<p>mythmom: I hear you, esp about the religion bit. But Obama’s religion seems to be tolerant and inclusive while the right wing is not.</p>
<p>ctmom: Jesse Jackson has endorsed a lot of white candidates in many elections, who have then tried to leverage that endorsement with the black voters. Obama needs to sell himself to the black community just as Huckabee does.</p>
<p>I live in NY where Hillary moved to establish residency so she could become a US Senator - She had not held a political office before leaping into the fray in a state where she had never lived to run for a position much higher than most people would consider based on her level of experience at the time ( she hadnever held an elected office). How strange it is that she is calling Obama on his lack of experience. Sure, she was married to the President - but if I am married to a doctor, does that make me more qualified to perform surgery than someone who is not?</p>
<p>The statistics:</p>
<p>Clinton – six years in the United States Senate
Edwards – six years in the United States Senate
Obama – seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate</p>
<p>I don’t think that Clinton’s experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate trumps Obama’s seven years as a state legislator. Yes, she was inside the White House while her husband was - Just like Bush was inside the White House while his father was. And I think it’s sad that this is what passes for a qualification to “lead.”
Also, there are black leaders who still support Hillary (Rangel is one), but to say it hurts Obama because some black leaders support his candidacy is disturbing. Heck, I heard Colin Powell say how excited he was by Obama - As for me, Obama is the first candidate in a long time who has inspired me to action. I find this thread really deflating, but I am reading it as a way to accept that probably we will be stuck with either Hillary or a Republican aka the status quo yet again.</p>
<p>Chariots of Fire, one of my top favorite movies, contains the following line excerpt, “…at least not for the damn national pride.”</p>
<p>Chauvinism offends me. It oversimplifies for ego needs.</p>
<p>Generous? We’re responsible for our fair share of global warming. Our oil usage is outrageous. </p>
<p>I would prefer to see a formulation such as greedy/generous.</p>
<p>Oops. My husband is about to kill me. We need to make a 9 am ferry to go to Williamstown to visit the son. I am on break and he is on winter study. </p>
<p>Later, friends.</p>
<p>babar,
I think you summarized the feeling of many people in post #82. Good job.</p>
<p>I never ever understand how Clinton could randomly move to NY and declare residency when she never lived there! It was a clearly masterful chess move on her part, in her quest for the Presidency. Many think she could care less about the folks in NY. (My family was originally from there. I was born in Brooklyn… )</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Babar here. The main shortcoming of Obama seems to be that he’s not 14 years older. It would be very odd indeed if HRC had not managed to do something in the 14 years that separate her from Obama. She did a lot on her own that is very valuable, but often, she seems to claim credit for her husband’s achievements. Although I voted twice for Bill, I don’t want him and his bimbos back in the WH; I don’t want another Travelgate. I thought that the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was introduced too soon its premature introduction has actually harmed gays ever since. Instead of opening the door to more liberal policies, it closed the door on them by failing to mobilize support for liberalization and mobilizing those against it.<br>
I also seem to recall that her ill-fated health care reform proposal suffered from too many details rather than not enough. Again, had she adopted a more bi-partisan approach instead of working in total secrecy, we would have better health care now, nearly 15 years on.</p>
<p>As a MA resident and a liberal, I also, despite my desire for universal health care, prefer the non-mandated route. Older S spent some time being unemployed. If he had not found a job, either he could not have paid for his health insurance, or he would have been insured at greater cost to the taxpayers. Right now, the costs of the insurance plan have already exceeded projections and will continue to do so. </p>
<p>I am not religious but I am not uncomfortable with Obama’s religiosity. He does not seek to impose it on me or anybody else; he respects others’ faiths and beliefs without abandoning his own. The way he dealt with an anti-abortion heckler at one of his rallies was respectful and disarming. Contrast his religiosity with that of Huckabee, who’s not only got religion tout court, but also about whatever pet cause strikes his fancy. After losing weight, he’s been trying to compel restaurants to disclose the nutritional value of the meals they serve. As someone commented, he’s a big government Republican. Obama is actually more conservative than that. Time and again, he has reminded his listeners that the government cannot do everything, solve all problems; individuals, families, and communities must do their part. </p>
<p>As I survey the field of candidates, the two who have earned my respect are Obama and McCain. I also like Richardson, but he does not have the ability to inspire–which I think is important in a leader. Obviously, others agreed: he’s just dropped out of the race.</p>
<p>I feel a strange affection building for McCain . . .</p>
<p>Did anyone read the interesting analysis of New Hampshire democratic voters in the NY Times this morning. I had to read fast but the gist seemed to be that low income and Catholic democrats vote for Hillary. High income democrats vote for Obama.</p>
<p>Yeah marite, it is the same with me, Obama and McCain are my top choices, except I’m willing to go with Hillary too. </p>
<p>Sure, she is a politician and a good one. </p>
<p>Sure, she had no roots in NY and now she represents them. But it is dead wrong to say that she doesn’t work for her constituents. She has made a huge effort to get to know and connect with the rural upstate New York folk. They have told her, and she has heard them, that supporting the military is extremely important to them. This is one of the big reasons why she has supported the military. She is genuinely working on behalf of her constituents. ALL her constituents. This is why she won reelection by a landslide. Because she has earned the respect and approval of her constituents. </p>
<p>Most of the Hillary haters are people who made up their minds years ago and will never see how she has changed and grown over the years. In fact the only new Hillary-haters are the leftists who feel that she has betrayed them. Perhaps they are correct in that assessment. She has evolved to a more centrist, pragmatist leader. </p>
<p>NY is not all Democratic. There was a Republican governor for years. The City hasn’t elected a democrat in over a decade. It is tough to win elections in New York. Hillary is tough. She would make a strong leader. What is more, her record shows that she is willing to work with all sides, compromise, and get the job done. </p>
<p>I can’t believe I’m writing all this in defense of Hillary, when I don’t even like her all that much. But Hillary gets beaten up too much by the anti-Hillary gang and I think that is unfair. I for one am happy that my third (and fourth and fifth and sixth) choice candidates are infinitely better than what we have in the White House today. Jan 2009 couldn’t come sooner, as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who some feel is somewhat radical in his beliefs and speaks more about racial divisiveness than racial unity has been declared/identified as Obama’s spiritual adviser — much of what he says are a direct influence of Wright’s view, he has received much criticism for some question whether his messages of spiritual inclusion and tolerance have remained consistent. Obama regularly attends his sermons and has been going to his church for years…In addition, after Wright made some controversial remarks, and was shortly thereafter scheduled to speak at Obama rally, Obama quickly canceled or said he changed his mind, good move don’t you think. They said Wright was “media shy” SINCE WHEN? Obama then looked to somewhat disassociate himself from Wright or keep a low profile when his comments aired and became public knowledge. Wright says his theology has been grossly misunderstood. I am not sure. Below are some of the comments he has made that have raised some eyebrows:</p>
<p>“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college.</p>
<p>"Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.</p>
<p>"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.</p>
<p>These are racially DIVISIVE NOT UNITING WORDS…and this is someone who Obama declares is his “spiritual leader.”
Many criticize that Wright’s preaching does promote a sort of racial exclusivity so this kind of association has me a bit worried about this man in the public arena who I think is flip flopping on religion amongst other subjects.
Stay tuned…I have a feeling we will be hearing much more…</p>
<p>Fact number 1: I think it’s correct. And Obama has preached about the responsibility of individuals, families, and communities to change that.</p>
<p>Fact number 2: Racism is how this country was founded. European immigrants decimated the Native Americans; slavery was not abolished until after the Civil War. Racism still exists.</p>
<p>Fact number 3: There is a lot of hyperbole there, but the statement is not completely wrong.</p>
<p>I was thinking those statements are pretty much true too.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>Notice the huge difference between:</p>
<p>“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”</p>
<p>and your statement:</p>
<p>“Racism still exists.”</p>
<p>No one would dispute your statement, but Wright’s statement is clearly divisive (and wrong).</p>
<p>[Kerry</a> to endorse Obama - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/kerry_to_endors.html]Kerry”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/kerry_to_endors.html)</p>
<p>Hopefully this is not the kiss of death for Obama. :eek:</p>
<p>Kerry did nothing to help Edwards, his V.P running mate.</p>
<p>I found that interesting, I guess he blames Edwards for 04. What I find interesting is that the media was all about him not endorsing Hillary</p>
<p>ctmomof3 said: “Furthermore, I feel his uniting with Oprah, Jesse Jackson and other prominent African Americans sent a message, and frankly I don’t think it was an effective message not as effective as it would have been had he teamed up with an equally prominent person outside the political arena, why did Jessie Jackson endorse him…because he is black is my answer. Why did Oprah endorse him and abandon Hilary who she long supported, because he is black is my answer.”</p>
<p>Where to even begin…</p>
<p>Using your logic, any prominent white figure who promotes a white candidate in this election must be doing so because that candidate is white, not because they agree with that candidate on the issues, and believe in his/her electability. Yeah, I see how you can equate Oprah with Jesse Jackson. I guess being black is the only criterion necessary to make them interchangeable. Funny how American hasn’t caught onto that though, given its widespread love for Ms. O and rampant disdain for The Rev. </p>
<p>How is it that Oprah is now “someone within the political arena”? Because she is Obama’s most visibly outspoken supporter and financial backer? If so, ANY prominent entertainment figure who lends such support to their favorite candidate would be “within the political arena”. As to why Oprah “abandoned Hillary” to support Obama—heck, I don’t know. Why did that powerful WHITE Hollywood couple (whose name somehow escapes me) suddenly do the same thing many months ago? They had been about as cozy with Bill and Hill as anyone could imagine, having spent countless evenings at White House Soirees, followed by overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom. But just before jumping ship for the SS Obama, they said something pretty scathing about the former first couple—something about the Clintons being pathological liars, without a single bone of personal integrity—something like that. Hey, here’s a thought: Maybe they’re not really white. Maybe they’re secretly black (one drop being all it takes), thereby making their support of Obama virtually mandatory. That would be your explanation, wouldn’t it? Holy cow! Somebody had better tell Charlie Rangel and other black Hillary supporters across America. Guess I’d best trade in my Edwards button for an Obama one as well…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I must admit this is a little frightening…I hate to admit this, but reading through the thread I think we will be more divided because of Obama. We are already divided over political parties and now we might be divided over race…my solution…stop saying he is the black candidate…should we call Edwards the white candidate and Hillary the white woman candidate? </p>
<p>Support him, don’t support him, but everyone needs to defend his policies, not his genetic pigmentation.</p>
<p>Many yrs ago Colin Powell was a republican hopeful, he did an interview with 60 Minutes and stated that he felt his skin color would be used for different reasons, he also stated the reason he did not run was that fear his family and indeed himself would be at a higher risk (assasination sp?) thus the country would be at risk for losing a leader and did not want to do that to the nation…I admire him for his honesty…I am not saying Obama should not run b/c of kooks out there…I am just saying that the sad fact is racism exists and until we stop defining anyone and everyone by their skin color and not by their character we will face it everyday</p>
<p>The NYT went to Harlem to test the Hillary v. Obama situation there. Bill Clinton set up his post presidential operation there (after tax payers complaining about the ritzy space he wanted in prime NYC) and is well liked there. What was interesting to me about their interviews is that black’s don’t think a black man can win. They also think a women is going to have a hard time.</p>
<p>I agree with them, probably because I’m a brown skinned person who has traveled this Country extensively and I have felt the racism.</p>
<p>Bullet, there is no way the world is not going to focus on the fact that Obama is a black man running for president or that Hillary would be America’s first women.</p>
<p>I agree that we should not support a candidate because of his pigmentation, and Obama has not made his race the basis of his appeal. What I have liked about him is his calls to end divisiveness, his experience working with people who were originally opposed to his ideas as in the case of videotaping police evidence and bringing the police and DAs over to his point of view, his refusal to demonize anti-abortion activists when some in his audience were ready to do so, etc…
If we are afraid that his race will divide us, when will we stop being afraid?</p>
<p>Let’s not forget that Obama is as white as he is black. Perhaps that is why he resists to wholly represent one race over the other.</p>
<p>"Sure, she had no roots in NY and now she represents them. But it is dead wrong to say that she doesn’t work for her constituents. She has made a huge effort to get to know and connect with the rural upstate New York folk. "</p>
<p>I loathe, detest, despise and revile Hillary Clinton, but there is absolutely no question, despite her lack of qualifications and questionable motives, that she has been a hardworking and engaged senator in my state.</p>
<p>He is also not strictly speaking an African-American in that his black parent was Kenyan, not American and thus not descended from slaves. I think this is actually very key in looking at Obama. Perhaps he seems free of some of the anger because his heritage really does not include some of the suffering that has afflicted American blacks. He’s certainly fascinating. I need to read his book but I just find the title so annoying for some reason. . .</p>