<p>Yeah, that Senator thing Obama’s been doing is completely meaningless; Harvard Law Review definitely trumps that.</p>
<p>simba posted:
</p>
<p>And I have to say that my reaction to this was: Wow. Projection. This is someone who votes for the white candidate because the candidate is white, so naturally assumes those who vote for a black candidate must do so solely because of the candidate’s race.</p>
<p>So simba, I have to ask: are you a racist? Is that why you have started this series of ridiculous threads about Obama – because he’s black and you just don’t want a black president?</p>
<p>And how many people will vote for his opponent because of gender? :o</p>
<p>I don’t know, 1sokkermom. Would you? I would not.</p>
<p>Owlice; you are correct that in Obama’s case; “that senator thing” he’s been doing is pretty much meaningless. For all intent and purpose, he’s only been a US Senator for about a year and a half. It is then that he decided to run for president. Even when he was senator, he voted present on more issues than is worth counting. His 8 years in the State senate wasn’t all that much better.</p>
<p>But that’s OK. I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t vote for him if you think that he has more than enough experience in things that matter to be the next president. If you’re happy with him, then go for it. I’m just telling you why for me he appears to be all talk. He’s never really worked in the private sector; with the exception of a couple of years as a civil rights lawyer. He doesn’t have any real significant bills or initiatives that he is the author of. It’s pretty much all talk.</p>
<p>I won’t even debate comparing Clinton and McCain to Obama in these areas. I’ve already said that they aren’t that much better. But the fact remains that they are better. Albeit a little. But their experience in government and private business definitely has something tangible to back up much of their talk.</p>
<p>Then again, maybe that’s the type of “Change” that some voters want. Maybe they want someone that is totally inexperienced and idealistic. Maybe they are voting AGAINST things so badly that they will take whatever he has to offer. That’s cool. But if you take aways their speeches and compare their resumes on their experiences, PROVEN position on issues, etc… you’ll see that Obama’s resume is quite weak. You might think that you know his position on everything, because HE TOLD YOU SO. Sorry, but that doesn’t mean anything. I look at his voting record. I look at the bills he authored. I look at what he did in the private sector. I look at his personal and social life. I look at his family. etc… That is how you can tell, to an extent, a person’s position on certain things. I use this same method when grading McCain and Clinton.</p>
<p>But even if i did decide to believe Obama 100% on his dreams and plans, much of what he is talking about he doesn’t control and can’t change. What he can do is lead sectors of the government and private sector, and try and persuade them to go in a certain direction. I don’t think Obama has earned the respect or integrity to lead as necessary.</p>
<p>owlice,
Must be a rhetorical question right? ;)</p>
<p>(I would absolutely not vote for Obama based on race, or for his opponent based on gender! However, there are many “middle aged and older” women who see Obama’s opponent as a validation of the feminist movement and will vote for her because of that. :rolleyes: )</p>
<p>"“that senator thing” he’s been doing is pretty much meaningless. "</p>
<p>lol. Let me know when you get to Congress, Christcorp!</p>
<p>1sokkermom, yes, a rhetorical question! Maybe the “middle aged and older” women who see Obama’s opponent as a validation of the feminist movement who will vote for her because of that see her as representing their voices and positions. I have to wonder if any of those women would vote for another woman, say, Condi Rice, were she to run. Whaddya think?</p>
<p>I don’t see Obama as a black man. </p>
<p>Genetically he is 50-50. Environmentally it appears that he was raised white and he only connected with his ‘black’ side after becoming an adult, and even more so after marrying a black woman.</p>
<p>vicarious, you’re going to absolutely ruin simba’s day!</p>
<p>Is it time to talk about our cats/dogs/iguanas/gerbils yet? One of my little furries (cat) walks into the house purring and continues to purr while he eats; TOOO cute!</p>
<p>Post 46 needs to be repeated. </p>
<p>The support for Obama, among blacks, is unique in my recollection (vs. support for other black presidential candidates & suggestions for candidates). It is not based on his representing a class, group, race, movement per se. I’m basing this view on cumulative opinions registered on talk shows, blogs, and the like. Those voiced opinions are based on the perception of his qualifications vs. Rice, Powell, Jackson, IN THE CONTEXT OF OBAMA’S OUTLOOK AS A UNIFIER (of races, groups, parties). They have not expressed interest in voting for an opposition ethnic movement or ‘righting’ past wrongs. They did not vote for Jackson, would not have voted for a Rice, and more reluctantly would not have voted for a Powell. There is not a sense of entitlement, that I have picked up anyway, along the lines of ‘their time has come,’ or their vote being primarily symbolic in its motivation. Naturally, however, they are often moved to tears about the fact that incidentally this is historic to them. They did not get behind other black candidates because other black candidates they did not perceive as ready to lead a country, and in a way that represented the whole country, not merely a regional, racial, or gender segment.</p>
<p>Proportionally speaking, I see/hear much fewer Hillary supporters with a similar viewpoint. Occasionally I hear from a female who seems to genuinely believe HC is “better qualified” (more often only in specific areas, not necessarily broadly or comprehensively), and is also thrilled for a similar historic voting opportunity. But much more often I hear about ‘our time has come,’ and “I remember the time when I/most women were discriminated against/sexually harrassed/denied promotion” [etc., fill in the blank].</p>
<p>I’m female. Just as there probably isn’t a black alive who hasn’t experienced discrimination, so too, from my age group there isn’t a female alive who hasn’t experienced discrimination in the workplace, including but not limited to sexual harrassment, glass ceilings, outright pay disparities, yadayada. I’ve had it all. Today I could have sued big time for what I experienced, and would have won handily. I would consider a pro-HC vote motivated by that reason alone, an extremely selfish vote. It’s outstounding to me how many women voice such motivations in their support of HC, literally: “I’m voting for her because of what I experienced in 1977, and incidentally I think other women have a duty to vote for her because of what they also experienced, and how dare they not? How dare they prevent one more woman from achieving her goal by not voting for HC? They have betrayed the women’s movement.” </p>
<p>^^So you’re basing your Presidenial vote on sexual politics of the past. Terrific. </p>
<p>I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Anita Hill, and I could have been sitting in her seat that week during the Senate Judiciary hearings, as could about 400 women I know. But if she were running for president, she damn well would have to prove her superiority to me, as a leader of the whole country, for the causes, plural, of the whole country, vs. anyone else running from either major party.</p>
<p>There’s a woman right now who, with a little more experience, might present difficulties for me, were she to be running against Obama. A righteous House representative taking over the seat of a recently deceased rep. Stepped up to the plate the first day she arrived in Congress. Now there’s a leader; doesn’t play it safe; represents more than “the woman’s cause.” I don’t hear anyone talking about her as 'a representative of the woman’s movement." Lots and lots of men support her & adore her. Unlike HC, she has never positioned herself, either, as representing a movement or her gender. That’s not what moves her to participate in civil service.</p>
<p>I understand that a lot of people find black men threatening, but come on! Obama is just not that threatening.
As for Obama being a “con,” I’ve mentioned before that my mother thinks he’s a Muslim sleeper agent, and that if he wins the Saudis will be running America. I told her that in my opinion, the Saudis would probably do a better job than the guy that’s running it now.</p>
<p>Epiphany–there was a column saying exactly what you are talking about in our local paper–I think reprinted from elsewhere. Full of women being quoted to say that they see themselves in Hillary, and will vote for her as a symbol of what they’ve experienced. the point of the column was to bemoan any woman who was not following that path.</p>
<p>I was unbelievably insulted by it. If the point of voting for president is reduced to “someone I see myself in”, then I am a pretty trivial person. And that others expect I should be–well, I find that, as a woman, insulting.</p>
<p>A Muslim sleeper agent would likely choose a better name, oh, something like George…</p>
<p>Oh let’s not go there. :)</p>
<p>I have suggested to friends that Obama should change his middle name to Santa Claus. But it was pointed out to me that if he did that, Republicans would just point out that Santa Claus is a typical Democrat who promotes giveaways to the poor.</p>
<p>I’ve been to the Obama campaign headquarters. The most radical thing there is a MLK quilt wall hanging. No kool-aid when I was there.</p>
<p>“as for Obama being a “con,” I’ve mentioned before that my mother thinks he’s a Muslim sleeper agent, and that if he wins the Saudis will be running America. I told her that in my opinion, the Saudis would probably do a better job than the guy that’s running it now.”</p>
<p>You mean they’re NOT running the country now? After all that time and money George Sr. invested in that private equity group, and now that they are our owners, they leave running the country to someone else? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>whoops, I meant ‘astounding.’ :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Quote: “I have to wonder if any of those women would vote for another woman, say, Condi Rice, were she to run. Whaddya think?”</p>
<p>Interesting question. In her case, a vote could really be made based on her own EXPERIENCE. It probably wouldn’t be because of who she is married to. (I don’t even know if she is married.) Condi Rice would probably get the votes of the true “feminists”, those who honestly feel that a woman deserves nothing unless she earns it on her own. No spousal coattails for her. :o</p>
<p>It’s true that Condi wouldn’t be able to ride anybody’s coattails–instead, she’d have to live down the failures of the guy she’s been working for. She’s certainly earned all the criticism she’d get for the unholy mess she and Bush’s other advisers have made.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alternately, it would be another example of those Godless Democrats yet again secularizing Christmas.</p>