<p>
</p>
<p>Some questions just beg not to be dignified by an answer.</p>
<p>Would you vote for Hilary, if she were a man?</p>
<p>^I suggest it’s a fair question. </p>
<p>Would we tolerate someone who was white running for president with ties to an unrepentant radical (despite a multitude of more recent good deeds) and a pastor, such as Reverend Wright, speaking from a white nationalistic viewpoint? </p>
<p>I suspect such a candidate would be sidelined as out-of-the-mainstream in short order. He would be likened to a closeted or at least sympathetic to someone like David Duke url=<a href=“You are being redirected...”>You are being redirected...;
<p>If everything about him is as genuine as I believe it is, I’d vote for him if he was muslim.</p>
<p>wow just wow </p>
<p>“ties” to a 60s radical!!! stop the presses!!! i know 60s radicals…</p>
<p>guess some people don’t believe in people changing and doing good works</p>
<p>I have volunteered at many many places…and I can bet you some did some bad stuff years ago…guess they should bother doing good works because in this country, seems your past is more important than your present</p>
<p>it kind of cute how far people are having to stretch and dig to try and prove Obama is some terroist islamic thug</p>
<p>thats what people do when they have no real evidence, they twist and turn information so that they can justify themselves</p>
<p>seems there are lots of people who can see past the lies…and the liars</p>
<p>Nope! You got me; I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s black. I admit it. If it were Al Sharpton running I’d vote for him, if it were Condie Rice, why, I’d vote twice (she’s a woman AND black!). Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, heck, Janet Jackson (two votes again)! It’s my white guilt, you know? If I vote for a black person for president I can wipe my conscience clean of the transgressions of my race.</p>
<p>What I can’t figure out is why the African American community seems to like him so much. Afterall, they don’t have white guilt.</p>
<p>The Weatherman organization was much more than just dope smoking, good time rockn’ rollers with a fancy for VW vans and girls with flowers in their hair.</p>
<p>Wikipedia says this about them:</p>
<p>*Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a violent U.S. Radical Left group consisting of splintered-off members and leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society which formed on the campus on the University of Michigan in the 1960s. They took their name from a line from the Bob Dylan song ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’ “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” </p>
<p>The group referred to itself as a revolutionary organization of men and women whose purpose was to carry out a series of attacks that would achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States.*</p>
<p>Of course, this is not to suggest Obama had anything to do with this group. But he can clarify that himself.</p>
<p>I’d vote for Condi Rice too, but not because she’s African American. I just like gorgeous women from Stanford.</p>
<p>Knowing Bill, I think it highly unlikely that he would endorse Obama either. Always possible, but unlikely.</p>
<p>Not that it matters anyway. Clinton is already dead and buried. Only McCain backers would care - even if one of his major endorsers calls all Catholics “held in thrall to the Whore of Babylon.”</p>
<p>“Never convicted of same. In fact, never even tried. You do know why, don’t you?” mini</p>
<p>Am I the only one who doesn’t know, or the only one who’d like to know?</p>
<p>“he can clarify that himself.”</p>
<p>Is there anybody in Chicago he doesn’t need to specifically repudiate? Because if he’s “tied” to Ayers, he’s tied to everyone who ever cashed a paycheck in this town.</p>
<p>I’d like to point out that John McCain has been serving in Congress for more than a decade with a known BLACK PANTHER (a.k.a. my congressman). They’re colleagues under the same employer and have been for years! I need to hear from McCain’s own lips that he doesn’t agree that black people should seize power “by any means necessary.”</p>
<p>I think he needs to specifically clarify if he’s a Cubs or White Sox fan. My contacts in Chicago say this is the most important issue in the campaign.</p>
<p>By the way - the Black Panthers apparently considered black nationalism = black racism (see: [Black</a> Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party]Black”>Black Panther Party - Wikipedia) ).</p>
<p>I think they supported A2, too. :)</p>
<p>“By the way - the Black Panthers apparently considered black nationalism = black racism”</p>
<p>and condemned it. Huey Newton came around to the same position on this question as held by Malcolm X.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simba, simba, simba…you should know by now from reading my posts that I will seriously consider voting for anyone who isn’t Billary. I’ve said more than once that I haven’t yet made up my mind who I’ll be voting for in the fall—only who I won’t be voting for;). But go ahead and believe that I would vote for Obama simply because he’s black. Whatever gets you through the night…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“would you vote for that guy, if he was not black?”</p>
<p>I’d vote for him if he were green with pink poker dots and could barely manage an English sentence like our current commander-in-chief if the only other choice was the wife of a mass murderer. On principle, I tend to shy away from such people when voting.</p>
<p>Not that it matters. She’s already toast.</p>
<p>The tone of the discussion is simply amazing. Whether it’s here on the forums; on the different tv networks; or any of the radio station; (I have XM and get both liberal and conservative); the tone is always the same.</p>
<p>If the discussion is about Hillary; both sides argue, debate, discuss, etc… The topic then moves on. If it’s about McCain; pretty much it’s the same thing. Argue, debate, discuss, etc… However; whenever it’s about Obama, it changes quickly. Instead of 2 sides debating, arguing, discussing, etc…; you have 1 side “trying” and the other side whining that Obama is being picked on; that the topic needs to be dropped; that it’s a conspiracy; basically it all excuses. No arguing the points. No debating facts. No discussing. Just excuses. That whatever it is; “Doesn’t or shouldn’t matter”. That it’s all off topic. That the American people love Obama and these are just the few haters.</p>
<p>The fact is; Obama has pretty much had a free ride since declaring his nomination. Until the Reverend Wright episode, no one said anything good or bad about Obama. Partly because they were afraid they would be accused of being racist. Mainly because Obama hasn’t done anything with his life to be able to question. It’s hard to debate a person’s record when they don’t have one. It’s difficult to talk about what they can do for America when his greatest achievement was the Harvard Law Review. “Like most Americans even care about that”.</p>
<p>Now; things about his past come up, and they’re being talked about. Unfortunately, Obama’s fan base; internet, tv, and radio don’t have any way to argue a position. Mainly because Obama rarely takes a position on anything. As such, all the fan base can do is rationalize excuses or accuse anyone who brings up questions, of being a basher. The truth is; you can get away with this now, but if Obama wins the democratic primary and has to go head to head with McCain, he better have some answers. All of these, and new topics, are going to come up. They have to be and they should be. He is running for president of the United States. He NO LONGER has a personal life. “Contrary to how many think Bill Clinton’s indiscretion during his presidency was personal.” Sorry, but when you are the president, you are MY EMPLOYEE. Just like the military is on the clock 24/7, so is the president. Sorry, s/he doesn’t have a personal life. If they want one, then they shouldn’t be running for public office. Anyway; Obama better be able to come up with some answers. The American people during the general election will be getting a lot more critical. His side stepping and dodging ever confrontation will not work.</p>
<p>When I first started getting into the primaries, I thought I’d be happy with either Obama, Richardson, McCain or Romney. I figured, any combination and a win, and I could live with it. Two of them are out, but I can honestly say that unless Obama shows some integrity and conviction, should he win the primaries, I have given up on him. There’s pros and cons with both McCain and Hillary; but Obama is nothing but a Con. People are going to question candidates. They need to take a position. No, you’re not going to please everyone. Obama is trying so hard to sit on the middle of the fence. That totally sends me over the top. “Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way”. Every time someone questions something about him, he comes back with the typical political spew. And his fans have nothing but excuses for him and tries putting the blame back on the accusers. See, I have no problem saying that McCain “current” position on illegal immigration is pure garbage. I have no problem saying that Clinton has some integrity issues. But God forbid if you can find an Obama fan that will admit that he’s got issues. No, nothing he does is ever wrong. That’s partially true. He really hasn’t done anything in his entire life, worthy of the presidency, so it’s difficult to have done anything really that wrong or bad. Boy is this going to be an election or what. May God have mercy on us. We’re going to need it.</p>
<p>Christcorp - what I don’t get is people who whine and complain that Obama doesn’t stand up for anything; have you been to his website? If you have, then you know where he stands on issues, but since you insist he is nothing but a con, then you must not have read past the first page. </p>
<p>I saw Obama speak last night in South Bend, and he did talk about the issues. He talked about his plan to get us out of Iraq; he talked about how he would make college more affordable for families; he talked about getting rid of the No Child Left Behind law; he spoke to our dependency on oil and our failing economy. But I didn’t necessarily need to hear this, because I’ve visited his website and knew how he felt about these issues before last night.</p>
<p>People who whine about Obama getting a pass usually do not understand the concept of consensus building leadership, of which he has spoken of. He has admitted publicly that he doesn’t have the answer to everything, but he does know how to bring people together to come up with answers. And since he doesn’t have to worry about appeasing the lobbyists and PACs, he’s more likely than those who do take money from them to find solutions to our problems. Consensus building allows people to assess information from different resources, then come up with a plan. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest iota that he appears to sit on the middle of the fence, because that’s where I want him to be when he gathers his experts to create solutions. Another name for the kind of leadership he engages in is servant leadership. For those who have not worked under or with these kinds of leadership models, or who don’t value it, you will never accept Obama. </p>
<p>
. I think you’re mistaking him with Dubya. Look again. It’s about leadership, and leadership skills are something that can be learned in many different arenas and transferred to different contexts which is Obama’s greatest strength. </p>
<p>People in this election tend to lean toward a candidate for their leadership style. Sorry you don’t like his. Maybe you will learn to appreciate it once he’s sitting in the White House.</p>
<p>thanks for your post #2, mini. Spot on.</p>
<p>(Give it a rest indeed.)</p>
<p>Obsession maybe?</p>
<p>Sorry, but I’ve read through his website in it’s entirety too many times. I’ve even quoted a lot of it right here. Sorry, but he just doesn’t have what it takes in my opinion.</p>
<p>I do agree 100% that the presidency is all about leadership. His job would be to lead. Especially leading both sides of congress and both sides of the isle to work together. That is where the real change will come from. The president doesn’t make laws; doesn’t put people on the supreme court; doesn’t fund the military actions and other budgets; etc… that is all done in the congress. The presidency is all about leadership.</p>
<p>He says he can lead. He says he can bring people together. He says a lot of things. So what. A lot of people say a lot of things. It doesn’t mean they can do any of it. I don’t see anything from his very short resume that convinces me that he can lead; let alone an entire nation. I don’t see anything from his past that tells be he can do anything about lowering th cost of education. (Especially when it’s cheaper to go to school today than it was 30 years ago.) I don’t see anything to convince me that he can change our dependency on oil. (Neither he or the oil companies control the price of oil. That’s done by commodity brokers). I don’t see anything in his life history that shows me that he can do much of anything. And I don’t see anything that he’s done to convince me he can “Fix” our economy. An economy that has been constantly improving for the last 6 years. (Forget the fact that economies go through cycles of close to 7 years, but most people somehow think the president can control the economy). </p>
<p>I will give him credit that he is a wonderful speaker. And when you combine that with a group of people; (American Voters); who are naive on economics, politics, foreign affairs; etc… and is desperate for change; even if that change may not be good; and yes, he can most definitely convince a lot of people that he CAN do a lot of things. Even though he has nothing to back it up with.</p>
<p>Yes, the presidency is all about leadership. I will be the first to admit that Bush was not that great of a leader. He had good moments and bad ones. Just like clinton, bush, and regan before him. I never give the president that much credit for the “State of the Union” nor do I give them that much of the blame. I don’t do it with Bush and I didn’t do it for Clinton and those before them. I know how the government works in reality and how it’s suppose to work. The president doesn’t have as much power as people want to attribute. The president has a lot of influence. That is part of leadership. Most past presidents have been governors and other government positions where such leadership is demonstrated. Bush, clinton, bush, regan, carter, etc… all had resumes backing up a lot of what they were saying. Maybe you didn’t like all of them or what they had, but that’s different issue. The worst part of this election is that you have left 3 senators. In all of government, at any level, they have the least amount of leadership experience of anyone. Yet, they are buying for the job that requires the most leadership. I criticize Clinton and McCain for the same thing. It’s just that I believe both of them have more leadership experience and more practical experience than Obama has.</p>
<p>I hire people all the time for jobs. I do a lot of job interviews. People tell me all the time all the great things they’ve done and what they can do for me. But unless I can verify it in their resume or from another source, it means nothing to me. Obama is applying for a job. We are deciding whether to hire him or not. And I’m telling you that he does a great interview, but doesn’t have much to back up his claims of what he can do. Much of what he claims he WILL DO FOR THE COUNTRY; he has absolutely no control over whatsoever. Some things he claims he can do, all he can actually do is try and get congress to see it his way and make certain things happen. He can’t actually do it. The problem is, the average voter believes that as president he can. They also are voting AGAINST Bush, so many are willing to take a risk on Obama’s “CHANGE”. All that “WE CAN” and “CHANGE” stuff sounds great, but what is realistic. Raising everyone’s taxes is change, but that doesn’t make it right. </p>
<p>I don’t want to live in a socialist or Marxist society. I DON’T believe in taking away from people and giving to others. People say they have all these rights. They don’t. You don’t have the RIGHT to a money, a house, healthcare, etc… You have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Pursuit means that you have the right to go out there and legally acquire it. Having the right to something itself means that is should be GIVEN to you. No one should GIVE you healthcare, or GIVE you a house, or GIVE you wealth, etc… They, the government, should only GIVE YOU the opportunity to be able to acquire it. So yes, I am against universal healthcare and many other social programs. I don’t believe in redistribution of wealth. No one should have taken away from them, that which was legally acquired, and GIVEN to someone else.</p>
<p>Sorry, but all Obama is, is talk. I can read his website all I want and you can go to his speeches all you want; but there isn’t anything in any of that that shows that he is capable of doing anything he says. He doesn’t have anything to back up his words. And the more people talk about irrelevant things like Harvard Law Review, makes his case that much weaker. Sorry, but when you major accomplishments in life were when you were in college, that’s pretty sad. I don’t see too many college grads walking out the door and starting a job at $100,000 a year. That’s something you work up to. There’s no difference here. His greatest accomplishments were in college. So now we want him as the leader of the most powerful and influential country on the planet. Oh yea, that’s a really smart move.</p>
<p>Nice analysis, Christcorp. :)</p>