Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Can people stop prefacing their letters with "I'm a white, older male retiree" or "I'm a black woman and I..." Not only does no one cares, and nobody knows if its true, but it feeds into the same reductionist clap trap. Is that all that matters about you, is a bunch of features you were born with? For all the insistence from everyone, pro-Obama, pro-Clinton, pro-The Flying Spaghetti monster, no one seems to be arguing anything other than that they, as some sort of demographic bellwether, don't agree with what some poll says about them. Hooray!
That's about the most selective telling of the "facts" as I've seen in a long time. Maybe if you could have replaced the "claims" with in-context quotes from Obama, and a fair presentation of why he might have made such a "claim," even if you think he's wrong, I might be tempted to think you were trying to enlighten us.
Instead your rant reads just like more partisan sleight of hand for your candidate of choice. Bill and Hillary may not have used the words to say he didn't oppose the war from the start--but they did refer to his war record and its coverage as a "fairy tale." "Them's fightin' words," as they say. Politics ain't beanbag, but at least Obama's "claims" have some legitimacy, even in your own telling of them, unlike the email sent out by Clinton's staff in Iowa claiming that Obama is "a muslim who will destroy the nation." There's a zero percent true claim. Do you see the difference?
Let's hear one for interpersonal skills. Makes no difference if he's white, black or some designer color. What makes a difference for me is the eye contact. Now look at that photo again. Not a whole lot of interpersonal energy for the guys shaking hands with him. And will you check out the weak, wimpy handshake the contender is giving. Give me a break. And we want this guy to be our president. NO way.
Of course some might think that I judge harshly re: the eye contact. You bet! If this guy cannot deal with eye contact, then what? Oh, I forgot. He's a politician and politicians really care little for the kind of thing required by decent behavior. Let's move on with the votes!
Are you one of those people with "penetrating gazes"--one that people can't get away from?
Just so you know--I'm not sure if this has any bearing on Obama, because I've never observed him avoiding eye contact, but in Asian cultures (where I lived for three years) staring directly into someone's eyes is considered rude. The eyes should stay averted unless there is intimate contact between the two parties.
Just so you know. In case you walk down the street in Seoul and think no one has any social skill. Or maybe you were just looking for an excuse to hate on Obama.
Your assertion that a Clinton staff member in Iowa sent out the infamous email which falsely claimed Senator Obama was a muslim, is a lie. If you have any evidence to the contrary, the entire media in this country would just love to have it. I can only hope that you personally are merely naive enough to believe something you've been told, and not as patently dishonest as the person who claimed such a thing. If this is what we are to expect from Obama supporters, and is not rejected firmly by the Obama campaign, then he deserves to be defeated.
And you presume to dismiss the entensive and persuasively cited list that Sandy provides! Can you say "irony?"
Is the Washington Post a strong enough authority for you doc5467?
Here is the article:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
Just because we support Obama doesn't mean that we'd make stuff like this up. Because of this and because of Clinton's position on waterboarding (she refuses to state her position) I don't know if I can vote for her ever.
Sad. Really, considering that I once admired her and voted for her husband twice.
Anonymous, you were closer to the truth than I believed you to be, so you deserve my apology. I do think you extrapolate quite a bit to call a "volunteer county" person "a Clinton staff member." And I can't imagine why you forgot to mention the rapid and direct and public response by the Senator. I suppose that was something that didn't fit your ongoing and USUALLY misleading narrative on the Clintons. Like the latest calumny--her presumed refusal to take a stand on waterboarding. Here's the entire statement:
Kornblut and Balz interview, Monday, Oct 8, 2007"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."
I think you have to stretch this comment way out of shape to get the reading you provide. To me, it means she suspects there have been not just waterboarding, but other things as horrible or worse.
Still, you aren't naive as I accused you of. And certainly not a liar--which I expressly hoped you weren't. Now if you could only be fair, we'd be in clover.
Obama's main problem is not his skin color; or his age; or his experience or lack thereof. His biggest problem is that he has failed to fill in the blanks of which there are many. I have never seen a candidate who has more question marks hovering over him and he knows it, and his campaign managers know it. Without specifics as to what change Obama intends to bring about; what page he wants to turn in which book; and how he intends to do it, he will not win the votes of anyone but the young and enthusiastic and the educated elite who don't necessarily want for very much anyway but truly get off on supporting a candidate who could pass for a black version of Gary Cooper.
What Obama might very well face, once SC is over with, is a mountain too high to climb, because Hillary Clinton is the ultimate fill-in-the-blanker and she has hard support from the base, from people who have suffered economically, from Latinos *who will likely come out in great numbers to vote for her* and from women, especially from women.
Obama has about ten days to draw considerable numbers of these contingencies away from Hillary and the voters within those contingencies have some questions which, so far, have not been answered by Obama:
1. I am a woman. If I choose Obama, what is in it for me?
2. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Why are you throwing President Clinton under the bus and opening up a dialogue about President Reagan? That scares me Obama. Please be specific.
3. I am a Latino. If I vote for Obama, does that mean his huge black following will encourage him to forget about me and all of us Latinos (who aren't all that popular among African Americans?)
4. I am in need of things and so is my family. After Obama's speeches which make me feel almost euphoric, I feel insecure again.
Obama played hard to the college circuit across the country. Fourteen thousand to forty thousand people attended each rally in the early days of his campaign. He was heralded as the absolute savior. Today the reality has set in that it wasn't enough. The February 5th state elections will bring out women, rank and file Democrats and Latinos/Asians and so far, they register hard support for Hillary.
I, too, am waiting for Obama to fill in the blanks. Even though I realize it was never his intention to do so, at least not in the meaty, policy-wonky way that Hillary has always done. That "visionary" thing has a downside. It really needs fuel to keep it going.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
