

It is an indictment of the mainstream press that this type of in-depth reporting has been lacking, in my opinion. There is much positive and concerning in the Rolling Stone article.

So...you post an article entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama", knowing all the background behind that headline....and you agree with that line of thinking? You, who fights against similar arguments against Hillary?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

I am a radical I even have a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in my library.

And, black liberation theology, of which Jeremiah Wright is a proponent is also radical.

Please open a little wider - I have more words that would not fit there

Read my words more carefully and you will slowly be enlightened with the answers to your questions.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

So...you post an article entitled the radical roots of Barack Obama, knowing all the background of that headline....and you agree with that line of thinking? You, who fights against similar arguments against Hillary?

Have you read the entire article?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

Have you read the entire article?

I have read both of his books....I have listened to him carefully during the campaign....Read the entire article? Nope...as I have said, its titled premise, given the atmosphere we are in, sickens me...Beyond my idea of "so much BS, so little time"....I sort of follow this line of thinking after seeing your post of portions of the article...

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Jeepers Ron, If thats the tone of the entire piece I gotta wonder what demons are possessing the Rolling Stone. Worshiping the almighty dollar I reckon.
More from Jim Wallis would be good.

This focus on "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" has been my main point and concern..although it seems to have not been put forth very clearly.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Why? This has a huge potential to blow up in the campaign's face with spectacular speed and vehemence.

Steve's criticized Hillary for sitting on the Ferraro comment and allowing her to resign without having to fire her. He has no such criticisms for Obama for doing the same because this is his pastor? Because the relationship is different? He need only "distance" himself, or worse, claim no knowledge of it?

This is the attitude that encourages the kool aid comments from the rest of the poltical world. I feel like I'm not even typing in English here...

I really don't know why you still think this is my view and are adding the bits about claiming no knowledge of it.

I criticized Clinton for downplaying what Ferraro said, saying "oh, you know, this happens on both sides" and giving it the "no big deal" treatment, only renouncing the views expressed, when it was Clinton herself who so famously insisted that renouncing wasn't enough when the shoe was on the other foot.

I do have criticisms for Obama on Wright: I have repeatedly said he needs to move on that issue and to do so convincingly. I wouldn't say he needs to fire Wright only because Wright is not on his finance committee or officially connected with Obama's campaign in any other way (as far as I know -- am I wrong?) and Obama is not the board of deacons or whatever of the church Wright is a past or of (as far as I know) and you don't "fire" the people you are otherwise personally involved with or connected to. In that objective respect alone, the situation is clearly different from that of Clinton and Ferraro. If you don't think it's different in the way we've been discussing, with regard to a years-long personal relationship between the two as does not seem to exist between Ferraro and Clinton (as far as I know), OK, but I am not saying Obama doesn't have to do anything about Wright. I've repeatedly said the opposite.

Should he do a 2-minute riff on freedom of speech like Roni said? I don't know. Maybe. Should he finesse things more? I don't know. Maybe. Should he do something this evening or Sunday morning on the news shows or...? I don't know. Maybe. This doesn't equal "he doesn't need to do anything" though.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by Jacko

The radical religious roots of black Barack Hussein Obama?....

The influence of the former president, liberal husband of the (overly) "strong" female Hillary Clinton?....

Does it always have to come to down to this (even amongst us liberals) when there is so much in both of them that is none of this?

We must resist this impulse to ever go in this direction my friends and they must be clear with all of us regarding their associations in each of these areas.

Define liberal hushand.

Make it your next post.