Obama nails it again

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by bheld

And yet here you are. Take your ball and go home then. We'll be fine without your bits of regurgitated MSNBC/Fox News/CNN conventional wisdom.

Sorry to piss in your cherrios. The bubble bursting around the infallible candidate just is upsetting too many people

Now we fall back on the typical "omg you just watch faux news" remarks.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'd take that to heart and do something about it if it was true. But honestly, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, it looks like you went to the RPballsackrider.com website and copied/pasted/globalsearch&replace RP with obama and now you're tossing these gems in the mix

• I don't care what you think about his experience.
• If you don't think we'd be better off with this guy in charge you're bordering on legal blindness.
• The thing that people don't get is...
• No wonder you Republicans are scared. Keep attacking....
• The rest of us recognize...
• You need to start directing your fire at our shitty media ...
• The problem is that the media in this country...
• The media needs to be destroyed...
• The whole thing about people not understanding ...
• People are sick of the politics you're talking about...
• The rules are changing and you're being left behind...

This holier-than-thou "I know something you don't know" and "you just don't get it" shit got old with RP and it's getting old now. Imagine how obama's campaign is going to fare with people getting sick of it already and there's still what, eight months to go?

Those "gems" were more about changing the focus of the issue from words to their effects. It's not holier-than-thou, it's just pointing people in a different direction.

When Obama starts polling at 5% you can start breaking out the Ron Paul comparisons.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Sorry to piss in your cherrios. The bubble bursting around the infallible candidate just is upsetting too many people

Now we fall back on the typical "omg you just watch faux news" remarks.

Right, like anything you said is new to anybody.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Those "gems" were more about changing the focus of the issue from words to their effects.

well that's just a lie.

here's the deal...you've got your wagon hitched and you're happy with it. great.

others (including me) want to see some substance before committing. as it stands right now i have no idea if i'd vote for him or not. i do know at this point i'm not going to say i definitely wouldn't (like i'm saying about hillary).

so you keep the faith. but don't be surprised when others ask questions that make you think "he just doesn't get it." because we don't. and your implication that there's something wrong with us for not getting it is amusing and annoying at the same time.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

well that's just a lie.

here's the deal...you've got your wagon hitched and you're happy with it. great.

others (including me) want to see some substance before committing. as it stands right now i have no idea if i'd vote for him or not. i do know at this point i'm not going to say i definitely wouldn't (like i'm saying about hillary).

so you keep the faith. but don't be surprised when others ask questions that make you think "he just doesn't get it." because we don't. and your implication that there's something wrong with us for not getting it is amusing and annoying at the same time.

So what specific questions do you need answered from him that other candidates have answered satisfactorily? What else needs to go up on the website?

I'm not asking you to "get it." I didn't get it when I was with Edwards and still don't really "get it" myself. I'm just asking you to recognize the effect that he has on other people, including the ones that do "get it."

If you can't do that you're coming at this with either an agenda or with your mind already made up.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

I'm not asking you to "get it."

These were your words:

# The thing that people don't get is...
# The rest of us recognize...
# The whole thing about people not understanding ...
# The rules are changing and you're being left behind...

Ignoring the one that says "people don't get" the others all imply that you know something we don't know. If that's not asking people to "get it" (and then ridiculing them when they say they don't/won't) I don't know what is.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

These were your words:

# The thing that people don't get is...
# The rest of us recognize...
# The whole thing about people not understanding ...
# The rules are changing and you're being left behind...

Ignoring the one that says "people don't get" the others all imply that you know something we don't know. If that's not asking people to "get it" (and then ridiculing them when they say they don't/won't) I don't know what is.

So read it as "what many people are ignoring is..." or "something that you might not have considered is..." Taken in context the posts certainly don't imply what you're making it seem like.

What questions do you need answered about Obama? What have the other candidates done that he hasn't in terms of communicating their policies?

[kinggovernor]

Obama called for the firing of Imus 11 months ago.

Deeds > Words

The speech sounded good but I value actions over speeches

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Obama called for the firing of Imus 11 months ago.

Deeds > Words

The speech sounded good but I value actions over speeches

So he should fire someone who doesn't work for him?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So he should fire someone who doesn't work for him?

Actually you are missing a step here, Rev. Wright resigned from a purely ceremonial role as part of his faith outreach committee or something

so he already was fired basically

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Actually you are missing a step here, Rev. Wright resigned from a purely ceremonial role as part of his faith outreach committee or something

so he already was fired basically

It's my understanding that he was actively involved in Obama's campaign. Whatever his official status was doesn't change that he was working for Obama. His words are disturbing and very damaging to Obama. I think he did a decent job covering it up, but in return he gave a very long speech regarding racial politics in America... exactly what Hillary wanted. He's just hurting himself and to be honest after the Wright situation I am not very happy with the Obama campaign.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So he should fire someone who doesn't work for him?

I really liked the speech, it was really honest IMO. There is not an issue that is more polarizing than race in America. I just hope that Obama's actions follow up with his words.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's my understanding that he was actively involved in Obama's campaign. Whatever his official status was doesn't change that he was working for Obama. His words are disturbing and very damaging to Obama. I think he did a decent job covering it up, but in return he gave a very long speech regarding racial politics in America... exactly what Hillary wanted. He's just hurting himself and to be honest after the Wright situation I am not very happy with the Obama campaign.

I am not going to vote for Obama but I feel the complete opposite. I appreciate the fact that he didn't pander to the next state to channel his response. Fuck Hillary, he should have this wrapped up and it will be a damn shame if he doesn't.

I respect the fact that he was willing to deliver such a complex speech, not a 10-second soundbyte, about race. It is a problem that still effects this country and I liked what he said. It was very honest.

[bheld]

I'm still waiting for a description of where Obama is lacking substance compared to the other candidates.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I am not going to vote for Obama but I feel the complete opposite. I appreciate the fact that he didn't pander to the next state to channel his response. Fuck Hillary, he should have this wrapped up and it will be a damn shame if he doesn't.

I respect the fact that he was willing to deliver such a complex speech, not a 10-second soundbyte, about race. It is a problem that still effects this country and I liked what he said. It was very honest.

If he weren't a socialist dickbag, I'd consider voting for him. But what little bit of policy he has talked about I'm vehemently opposed to. Gun control, health care and my suspicion that he'd rape us in taxes to fund it all far outweigh anything I might like about him. I vote with my wallet.

The speech was nice and all and some of that really needed to be said, but as you alluded to, in the grand scheme of things I think this whole issue has hurt him. The fact he only made the speech out of necessity rather than something that just needs to be said also bothers me.

Another one of his speeches I liked (something I also think needs to be said and embraced) is this one on Religion: Faith_Politics_Embed




All of that said, when the general election rolls around, this issue is going to re-appear and it's going to hurt him in middle america a la swift boat vets.

[JaJae]

Hey Tank

I agree with a lot of what you said here. I've been a pretty ardent supporter of Obama, but this really hurt him. His speech was great, but again he's stuck on race. This isn't going to help him in a national election.

The longer his campaign goes on the more unsettled I am with him. I dislike both McCain and Hillary which is why my support went to Obama. His economic principles are horrendous and a lot of his views are pretty extreme, but I felt he was a uniter and someone who could cross the aisle and get things done with a compromise. But now he's becoming divisive like Hillary, and I'm running out of reasons to support him other than I dislike McCain and Hillary more as politicians and individuals (integrity).

[bheld]

He's not stuck on race, the media and his political opponents are.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

If he weren't a socialist dickbag, I'd consider voting for him. But what little bit of policy he has talked about I'm vehemently opposed to. Gun control, health care and my suspicion that he'd rape us in taxes to fund it all far outweigh anything I might like about him. I vote with my wallet.

The speech was nice and all and some of that really needed to be said, but as you alluded to, in the grand scheme of things I think this whole issue has hurt him. The fact he only made the speech out of necessity rather than something that just needs to be said also bothers me.

Another one of his speeches I liked (something I also think needs to be said and embraced) is this one on Religion: Faith_Politics_Embed




All of that said, when the general election rolls around, this issue is going to re-appear and it's going to hurt him in middle america a la swift boat vets.

Good thing Bush got his tax cuts made permanent...oh wait no he didn't

Good thing McCain is going to get those tax cuts permanent and expanded...oh wait no he won't

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Good thing Bush got his tax cuts made permanent...oh wait no he didn't

Good thing McCain is going to get those tax cuts permanent and expanded...oh wait no he won't

boy did I not miss you

[motivez]

Originally Posted by bheld

Since when do you get specific policy details in a presidential candidate's speech outlining their vision for the future? I understand your cynicism but it stems more from your contempt for the response Obama has generated than any real shortcoming on his part.

Politics is all about the visceral, and it was that way long before Obama came on the scene. Just because he does it better than anybody in a long time doesn't make his candidacy any less legitimate. Nobody wants to hear about the details. Remember all the bullshit we had to hear in the media about the "lockbox?" That crossed the line and it was about as dumbed-down as it gets policy-wise. It just doesn't play.

With pretty much every other candidate, they talk in far more specific details about how they plan to accomplish the things they talk about wanting to accomplish once elected.

With Obama, he has lots of great ideas, but when it comes to implementing them, he's unfortunately failed, yet again, to deliver any specifics to us.

And, seriously, give me a fucking break. Contempt for the "response" he's generated? My "cynicism"? You have got to be kidding me.

It's hardly cynicism, I don't think he's lying, nor do I distrust him to try to accomplish what he says, rather.. I'm realistic that unless he has some kind of concrete plans, he's going to have a very hard time accomplishing any of them.

As far as his following, I don't have contempt for it, I'm glad to see people interested.. but unlike some on this forum with Ron Paul, and now Obama, I'm not a fanboy who will put on blinders and ignore the bad while praising the good and having an overly optimistic view of reality to suit my political desires. There's "Pragmatist" under my name for a reason.

Simply put: I want specifics, and Obama has yet to give them to me.

You can say no one wants to hear the specifics, and maybe they don't want to sit down and read a 300 page piece of legislation, but they do want the politicians to tell them, for example, one specific way they think they can improve our lackluster public education system, not just that they want to fix it.

Think I'm wrong?

Much like I predicted Paul would fail to meet expectations of his fanboys due to a lackluster ground game despite the masses of money, unless Obama can begin to get specific, it's going to hurt him once he's up against someone who has his name attached to some of the most recognizable legislation this country has passed in the last few decades.

Legislation that's popular with the same independent and moderate base that Obama appeal