<br>
<br>
<p>She has explained that, living in Chicago, she knows him and his work there well and is able to endorse him with confidence. I buy that argument. It’s a better one than, say, Barbra Streisand endorsing Hillary or Chuck Norris endorsing Huckabee. I also understand that Oprah’s influence is not limited to African-Americans.</p>
<p>I don’t know that Oprah has ever backed a politician before. Has she? I daresay that if Obama were a white man who had done the same work in Chicago-- was essentially the same person, just white-- she would not be publicly backing him. Oprah’s “influence” was not my point in my last post; no doubt she has great influence. Rather, my point was why she was now publicly backing a politician for the first time (correct me if I’m wrong here), and I think the color of Obama’s skin has a lot to do with that. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but I am responding to your earlier statement that race was not a factor in his appeal. (He doesn’t have to actively make it a factor-- it goes without saying.)</p>
<p>Chuck Norris is incredibly right-wing and conservative; hence, he’s supporting Huckabee. I don’t know anything about Barbara, except I walked by her once in NYC about 10 years ago, and she was drop-dead gorgeous. No one was more surprised than I. :)</p>
<p>janie:</p>
<p>Check out the NH debate tapes. She clearly linked “change” with electing a woman – smart politics, since it worked well.</p>
<p>The Democrats should themselves in the foot all the time, dividing their supporters and leaving the field the the Republicans.</p>
<p>We have such serious civil liberties issues on the table; I think that should be our focus, not personalities.</p>
<p>Oprah claims that Obama is the first political figure she has endorsed. I don’t follow her career, have watched her show only once but I have no reason to disbelieve her.I suspect that being African-American herself is one reason she has worked closely with Obama. Just as Daley, being mayor, has also had opportunity to work closely with Obama. He endorsed Obama a year ago. Maybe Daley’s skin color was a factor? Or could it be that familiarity bred respect in both his and Oprah’s case? Should African-Americans refrain from endorsing an African-American candidate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. I am merely responding to your comment that race is not a factor in his appeal (or, rather, he hasn’t made it a factor). Again, he doesn’t have to <em>actively</em> make it a factor. Yes, I think there are people that will vote for him solely because of his race. That, in itself, is an amazing and positive symbol of change in and for this country. I think there will be a lot of people who will vote for Hillary, because she’s a woman, and because that’s also an amazing symbol of change in and for this country. (She also doesn’t have to actively use her gender for appeal-- it’s there for all to see.) I would have never believed that either one of them would have gotten this far, even in 2008. That they have is a good thing-- as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>I have no problem believing that Obama will be a great improvement over what we have experienced the last 7 years. (Then again, almost anybody would be.) That said, he needs to get serious and talk about the issues, in detail. Enough already with the evangelical rhetoric and soundbites about “change” and “hope.” </p>
<p>mythmom: I completely agree with your post above. The best Democratic candidate, who is focused on the issues, and who has actually been talking about change for much longer than Obama, is Edwards. He still has my vote. When/if he drops out, I’ll be voting for Hillary. If Bill were running, I’d be voting for him, too. Until Obama finally begins to talk, in detail, about his plans, he’s just another evangelical preacher-type to me (and not nearly as impressive as Joel Osteen). ;)</p>
<p>No, they shouldn’t. But the left has a history of balkanization. It’s disturbing to see any progressive (if we can even call it that) splinter, just as Nader syphoned off votes and support.</p>
<p>Yes, primary time is the time to fight for particular candidates and endorse them. However, this should be done with a lighter hand and the knowledge that come November there will be a united front.</p>
<p>Obama and Hillary attacking each other makes me feel like Mercutio, “A plague on both their houses.”</p>
<p>One of the most unpleasant academic meetings I’ve attended was a kick-off meeting to start a Jewish Studies Department. Many of the attendees were from African-American Studies. When a shouting match ensued about who had suffered more, Jews or blacks, I left and have not been back.</p>
<p>Obama uses a rhetoric associated with religion and seems self-righteous and disingenuous.</p>
<p>Clinton uses a rhetoric associated with politics and seems calculating and disingenuous.</p>
<p>I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.</p>
<p>When I met Clinton she was personable and charming, but she can’t seem to bring these qualities to her public life.</p>
<p>And my friend just emailed me saying he’d like to see Obama’s wife in politics. I could say the same for Elizabeth Edwards if her health allowed it. She also seems the real deal.</p>
<p>janieblue: And I agree with you. And I have no problems with Edwards either, but it is obviously not his year. He doesn’t have the momentum.</p>
<p>Heck, I really wanted Gore to get back in, but again, that would seriously disrupt the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>If we could have the Romney that was governor of Massachusetts it would be one thing. Good for health care, terrible for public schools, fairly middle of the road to liberal or at least laissez-faire on social issues. But the new Romney has no redeeming features at all as far as I can tell, except his presidential good looks.</p>
<p>mythmom: Yes, again. ^</p>
<p>I think both Elizabeth and John Edwards are the real deal. We need somebody down here to run a senate campaign against Liddy Dole. Someone on one of these political news stations suggested Elizabeth Edwards. She’d be incredible, if her health allowed it. </p>
<p>They really are the real deal, though (John and Elizabeth). People may not agree with Edwards’ stance or approach on the issues, but he knows what they are, and he has viable, detailed plans to deal with them. I appreciate, too, that he has not pandered to the special interest groups, refusing to take their money. That has definitely hurt him, but he sure walked the walk on that one. Can’t say the same for either Obama or Hillary. Again, they both have taking so much money from the health care industry, in particular, for their campaigns (she’s #1, he’s #2 in financial support they’ve received), don’t expect a big overhaul of health care in this country from either of them. That will be next to impossible, given the support they’ve each received.</p>
<p>And, yes, I wanted Gore back too. Is it too late for him to enter now? ;)</p>
<p>I don’t expect candidates at rallies to discuss their detailed plans for fixing things. Even in debates, all you can get is soundbites. But Obama <em>has</em> issued details about his stance on specific issues. He has embodied what he says he is about.<br>
He is religious, I’m not. I am not uncomfortable with his religiosity. I also appreciate he keeps on having to reiterate he is Christian because of charges that he is not just a Muslim, which is false, but even an Islamo-fascist. But, as I’ve said before, I do not feel that he will impose his religion or his religiously-derived beliefs on me or on other Americans.I would suggest watching his debate with Alan Keyes on Youtube over gay marriage; or his encounter with the anti-abortion activist. These say to me that, if he were president, he would support certain kinds of laws and policies and not others.</p>
<p>What bothers me about Hillary is not her lack of warmth, at least in public. I gather she is far more personable in private. But I am not nostalgic for the 1990s. I remember Travelgate; I remember the fiasco over the Health Care reform; I remember that Bill lied and lied, and Hillary backed him up. His lies over Monica accomplished two things: it made Democrats mad about the impeachment and caused many to forget his previous sins; and it made others vote for his seeming opposite, GW. Sorry, I do not wax nostalgic and I do not care for dynastic succession. Hillary cannot bait Obama by saying that a candidate for the presidency must be able to stand alone; that a president has to stand alone and at the same time claiming that with her, Americans will get two for one. Which is it?</p>
<p>I want Gore back only if I have a fit of insomnia and need someone to put me to sleep fast. I agree with him on a great deal, but he is also pompous, sanctimonious and self-aggrandizing.</p>
<p>I just heard Jay Leno announce that Obama’s campaign suffered a setback today in SC . . . he was endorsed by John Kerry. :)</p>
<p>We were just saying at dinner, I bet John Edwards is thanking his lucky stars Kerry didn’t endorse him. He sure dodged a bullet there. ;)</p>
<p>I read that the Kerry endorsement may not be of much help, if at all; but the Kerry information about voters, supporters, etc…, is extremely valuable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? Why do you base your support on personality? Shouldn’t your agreement on the ISSUES take precedence over your personal dislike of his personality?</p>
<p>That’s about on the same level as supporting Obama because he’s black or has a nice smile, or Edwards because you like his hair, or disliking Thompson because he’s old and gruff, or whatever.</p>
<p>But the issues on which I agree are shared by others without the self-aggrandizing, etc… And, I have said before, being able to inspire is important. Gore can inspire others. He puts me to sleep. Too bad you don’t find that a good enough reason for preferring someone else.</p>
<p>And please, please, please. Where do I come across as supporting Obama because of his skin color or his smile? Let’s not go there, please.</p>
<p>EDIT: I’ve posted enough about Obama. Time to get out of this thread.</p>
<p>If you read my post carefully, you will see that I never said you supported Obama for those reasons, or that you supported him at all. It was simply a comparison.</p>
<p>I did read it carefully and I think the comparison is inappropriate and frankly, rather offensive.</p>
<p>Does anyone else feel that neither party represents their interests? Most people I know basically agree that the liberals are mostly right on social issues, and the conservatives fiscally. If we had a third party right down the middle (or no parties), maybe we would have candidates who really represented our interests. Aren’t we all along the same continuum?</p>
<p>I got hope!</p>
<p>And yes, I do agree with the above poster. I’m very liberal on most social issues yet when it comes to economic policy/death penalty/general laws, I get very conservative/libertarian depending on the instance.</p>
<p>I have no regard for parties. I vote for the individual, regardless of party.</p>