USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I agree that this fellow Meeks has opinions which are hateful and ugl. What I don't get is what those opinions have to do with Obama? Does Obama profess these beliefs? Does he support his stances? What makes you think Obama agrees with them? It is about the candidate to me, not who he has associated with.

No doubt, in order to get into the Senate one has to rub elbows with all sorts of unsavory characters. With many of whom you share the slightest alliance.

From what I've read the alliance does not appear to be "slight." That's why I want to discuss it and am troubled by it.

No, I do not think Obama espouses these views. But he has campaigned with, prayed with, and listed as both endorser and "spiritual conselor" someone who does.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

From what I've read the alliance does not appear to be "slight." That's why I want to discuss it and am troubled by it.

No, I do not think Obama espouses these views. But he has campaigned with, prayed with, and listed as both endorser and "spiritual conselor" someone who does.

Time will tell just what is going on, as information is gathered. Personally I doubt it's much to worry about. But then, I live in Texas and this is stock and trade in politics here. First put doubt about the Democrats associates is typically the very first move of a Republicans campaign against a Democrat in these parts. I think they found some six degrees of Kevin Bacon thing concerning Ann Richards and Fidel.

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by roni

Mebbe the answer is a candidate that does not need so much defense

Swoon !!!

[ryberg]

I wonder if I should point out that McCain surrounds himself with liberal Democrats from liberal bastion states like Massachusetts and Wisconsin who do things like speak out against the Vietnam War or vote, all alone in the Senate, against the Patriot Act? I mean, there was his notorious "we'd rather forget about that" flirtation with Kerry in 2004, and of course there's also all that work he has done in partnership with Feingold, too.

I don't know about you, but me, I wouldn't associate with people from the other party who think and vote and behave in such disturbingly different ways, and I certainly would be getting into discussions about being the running mate for one of them or working as a team so closely with another of them on major legislation.

But hey, that's two, so it looks like he McCain has in fact surrounded himself with such like! So much for his chances in November -- it's all over, baby!

...


...


...

Neaah, I prolly should just keep quiet on stuff like that, you know...



Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Mebbe the answer is a candidate that does not need so much defense

He's baaaaaaaaaack!

And you see, Melliedee? He's not reasoning it's over. Not at all! Like I said, he's arguing for Clinton over Obama. How else can that comment be interpreted?

He just doesn't want to fill out the comparison of who'd be the best candidate by turning to deal with any of those enormous Clinton negatives.

Welcome back, sir!

Steve

[melliedee]

I'm interested to know what you thought of the article, Steve.

[roni]

What do we know?

We know that Meeks' view on homosexuality are consistent with those of Minister Farrakhan.

We know that Minister Farrakhan epitomizes greatness, as we were told when he received the Jeremiah Wright award.

We know that Obama has described Wright as a mentor and close friend.

I wonder if Meeks' views of Judaism and Israel are consistent with those of Minister Farrakhan, and others - some of whose words on those very issues are consistent with authors who Jeremiah Wright quoted, in part of whole, in his Pastor's Pages section of the church newsletter (remember the Hamas author of one piece that can be found there?).

Folks, the sad truth is that the case in a campaign can be built using the words of these folks alone with absolutely no commentary by any opponent, be they the Republican candidate or unaffiliated groups like Grover Norquist's and others.

We may nominate Obama, consistent with my call from weeks ago. Getting him elected is going to be a challenge that we as individuals and we as a country may not be up to.

The way that Mellidee and others have been treated here - being told, in one case, that they must be deliberately distorting things soley on the basis that Steve had already set the record straight on that (as if that passes anyone's critical thinking test), suggestions, implications and/or insinuations that Clinton's supporters are racists and/or rednecks- I am starting to question my continued participation on this thread.

I am not going to go back and read everything that posted while I was on a lovely trip and do not tell me to

I do not tell me it will not be an issue in the general election because anyone posted any polls ran in March that said Democrats were not too upset about it. That would be an insult to the intelligence of a 7th grader with a competent social studies teacher

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

He's baaaaaaaaaack!

And you see, Melliedee? He's not reasoning it's over. Not at all! Like I said, he's arguing for Clinton over Obama. How else can that comment be interpreted?

He just doesn't want to fill out the comparison of who'd be the best candidate by turning to deal with any of those enormous Clinton negatives.

Welcome back, sir!

Steve

I am not arguing Clinton over Obama. I stopped that argument seriously soon after I called the race for Obama.

Get over what I consider to be your obsession with Clinton. We have a candidate with flaws. Focus on that and how to combat it.

Frankly, I'd prefer Gore to Obama at this point.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I'm interested to know what you thought of the article, Steve.

Ah, but there's so much to cover, and now Roni's back with his same approach -- another duel that started well before this!

I tell you what: how about when Roni takes those Clinton negatives into account and explains why these Obama negatives are potentially worse, I rest on him and get back to you on that article?

Think it'll happen?

Well, anyway, I'll get there. But as Jacko and JL have been saying all along many things I agree with -- and as again it all in the end has to fall into the context not of whether these things will hurt Obama, but whether they will hurt Obama more than Clinton's problems will hurt her --- I can't be very optimistic that my response will be very much more satisfactory to you...

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Mebbe the answer is a candidate that does not need so much defense

Originally Posted by roni

I am not arguing Clinton over Obama. I stopped that argument seriously soon after I called the race for Obama.

Get over what I consider to be your unhealthy obsession with Clinton. We have a candidate with flaws. Focus on that and how to combat it.

Frankly, I'd prefer Gore to Obama at this point.

So Gore is the potential referent of the phrase "candidate that does not need so much defense" in the first of those two quotes?

Just a question, but aren't you rather consistent at making it unnecessarily hard for your meaning to emerge, in these discussions, by not (just for example) using people's names when referring to them? Or by not (just for another example) just clarifying a point like that earlier in a simple statement of the declarative type, for example: "I'm talking about Gore, not Clinton."



(And you know the sort of thing I'm talking about, Jacko! Don't go chicken on me now that Roni's back! )

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Ah, but there's so much to cover, and now Roni's back with his same approach -- another duel that started well before this!

I tell you what: how about when Roni takes those Clinton negatives into account and explains why these Obama negatives are potentially worse, I rest on him and get back to you on that article?

Think it'll happen?

Well, anyway, I'll get there. But as Jacko and JL have been saying all along many things I agree with -- and as again it all in the end has to fall into the context not of whether these things will hurt Obama, but whether they will hurt Obama more than Clinton's problems will hurt her --- I can't be very optimistic that my response will be very much more satisfactory to you...

Steve

I don't understand what this has to do with Clinton? You can't go back and read a one page article because it might be critical of Obama? We can't discuss how these things might impact the national election because his opponents negatives are worse?

I'm trying very hard to understand the way this discussion is unfolding...

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I don't understand what this has to do with Clinton? You can't go back and read a one page article because it might be critical of Obama? We can't discuss how these things might impact the national election because his opponents negatives are worse?

I'm trying very hard to understand the way this discussion is unfolding...

Not what I said at all, I'm happy to say.

Since the attempt at humor didn't go over, I'll resist the temptation to use Roni's (in)famous "read my words and the meaning will emerge" line on you here.

There was something going on before that I was focused on (with KF), and now there's something else going on again suddenly (Roni's reappearance and related points), and therefore I have been distracted.

And I added the comment only that since those other guys have been saying things I generally agree with in response to your comments on the article, and you don't seem satisfied with those very much, I'm skeptical you'll be satisfied with mine.

That's all!

Steve

[See Turtle]

My Dad was often somewhat bigoted and difficult, and he was not exactly opened-minded when it came to sexuality, particularly homosexuality. I rejected his opinions on matters of both race and sexuality. But I turned to him often for guidance, advice and "mentoring" on many, many subjects. He was a brilliant man, albeit flawed on the issues mentioned above. I can't tell you how often since his death I've wanted to turn to him for advice.

The point is this, you can get guidance and mentoring from people on many issues and find completely abhorrent their views on others. I would think that Barrack Obama, like me, is smart and independent enough to make those distinctions.

[roni]

Steve,

You do not get to, thank goodness, define the frames of reference for the discussion here. As much as you seem to want to have that level of control, you do not.

Go ahead and talk about whatever you want to in whatever way you want to whomever you want to, enlisting whatever allies you can and chiding them in whatever way you choose to.

Have fun doing it.

[roni]

Oh, I also would point out that in regard to the phrase "unhealthy obsession", I edited if after Steve quoted it, deciding that the word "unhealthy made it redundant and a sin against parsimony