I just listened to Obama's speech last night after it was announced he was the winner. I think that was probably the best speech I've ever heard, that wasn't from the West Wing.
I just listened to Obama's speech last night after it was announced he was the winner. I think that was probably the best speech I've ever heard, that wasn't from the West Wing.
Not saying it was a bad speech or anything. I haven't even heard it. However, I highly doubt it was the best speech ever. You need to hear yourself some speeches.
For the record, Rudy didn't do any campaigning in Iowa. He blatantly ignored the state, and hopefully people consider that during primaries, but he's not out of the race just yet.
I donated to the Obama campaign months ago when I heard about his Technology Plan http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/111307 Innovation fact sheet.pdf (I just googled it now, but I'm almost positive it's the same document) It's good to know that a candidate is mentioning these issues, and Obama has demonstrated tech-intelligence quite a few times, like he recommended presidential debates be licensed under Creative Commons. Although, I'm just some punk-kid without any real computer training, so it may be a load of bollocks.
And, Rym and Scott, he mentions in the speech that all cabinet members must be computer literate.
Obama stands no chance of winning the presidency (and probably no chance of winning the nomination) despite his appeal.
Wait a second, why does Obama stand no chance at winning the presidency? He seems at least as good, if not better, as a general election candidate as Edwards or Clinton. Genuinely curious as to why Obama won't be good in the general election.
I just listened to Obama's speech last night after it was announced he was the winner. I think that was probably the best speech I've ever heard, that wasn't from the West Wing.
Not saying it was a bad speech or anything. I haven't even heard it. However, I highly doubt it was the best speech ever. You need to hear yourself some speeches.
Well by best speech I mean of my time, not like comparing this to "I have a Dream," the Gettysburg Address, Kennedy in Berlin, or whatnot. But I think that in my lifetime that it's the best that I've heard from a politician outside of things Aaron Sorkin has written/created. Which is a sad thing to say I know, but I guess it sort of speaks to the fact that there haven't been many good politicians in my time.
You do also realize that it is southern Democrats who will be voting for Obama in the primaries? What you are saying here is thatsouthern Democratsare racist.
Does anyone else find it sort of amazing that the world can change enough that you can say something like that. Just fifty years ago the answer to your question would be that of course southern Democrats were racist. And its not that the parties have switched positions either. There's been a huge transformation in the way the Democrats deal with race but the Republican positions on racial issues aren't really any less enlightened than they were back in the 1950s. Progress really does happen sometimes.
You do also realize that it is southern Democrats who will be voting for Obama in the primaries? What you are saying here is thatsouthern Democratsare racist.
Does anyone else find it sort of amazing that the world can change enough that you can say something like that. Just fifty years ago the answer to your question would be that of course southern Democrats were racist. And its not that the parties have switched positions either. There's been a huge transformation in the way the Democrats deal with race but the Republican positions on racial issues aren't really any less enlightened than they were back in the 1950s. Progress really does happen sometimes.
Are you saying Republicans ARE racist? If anything the Republicans are colorblind.
I also have to ask in what way you are using the term racist. Racist has not always been a negative term. It used to be a word with a meaning similar to "discrimination" but has been warped to mean negative things.
When I make a purchase I am very discriminating. I do not simply buy something because it is there, I shop around, form an opinion and then make my purchase.
Let me ask you this; Are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the "civil rights" leaders Republicans or Democrats? Do those same people use the issue of race in a positive or negative manner? Where were they when Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court? do you think they would have reacted differently if the first black nominee for the Supreme Court was not a conservative?
Conservatives/Republicans are far more likely to ignore race or not even use it when making a choice. Democrats/liberals are often the first to point out a person's race when they do something.
When Bush was elected Republicans did not run around saying, "look, the first white oil man from Texas has been elected president!!!" Yet, was not Bill Clinton referred to as the "first black president"?
I have found (over the course of my life) that those who make a point of calling attention to race when they do something (what, I hired the black guy, see, I'm not racist) are either scared of the PC people or are the PC people.
If Obama gets the Democratic nomination I will consider voting Democrat for president later this year. He is the only Democrat I would consider voting for. No one on the Republican side excites me at all but, I'd rather have any of the Republican candidates than Hillary in office.
I think a lot of the negative stories coming out about Obama are coming from the Hillary camp. She was expecting a coronation and she got a fight instead.
Obama got a huge amount of votes from the young/new voters. That tells me he is reaching a portion of the electorate that does not normally vote. Even with the potential problems Obama has (new, no executive experience) he is the democrat's best bet. The question is whether or not Hillary is willing to pull a Nixon and throw in the towel to save the party. No, I don't think she will.
I am not an American and the coming elections will only influence my life indirectly, but I made the conscience decision that I should pay a bit more attention to them anyway due the major influence America has on world politics.
Obama looks to me like a capable candidate and if I were an American, he would probably get my vote in October. He is pretty much in line with my thoughts about America. And he is not a white old corporate guy.
I find it very telling that Fox News is including him in the NH debate but not Ron Paul. It is no secret that Fox News supports Rudy, just as it is no secret that Ron Paul is raising money like no one else and it polling above Rudy in NH as well as getting more votes than Rudy in Iowa.
Then again, Fox News has been going out of there way to either not report on Ron Paul or describe him as a loonie every time they talk about him. Support him or not you don't treat him like that.
There's been a huge transformation in the way the Democrats deal with race but the Republican positions on racial issues aren't really any less enlightened than they were back in the 1950s.
Without some sort of evidence (beyond anecdotal) to back this up, this statement is just absurd. No doubt there are racist Republicans and Democrats.
Where were they when Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court? do you think they would have reacted differently if the first black nominee for the Supreme Court was not a conservative?
Okay, I tried to ignore this, but I can't stand it any longer. I've read the above every way I can imagine and I'm left with this question: Do you believe Clarence Thomas was "the first black nominee for the Supreme Court"?
Okay, I tried to ignore this, but I can't stand it any longer. I've read the above every way I can imagine and I'm left with this question: Do you believe Clarence Thomas was "the first black nominee for the Supreme Court"?
Obama stands no chance of winning the presidency (and probably no chance of winning the nomination) despite his appeal.
Wait a second, why does Obama stand no chance at winning the presidency? He seems at least as good, if not better, as a general election candidate as Edwards or Clinton. Genuinely curious as to why Obama won't be good in the general election.
Yes, that was pretty absurd, especially considering all the momentum Obama is building from his victory in Iowa and going into New Hampshire, the crossover appeal he has to Independants and Republicans, and the energized Democratic voter turnout he's generated thus far.
Sorry, I wrote that wrong. Justice Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court justice but he was liberal.
The point I was trying to make is that the party (at the time) of civil rights would only support a black person if they were on their side of the fence. The Republicans had long been accused of being racist so a qualified black justice was nominated. Not nominated because he was black but because he was qualified.
Obama got a huge amount of votes from the young/new voters. That tells me he is reaching a portion of the electorate that does not normally vote. Even with the potential problems Obama has (new, no executive experience) he is the democrat's best bet. The question is whether or not Hillary is willing to pull a Nixon and throw in the towel to save the party. No, I don't think she will.
You said some interesting things, some I agree with that lack actual proof, but this is the most important. The Democrats need to unite behind one candidate or they'll lose the coming election. Right now there's almost a three way tie in the Democratic primaries.
I suspect that most Hilary voters will vote for Obama if they have to. Parties tend to unite behind the winner unless it's someone like Ron Paul who will end up stealing that 10 percent from the republican party polls when he goes independent.
Hillary is in serious trouble. She's done absolutely the wrong things since losing in Iowa. She needed to be conciliatory and to admit that she learned a lesson. Instead, she gave a victory speech and is acting as if nothing is wrong with her campaign.
The polls suggest that people think that Hillary is "old-school" and can't be trusted. She's proving them right. It's okay to admit you wanted to do better. Why lie so blatantly by suggesting that Iowa was no problem at all?
She's just not getting it. She's feeding into exactly what people don't like about her. If she doesn't make some changes very quickly, she's history.
Hillary is in serious trouble. She's done absolutely the wrong things since losing in Iowa. She needed to be conciliatory and to admit that she learned a lesson. Instead, she gave a victory speech and is acting as if nothing is wrong with her campaign.
The fact that Obama and Edwards teamed up against her in the most recent debate, marking her an icon of the "Status Quo", does not bode well for her campaign either.
I'm pleased that you're inspired, but don't get too proud of your youth and your generation. There were plenty of young faces in the crowd supporting Shirley Chisholm in '72 and in the crowds supporting Jesse Jackson and Geraldine Ferraro in '84 and and Jesse Jackson again in '88. Your generation did not invent tolerance.
No, we didn't invent tolerance and I never said we did. I do think we're better at it than our parents were and our kids will be better than we are. That's how things work. None of the four campaigns you mention were anything more than stunt shows. Here we have the first black candidate who has a chance and the best part is that his supporters (mostly) don't care that he's black! We care that he's a good man who wants to do great things for our country. He could be our Kennedy. That's what inspires me. I want the chance to believe in my government again. I don't want to have cynicism and spite rule as they have since Nixon.
None of the four campaigns you mention were anything more than stunt shows.
Many people, most of them young, did not believe those campaigns were stunt shows. Ferraro was the Democratic nominee for VP, for goodness sakes. That's more than a stunt.
What I'm saying is this: if you like Obama, fine. I like him too. His message of hope sometimes gets through even my tough skin of cynicism. But you lose my agreement when you say that there's something special about your generation in liking him. You might as well learn it now. There's nothing special about your generation. You have better toys than we did, but you're still fallible humans who have the same tendencies for sin and corruption as any previous generation.
Many people, most of them young, did not believe those campaigns were stunt shows. Ferraro was the Democratic nominee for VP, for goodness sakes. That's more than a stunt.
What I'm saying is this: if you like Obama, fine. I like him too. His message of hope sometimes gets through even my tough skin of cynicism. But you lose my agreement when you say that there's something special about your generation in liking him. You might as well learn it now. There's nothing special about your generation. You have better toys than we did, but you're still fallible humans who have the same tendencies for sin and corruption as any previous generation.
Now you sound like Hillary. Shouldn't fill people with false hopes for the future, now should we?
I don't have any data to back this up, but my thought is that independents saw Obama ahead as much as 13 points in the polls, and decided to support McCain since he seemed like he needed more support.
I don't have any data to back this up, but my thought is that independents saw Obama ahead as much as 13 points in the polls, and decided to support McCain since he seemed like he needed more support.
That is not an unlikely event given the state's open primary.
Comments
I donated to the Obama campaign months ago when I heard about his Technology Plan
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/111307 Innovation fact sheet.pdf
(I just googled it now, but I'm almost positive it's the same document)
It's good to know that a candidate is mentioning these issues, and Obama has demonstrated tech-intelligence quite a few times, like he recommended presidential debates be licensed under Creative Commons. Although, I'm just some punk-kid without any real computer training, so it may be a load of bollocks.
And, Rym and Scott, he mentions in the speech that all cabinet members must be computer literate.
I also have to ask in what way you are using the term racist. Racist has not always been a negative term. It used to be a word with a meaning similar to "discrimination" but has been warped to mean negative things.
When I make a purchase I am very discriminating. I do not simply buy something because it is there, I shop around, form an opinion and then make my purchase.
Let me ask you this; Are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the "civil rights" leaders Republicans or Democrats? Do those same people use the issue of race in a positive or negative manner? Where were they when Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court? do you think they would have reacted differently if the first black nominee for the Supreme Court was not a conservative?
Conservatives/Republicans are far more likely to ignore race or not even use it when making a choice. Democrats/liberals are often the first to point out a person's race when they do something.
When Bush was elected Republicans did not run around saying, "look, the first white oil man from Texas has been elected president!!!" Yet, was not Bill Clinton referred to as the "first black president"?
I have found (over the course of my life) that those who make a point of calling attention to race when they do something (what, I hired the black guy, see, I'm not racist) are either scared of the PC people or are the PC people.
If Obama gets the Democratic nomination I will consider voting Democrat for president later this year. He is the only Democrat I would consider voting for. No one on the Republican side excites me at all but, I'd rather have any of the Republican candidates than Hillary in office.
I think a lot of the negative stories coming out about Obama are coming from the Hillary camp. She was expecting a coronation and she got a fight instead.
Obama got a huge amount of votes from the young/new voters. That tells me he is reaching a portion of the electorate that does not normally vote. Even with the potential problems Obama has (new, no executive experience) he is the democrat's best bet. The question is whether or not Hillary is willing to pull a Nixon and throw in the towel to save the party. No, I don't think she will.
Obama looks to me like a capable candidate and if I were an American, he would probably get my vote in October. He is pretty much in line with my thoughts about America. And he is not a white old corporate guy.
Speaking of which, old white corporate guys that is, I also found a revelation today about what a fearmongering hateseeding bastard Rudy G is.
I find it very telling that Fox News is including him in the NH debate but not Ron Paul. It is no secret that Fox News supports Rudy, just as it is no secret that Ron Paul is raising money like no one else and it polling above Rudy in NH as well as getting more votes than Rudy in Iowa.
Then again, Fox News has been going out of there way to either not report on Ron Paul or describe him as a loonie every time they talk about him. Support him or not you don't treat him like that.
The point I was trying to make is that the party (at the time) of civil rights would only support a black person if they were on their side of the fence. The Republicans had long been accused of being racist so a qualified black justice was nominated. Not nominated because he was black but because he was qualified.
Discrimination has not always been a bad word, racism has.
The polls suggest that people think that Hillary is "old-school" and can't be trusted. She's proving them right. It's okay to admit you wanted to do better. Why lie so blatantly by suggesting that Iowa was no problem at all?
She's just not getting it. She's feeding into exactly what people don't like about her. If she doesn't make some changes very quickly, she's history.
What I'm saying is this: if you like Obama, fine. I like him too. His message of hope sometimes gets through even my tough skin of cynicism. But you lose my agreement when you say that there's something special about your generation in liking him. You might as well learn it now. There's nothing special about your generation. You have better toys than we did, but you're still fallible humans who have the same tendencies for sin and corruption as any previous generation.
Looks like it's still wide open. I don't know how she did it, but you have to give Hillary credit. They were already planning her funeral.