This is a fucking disgrace. This is equivalent to showing G.W.B with a KKK outfit on burning a cross on a lawn in Baghdad. This is clearly over the line. The Freepers are creaming their panties over this too.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/nyer.jpg

Duplicate thread. Please move this thread about Barook.

Duplicate thread. Please move this thread about Barook.

Is there any point to these images? I mean really?

:D A bang-on depiction of the fantasy the Ridiculous Right is trying desperately to cause USAmericans to fear. :D

I don't support Obama, but that's really messed up. :bugeye:

It's awesome. That's how the cons want you to believe when you think of them.

Osama depicts himself as a terrorist. What's the big deal?

arent they, were, liberals? i think they tried to do the opposite.

I don't support Obama, but that's really messed up. :bugeye:

I think it is pretty funny. But then i kind of like Obama.:shrug:

Duplicate thread. Please move this thread about Barook.

That is tacky on so many levels. I like how Michelle has an afro to show her "militancy" because you know natural hair=militant LOL

Are you an African female?

Are you an African female?

I'm sure she's not from Africa. I'm 100% positive that she's American. Are you a Siberian Male?

Hey, you know what i mean. I think it would be good for more diversity. I heard that you were an African American Female. I think that is great.

Hey, you know what i mean. I think it would be good for more diversity. I heard that you were an African American Female. I think that is great.

So it's ok if I call you Siberian American?

I dont know what you mean but it is common in U.S to call people Polish American, Irish American etc.

Always looking for a fight Ganymede.:D

I'm off, going out tonight. Want to join me?:)

:D A bang-on depiction of the fantasy the Ridiculous Right is trying desperately to cause USAmericans to fear. :D

It's awesome. That's how the cons want you to believe when you think of them.

That's what I thought too, it's a great piece of satire and the editor of the New Yorker freely admitted it.

"Our cover ... combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," he said in a statement.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall - all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," Remnick said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/13/2008-07-13_new_yorker_mags_satire_cover_draws_team_.html

What's unfortunate though is that the contents of the article don't address what's being portrayed on the cover. If it did, I doubt we'd have all this brouhaha.

I dont know what you mean but it is common in U.S to call people Polish American, Irish American etc.

Not if they are not Polish- or Irish-American :)

That's what I thought too, it's a great piece of satire and the editor of the New Yorker freely admitted it.


It would be harmless and funny except far too many American voters don't understand satire. The New Yorker should have been more responsible weighing the risk that the cover would reach further than its usual intended audience.

Or, when it comes to jerking knees around, Americans are generally a bunch of Morris-dancers.

I think the repetitive depictions of the Obamas in that fashion will have more influence than any clever satirical purposes behind them.

Sure, the question is if the influence will be a desensitizing one, or an aggravating one. Considering how over the top some of this stuff is getting, I can't really bet on either or.

Either way, if Obama's smart he's already got a good ticket to the White House no matter how much more of this stuff is pulled. The politics of fear are still available to him, and if he either directly or indirectly pulls an LBJ and pushes McCain as a war mongerer with one hand ready to drop a nuke start another a war... the man's already famous for his temper and his bomb Iran gaffe.

While he's missing a lot of the context that made LBJ's fear mongering oh-so-successful, characterizing McCain as reckless and irresponsible with American blood and treasure, and shifting the conversation to Iran now that both candidates and the president are converging on their Iraq policy, Obama can really start to take charge of the foreign policy issue.

I think the repetitive depictions of the Obamas in that fashion will have more influence than any clever satirical purposes behind them.

I agree, which is really odd since the New Yorker is generally (a) far more delecate and (b) very supportive of the guy.

Poor judgement on the part of their editor. He should probably dust off his resume.

~String

Humor is a fitting response to strident smears for fears.

Has anyone bothered to read the article associated with the cover? The entire article is attacking the right-wing and defending Obama, hence the satire on the cover...

Some sanity on the reaction over the cover from Marc Ambinder:

Having had the chance to read some of the hyperbolic news and opinion coverage of the New Yorker's latest cover, permit an editorial comment.

There really is a politics of outrage, and it has spread like a cancer throughout the body politic. It's become the default currency of political conversation.

Outrage is supposed to be extreme anger about an extreme and dignity-damaging insult. It has instead become the quotidian autonomic emotional register of most species of political actors, including partisans, campaign operatives and pundits. Hence: what used to be normal is now considered extreme.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/enough_phony_outrage.php

Hmm. Is there something to the psychology? They're doing the fist bump, which they did do in fact, but not the rest. Just mulling motivations around.

Some sanity on the reaction over the cover from Marc Ambinder:



http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/enough_phony_outrage.php

I concur totally. Again, read the article. It's pro-Obama propaganda.

Now, I'm not saying the cover isn't a little shocking, but it's tiresome to see everyone immediately resort to outrage, especially when the context, if people bothered to learn it, is one that shouldn't provoke that reaction.

Its kind of bizarre actually.

I think inside the magazine it would have been OK, but not on the cover. They also missed the target, by not realizing that a serious % of the voting public see Obama just exactly like that and the satire will be lost on them anyway.

Backfired attempt at humor...

I was reading the Daily News today and came upon this comment to the editor that shares something with the OP:

This is equivalent to showing G.W.B with a KKK outfit on burning a cross on a lawn in Baghdad.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5710/18114583zf2.jpg

That something is reactionary sensationalism and a lack of critical thinking skills. Even getting past the fact that the cover is a satire, and that the New Yorker is supportive of the Obamas, how is GWB or McCain in a KKK getup anywhere at all similar to Obama in a Muslim terrorist sympathizing getup? What prominent left-wing individuals are accusing GWB/McCain of belonging to such a group? When at any time so far during this election has fear or speculation of GWB/McCain being KKK members affected a noticeable amount of votes during the primaries?

Here's an example of something that actually had some thought to it:

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4953/toon15edtvx9.gif
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/galleries/bill_bramhall/bill_bramhall.html

But even that fails to compare simply because the left wing hasn't made age and a pill popping rich wife that big of an issue. The New Yorker cover works because the right has made itself so easy to satire. If anything, people on the left should take that as a good thing and grow a backbone.

It was a bad call for the magazine but it is called the New Yorker, isn't it? It's not The West Viginian or The Texan. The were focused on their target market.

I was reading the Daily News today and came upon this comment to the editor that shares something with the OP ....

.... Here's an example of something that actually had some thought to it ....

The themes are pretty obvious, apparently:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/cartoon20080715.gif (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1792)
David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 15, 2008

The cartoonist offered an excellent take at his blog, Drawing Power:

My biggest complaint is not that The New Yorker went too far with the cover cartoon of Barack Obama as a Muslim, but that the people running presidential campaigns have no sense of humor ....

.... Does Barack ever tell a joke? He may be the second coming of JFK, but he sure lacks the Kennedy wit. If I had been him, I would have grabbed the opportunity afforded by The New Yorker cover and I would have said, "Yeah, that's a great cartoon. It shows just how ridiculous all these rumors are. The fact is, when I get into the White House, I'll have a portrait of Abraham Lincoln above the mantle and the only thing I'll be burning in the fireplace will be transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's radio programs."

Couldn't somebody on the Obama campaign figure this out? Any sissy can complain about being picked on. A leader can take a joke -- and turn it to his advantage.

(Horsey (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/davidhorsey/archives/143609.asp))

Seems fairly obvious to me.
____________________

Notes:

Horsey, David. "Can Barack Obama take a joke?" Drawing Power. July 15, 2008. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/davidhorsey/archives/143609.asp

Well, since they didn't figure out how to spin it in their favor it does make you take a step back and wonder a little.

I think inside the magazine it would have been OK, but not on the cover. They also missed the target, by not realizing that a serious % of the voting public see Obama just exactly like that and the satire will be lost on them anyway.

Backfired attempt at humor...

The people who believe that Obama is a Muslim aren't reading the New Yorker, trust me.

All in all, beyond the mag's questionable taste and peoples' inability to actually READ FOR CONTEXT and "get it," the other notable this has made obvious is the inability to joke about anything Obama-related. I posted a link somewhere else, where basically comedians are laying off him. He's too holy...

Well, since they didn't figure out how to spin it in their favor it does make you take a step back and wonder a little.

Not really. The flip side is that they might annoy all those hard-working "middle Americans" for whom the controversy seems to be tailored. The New Yorker was certainly playing to its audience, but Obama risks having to fend off a week's worth of useless questions about elitism if he takes the smarter route.

Personally, I think it would have been a risk worth taking. Given the year and a half of Democratic majority in Congress, we see what bad things happen when the party plays dumb. It's time to put the hateful rumormongers in their place, and Obama and his campaign have obviously missed a great opportunity to put a foot down.

Here's the you can't joke about Obama link.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ca/15humor.php

Not really. The flip side is that they might annoy all those hard-working "middle Americans" for whom the controversy seems to be tailored. The New Yorker was certainly playing to its audience, but Obama risks having to fend off a week's worth of useless questions about elitism if he takes the smarter route.

Personally, I think it would have been a risk worth taking. Given the year and a half of Democratic majority in Congress, we see what bad things happen when the party plays dumb. It's time to put the hateful rumormongers in their place, and Obama and his campaign have obviously missed a great opportunity to put a foot down.

Exactly. But that failure raises questions especially when you add in other facts about Obama. Yes they are minor and in the end no real reason to disqualify him from being an effective leader, but his failure to take the smart way out and instead basically just whine will cement some of those images in the minds of the swing voters he desperately needs. At the very least it demonstrates a weakness that does not become a presidential candidate. He's already missed his train and there won;t be another one coming on this.

As for me, I don't believe half of what I hear about either presidential candidate and disregard the other half. I look a presidential candidates views, record, and accomplishments as well as their plans and political promises. As well as their actions and the actions of their party. It's left only one candidate in my mind, the one that did not work with his party to disenfranchise the democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Great cartoon, and I agree Tiassa, They don't have a sense of humor. Perhaps they see everything as a threat, although a lot of things are.

t's left only one candidate in my mind, the one that did not work with his party to disenfranchise the democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

You mean "disenfranchise all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida." While the DNC initially removed all the delegates from those states, the RNC cut them by half as punishment for the early primaries.

You mean "disenfranchise all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida." While the DNC initially removed all the delegates from those states, the RNC cut them by half as punishment for the early primaries.

Yeah and we understood that when we asked our state legislature to do that. We were basically willing to give up half our delegates to put our issues up front. So we don't blame the republicans for following their charter. However the Democrats went above and beyond by stripping all. There was a point where they were gonna give us half back, but only if they went to Obama, who hadn't received a single delegate according to our elections.

Yeah and we understood that when we asked our state legislature to do that. We were basically willing to give up half our delegates to put our issues up front. So we don't blame the republicans for following their charter. However the Democrats went above and beyond by stripping all. There was a point where they were gonna give us half back, but only if they went to Obama, who hadn't received a single delegate according to our elections.

??? obama earned delagetes in florida and wasn't on the ballot in MI

??? obama earned delagetes in florida and wasn't on the ballot in MI

Hey he pulled himself from the race here. But then the Democratic party wanted to give him some our delegates. He obviusly did not care enough about us in our primary, why should we give them to him now.

You mean "disenfranchise all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida." While the DNC initially removed all the delegates from those states, the RNC cut them by half as punishment for the early primaries.

And let's not forget. If there had been contests in those states, it's likely Clinton would have won Florida and at least done well enough in Michigan so that the election would have looked differently. She might even have won.

And let's not forget. If there had been contests in those states, it's likely Clinton would have won Florida and at least done well enough in Michigan so that the election would have looked differently. She might even have won.

Actually she would have carried michigan and since it was so early it would have changed the face of the race. Obama might still have won in the end, but it would have taken the superdelegates.

... but his failure to take the smart way out and instead basically just whine will cement some of those images in the minds of the swing voters he desperately needs ....

One thing seems sure: The conservative presumption that there is a broad swath of voters stupid enough to concern themselves with flag pins and scurrilous Muslim rumors certainly seems to be paying off. One wonders if there really are so many idiots out there that the Obama campaign's play toward the stupid is warranted.

At the very least it demonstrates a weakness that does not become a presidential candidate. He's already missed his train and there won;t be another one coming on this.

Again, it's a coin toss. I agree that a good president should be quick-witted and adept at dealing with controversy. But the "rules", such as they are for politicians, are murky. If a candidate is as stiff as a board, it is to his discredit. If a candidate seems too light-hearted, it is to his discredit. True, Obama cannot expect a string of fastballs served straight to the wheelhouse, but in the long run, the appearance of his resistance to the "elitism" of a magazine like The New Yorker will serve him about as well as tanking this opportunity will hurt him.

New Yorker editor David Remnick, in an interview yesterday with Michele Norris of NPR's All Things Considered, considered the point:

"Satire doesn't run with subtitles," Remnick adds. "A satirical cartoon would not be any good if it came with a set of instructions ....

.... "The kind of e-mail I get is telling me, 'I get it. But I don't think so-and-so is going to get it, I don't think so-and-so in West Virginia or out there in the Middle West,'" he says. "That, to me, is a false argument. That, if you can get it, why can't other people get it? I don't think that this notion that only Upper West Side Manhattan elitists get satire is the case at all."

(Norris (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92529393))
____________________

Notes:

Norris, Michele. "'New Yorker' Editor Defends Obama Cover". All Things Considered. July 14, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92529393

And let's not forget. If there had been contests in those states, it's likely Clinton would have won Florida and at least done well enough in Michigan so that the election would have looked differently. She might even have won.

Hillary lost by 238 Delegates. Even if she won Florida and Michigan she still would of lost the Delegate race.

Yes, but you're both forgetting what winning Florida handily and placing high in Michigan would have done in terms of the overall race. Hillary almost pipped him anyway. With those finishes, she might have won outright or fought it all the way to the convention.

Hillary lost by 238 Delegates. Even if she won Florida and Michigan she still would of lost the Delegate race.

Hillary lost becuase the momentum was not there. If Michigan and Florida had counted she would have started with a HUGE lead. It would have been a season of primaries where Obama was playing catchup and not vice versa.

One thing seems sure: The conservative presumption that there is a broad swath of voters stupid enough to concern themselves with flag pins and scurrilous Muslim rumors certainly seems to be paying off. One wonders if there really are so many idiots out there that the Obama campaign's play toward the stupid is warranted.

I agree that the satire does make a mockery of the politics of fear. And yes some cons are gullible enough to believe it. But that hardly matters as they never would have voted for him in the first place.

The problem is this remids people like my mother of things they have researched about Obama that are truths. Minor things, yes, but still important to many, many people. My mtoher is actually apalled that he switched churches to be electable. The fact that some of his adds have denounced McCain as being Bush-like but then lists bills he's approved that are Bush agendas. That he promised that he would announce his candidacy on Oprah then failed in that. Like i said, silly but still problems.

Hillary lost becuase the momentum was not there. If Michigan and Florida had counted she would have started with a HUGE lead. It would have been a season of primaries where Obama was playing catchup and not vice versa.

if your basing that on if the delagates weren't stripped obama than would have campaigned in them. and the effect of that cannot be known.

The effect of the lead can: catchup.

The NewYorker would never portray John McCain like this.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/cartoon20080715.gif

Hillary lost becuase the momentum was not there. If Michigan and Florida had counted she would have started with a HUGE lead. Hillary didn't win by huge margins in very many places, and most of those had special circumstances. In the early going it's fair to speculate that she would have picked up maybe a dozen delagates from real campaigns in Michigan and Florida, if everything broke her way.

At the time, that would as easily have been a momentum win for Obama. It wasn't until later that Obama was the presumptive leader.

If you recall, she hadn't developed her "blue-collar gal" image then, Obama was not yet the elitist of the two, and she would have been about as likely to match Wisconsin's results as Ohio's, in Michigan at the time. NAFTA is not popular in Michigan. There are lots of black voters. Not much of the stuff on the New Yorker cover was in play then.

And Florida, who knows. If Edwards split off part of the establishment and bigot vote, and Obama picked up from the anti-Hillary stuff as well as the anti-Semitic and nonwhite crowd, he might have gained a bit in the Hispanic vote - some image help, there.

The delegate rules were set up to the Clinton machine's preferences. If they don't like them, they have no one to blame but themselves. They even set up that odd superdelegate system as backup, in case the primary voters didn't play along with the coronation. Obama was playing on the Clinton's home court, and he beat their ass like a rented mule - the most impressive demonstrated political competence of any candidate in the race in either party (McCain's win being second).

By the end, the Clintons were pointing to the flagrant bigotry of the WV vote in the wake of the Wright bullshit, a state where no Dem except maybe Edwards had a chance in the national anyway, and calling that their "momentum".

The NewYorker would never portray John McCain like this.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/cartoon20080715.gif

The New Yorker would never bother portraying him at all. Seriously? What's your claim here? The New Yorker is partisan as hell, and if you don't think they want Obama, read the story. It's pro-Obama all the way.

Hillary lost becuase the momentum was not there. If Michigan and Florida had counted she would have started with a HUGE lead. It would have been a season of primaries where Obama was playing catchup and not vice versa.

Actually the momentum was there for Clinton. Even though Obama was winning the pledged delegate count, the media keep telling us he was actually losing because Clinton had over 200 super delegates 3 weeks into January with Obama having only 96. So Clinton had the Momentum because the media wouldn't acknowledge that Obama was actually winning until the last month of race once he surpassed her in super delegates. Hillary had the momentum until Obama would 11 straight contests in Febuary.

The New Yorker would never bother portraying him at all.

Obviously you're not using the magazines actual history as a reference. Plenty of Republicans have graced the cover of the New Yorker.


Seriously? What's your claim here? The New Yorker is partisan as hell, and if you don't think they want Obama, read the story. It's pro-Obama all the way.

Why do I have to explain everything to you like you're a 3 year old? The ability to read is a virtue.

The NewYorker would never portray John McCain like this.

Why would they bother? I already pointed out in my earlier post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1929561&postcount=30) that McCain as an old man with pill popping rich wife just doesn't have the same influence as the smears directed towards Obama.

Again, what prominent left wing individuals or groups are spending a lot of time trying to paint McCain as an old man with a pill popping rich wife? At what point in the election so far has that particular perception of McCain influenced a noticeable amount of votes?

Obviously you're not using the magazines actual history as a reference. Plenty of Republicans have graced the cover of the New Yorker.

Why do I have to explain everything to you like you're a 3 year old? The ability to read is a virtue.

Are you fucking demented? Do you read the New Yorker?

I had a subscription for about 10 years. It's one of the most liberal/partisan mainstream publications out there. Hendrik Hertzberg is their chief political columnist. The man wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter.

Elsewhere, the MSNBC story about journalists who give to politicians found numerous New Yorker employees, including HH, giving money to the Dems. Sey Hersh is the reporter who "broke" the Abu Ghraib stuff. And the list goes on. I'm sorry, but you really have no leg to stand on here. And as usual, your remarks show how tenuous your connection to reality is.

Are you fucking demented? Do you read the New Yorker?

I had a subscription for about 10 years. It's one of the most liberal/partisan mainstream publications out there. Hendrik Hertzberger is their chief political columnist. The man wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter.

Elsewhere, the MSNBC story about journalists who give to politicians found numerous New Yorker employees, including HH, giving money to the Dems. Sey Hersh is the reporter who "broke" the Abu Ghraib stuff. And the list goes on. I'm sorry, but you really have no leg to stand on here. And as usual, your remarks show how tenuous your connection to reality is.

Are you fucking retarded. The thread is about the picture that depicted Obama as a terrorist. I don't give a fuck about your subscription, or who pens the worthless article's in that shit rag.

You referenced the magazine's actual history, which apparently you know nothing about.

You referenced the magazine's actual history, which apparently you know nothing about.

Yes, based on the Magazines History, they've shown many Republicans on the cover. Your position is since they're a Liberal Magazine, they'll never portray John McCain on the cover.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Newyorker3.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/NewYorker2.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/NewYorker1.jpg

I'll give you some extra time to revise and extend your remarks.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Newyorker4.jpg

Not during an election they won't. But yeah, if he's elected, they'll take the piss, just like they did with the covers you've shown. Try finding a negative cover of Clinton.

This is a fucking disgrace.
The only disgrace here is that this stupid piece of satire has somehow become a huge deal. It's pathetic.

Everything about Obama is a big deal. The media love him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/politics/17anchors.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Obviously you're not using the magazines actual history as a reference. Plenty of Republicans have graced the cover of the New Yorker.

The difference is that those covers were depicting the TRUE past, and Obama's were about the NOT REAL future.

if your basing that on if the delagates weren't stripped obama than would have campaigned in them. and the effect of that cannot be known.

Actually I can tell you the effect. Minimal. Obama is not well like in most of Michigan. He might have gotten some of Detroit, but even there he would not have fared very well.

My problem is that the Democratic Party violated it's charter by stripping ALL of the delegates. They had the option of stripping up to half only byt the rules of the party. However the DNC went two steps too far and stripped all of them, then demanded either a second election at our expense or they would not allow our delegates. Obama supported the party the whole way while Clinton at least gave token support to our rights to be counted. For this reason alone Michigan might tip in McCain's favor even if he gets weird.

The difference is that those covers were depicting the TRUE past, and Obama's were about the NOT REAL future.

The "true" past? Those covers are all satire, and as such, are no different than the current Obama cover.

If there is any difference, it is that the NY actually loves Obama, whereas Bush and Cheney were consistently ridiculed and attacked in the mag's contents.

This illustrates the debilitated national mentality: We're still discombobulated, and taking ourselves much too seriously- we've contracted a chronic case of irony deficiency (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia15-2008jul15,0,2297403.story). I'm disappointed that the Obama campaign was also too staid to pick up on the joke.

But they've been that way from the start, and so have the campaign's supporters. Go back and look at my link about how comedians are admitting they think they can't make fun of Obama. This is all the fruit of years of political correctness coming to fruition, and it's allowing Obama to skate.

The problem is, in the end, I think it hurts him, though not mortally so. People, it seems, are growing tired of the walk-on-water way the campaign is being portrayed. I'm a perfect example. I don't dislike Obama at all, even though I question his substance, policies and record. I am, however, fed up with the glazed-over-eyes support he's getting from various people. This man is not a messiah. He's a politician.

The problem is, in the end, I think it hurts him, though not mortally so. People, it seems, are growing tired of the walk-on-water way the campaign is being portrayed. I'm a perfect example. I don't dislike Obama at all, even though I question his substance, policies and record. I am, however, fed up with the glazed-over-eyes support he's getting from various people. This man is not a messiah. He's a politician.

I couldn't have said this any better.

Rush Limbaugh started the "Messiah" schtick, not Obama supporters. I've not encountered any Obama supporters who are expecting miracles. We're just expecting a much better President than the alternative candidate.

I like Obama's sense of humor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxsCsJxM9DY&feature=related), and I hope the campaign will stop being afraid to let it show. Cynicism and xenophobia have been damaging the USA long enough.

Rush Limbaugh started the "Messiah" schtick, not Obama supporters. I've not encountered any Obama supporters who are expecting miracles. We're just expecting a much better President than the alternative candidate.

Oh, please. Rush Limbaugh? So I guess the people fainting at Obama events are his doing? The stupid comments I read from people about all the wonderful things Obama is going to do were created by him? Not to mention the warm and fuzzies continually displayed on this site.

countezero: "Oh, please. Rush Limbaugh?"

That's Right: With intense jealousy for a campaign with traction, and lacking a contemporary Ronnie Reagan, the best the far right can muster is the Rovian messiah meme. (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) It's presently the most popular shlock that dittoheads 1 (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/tools/search.guest.html) unprepared to debate the issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) default to.

-----------------

1 If you search "messiah" in the dittoheads link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/tools/search.guest.html) (Rush Limbaugh.com) the references go way back. I wasn't able to link the java search results directly

I don't agree with Limbaugh about a fair few things, but it is true that there's a messiah complex kicking around. Makes me nervous, this emotional popularity thing.

Oh no! Not a popular President! How nervous did Reagan make you?

Oh no! Not a popular President! How nervous did Reagan make you?

Heh, you're joking right? The glazed-over-eyes support of Reagan was just as bad as what Obama gets. It tends to blind people of the actual issues and provides cover for Reagan's/Obama's faults. I'm a little surprised you asked the question, but I guess it's a modern political reality that people are expected to jettison their thoughts or principles or beliefs as soon as the target of what they're talking about is a member of an opposite party.

I honestly haven't noticed any personality-cult over Obama, among the people I meet who (like me) would like to see him become our next President. I don't perceive that we have unrealistic expectations, or that we repress our disappointments in the canditate and campaign. The messiah-meme seems a creation of a chastened and sulking Right, and not a reflection of the expectations of any Obama supporters that I have encountered. There probably are starry-eyed Obama-worshippers out there, but I haven't met one yet- Mostly, the supporters I have encountered are smart people who simply consider him an imperfect person who happens to be a far better candidate than McCain, for a host of rational reasons.

Another variation on the theme:

http://danzigercartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dancart3644.jpg (http://danzigercartoons.com/?p=1808)
Jeff Danziger, July 16, 2008

One of the things I've noticed about these cartoons is that the McCain versions exaggerate the people themselves while the New Yorker cover attacks the distortions about the Obamas.

Quite obviously, the cartoonists are enjoying themselves, but they're not quite accurate. If they wanted to attack scurrilous rumors about John McCain, they might depict him as an efficient president with a genuine conscience.

Oh no! Not a popular President! How nervous did Reagan make you?

Nervous enough, when my friends started calling him "old Ronnie". Popularity begets mayhem. And the Obama crowd is the worst of the lot so far. Fainting at his speeches, indeed.

I honestly haven't noticed any personality-cult over Obama, among the people I meet who (like me) would like to see him become our next President. I don't perceive that we have unrealistic expectations, or that we repress our disappointments in the canditate and campaign. The messiah-meme seems a creation of a chastened and sulking Right, and not a reflection of the expectations of any Obama supporters that I have encountered. There probably are starry-eyed Obama-worshippers out there, but I haven't met one yet- Mostly, the supporters I have encountered are smart people who simply consider him an imperfect person who happens to be a far better candidate than McCain, for a host of rational reasons.

Okay, fair enough, you think a Junior Senator who has not sponsored a single bill in the Senate and whose voting record is as far left as American Politics will allow is better candidate. You claim to think it for rational reasons. List them.

However you also must admit the man is getting a pass from the comedians and there is a sort of messiah complex among most of his supporters. Just becuase you have been lucky enough to avoid them does not mean they aren't there.

The thing that worries me is that the man is a total cipher. His records are all up in smoke. Who were his clients? What was his granting history? Only Obama knows for sure.

Okay, fair enough, you think a Junior Senator who has not sponsored a single bill in the Senate and whose voting record is as far left as American Politics will allow is better candidate.

If voting for the new FISA law is as far left as American politics will allow, things are even worse than I generally imagine.

Seriously, Obama on that vote is somewhere farther right of 1970s conservatives.

As always, Jon Stewart has the right answer. According to him, the correct response from the Obama camp should have been : Senator Obama is not at all bothered by the cartoon in the New Yorker depicting him as a Muslim extremist, because the only people bothered by cartoons are...?

I thought that segment was great.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=176628&title=obama-cartoon

I'm a dedicated stoogie of Jon Stewart :D

Do people forget what Satire is?

Obama camp should have been : Senator Obama is not at all bothered by the cartoon in the New Yorker depicting him as a Muslim extremist, because the only people bothered by cartoons are...?

Except they ARE bothered by it, for the right reason: people are generally stupid and the cartoon reinforces the rumors...

TW Scott: "Okay, fair enough, you think a Junior Senator who has not sponsored a single bill in the Senate and whose voting record is as far left as American Politics will allow is better candidate."

Yes. USAmerican politics today, incidentally, does not allow anything very far Left. We're still a Right/Authoritarian-leaning country (Democratic Party included) since 9-11. I don't think it's reasonable to expect long-term Washington insiders to contribute much to the changes we need in the USA.

"You claim to think [Obama is the better candidate] for rational reasons. List them."

Obama will get us out of Iraq. That occupation is costing us dearly in many ways, it's wrong, and it needs to end.

Obama will enhance the reputation of our country. Our "brand" of world influence, world currency, and our economic future is very much on the line, after a damaging period of arrogant foreign policy. An Obama Presidency can help to repair the damage.

Rather than divert the thread too far into it, I'll just add to my rational reasons a reference to Obama's platform (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/), and welcome detailed discussion of the Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) in a thread on policy.

"However you also must admit the man is getting a pass from the comedians"

Not if you don't specify who you mean by "the comedians".

and [you must admit] there is a sort of messiah complex among most of his supporters."

No, I haven't witnessed any such behavior. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I suspect that the messiah meme originates from opponents, and not supporters of the Obama campaign.

"Just becuase you have been lucky enough to avoid them does not mean they aren't there."

I'll keep an eye out for them. :bugeye:

TW Scott: "Okay, fair enough, you think a Junior Senator who has not sponsored a single bill in the Senate and whose voting record is as far left as American Politics will allow is better candidate."

Yes. USAmerican politics today, incidentally, does not allow anything very far Left. We're still a Right/Authoritarian-leaning country (Democratic Party included) since 9-11. I don't think it's reasonable to expect long-term Washington insiders to contribute much to the changes we need in the USA.

Actually our politics is quite a bit to the left. Republicans of this nation sit closer to the middle of the spectrum than we like to admit. Democrats are not that much to the left, but Obama is WAY past them in the voting record.

I have seen his plan for change and don't much like it. Enforced charitable contributions is beyond the pale of imagination. It's my money, I will donate it to who I wish, when I wish. The rest of it is just watered down political promises the man will have to break as he does not control congress. And if does pull out of iraq the way he has claimed he wishes, then you'll find me setting up my farm on the outskirts of civilization. Don't bother coming unless you have a useful skill.


Obama will get us out of Iraq. That occupation is costing us dearly in many ways, it's wrong, and it needs to end.

It has cost us, yes. We were messing up. Now we are on a path that is working and actually has a chance to succeed and pay off in ways that will be heralded for centuries. If Obama gets his hand on it, survivalists everywhere will start actually getting what they have been waiting for.

Obama will enhance the reputation of our country. Our "brand" of world influence, world currency, and our economic future is very much on the line, after a damaging period of arrogant foreign policy. An Obama Presidency can help to repair the damage.

How is this man, who doesn't even understand how to work Foreign policy going to improve it. I keep hearing this, but no one has been telling me how. I mean hell, his idea to openly meet with Iran will undo every smidgen of progress the middle East has seen. You don't start holding open meetings with a ruler like that. It gives legitimacy to him and people who think like him.

Rather than divert the thread too far into it, I'll just add to my rational reasons a reference to Obama's platform (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/), and welcome detailed discussion of the Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) in a thread on policy.

We're discussing here how his campaign is becoming a cult of personality. Right here you have proven it true by your efforts.

"However you also must admit the man is getting a pass from the comedians"

Not if you don't specify who you mean by "the comedians".

You know the guys who should be lambasting his every move just like they do every other politician. Or didn't you notice that only John Stewart has let a little joke slip by.

and [you must admit] there is a sort of messiah complex among most of his supporters."

No, I haven't witnessed any such behavior. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I suspect that the messiah meme originates from opponents, and not supporters of the Obama campaign.

No, I have met people much more into it then yourself. People who seem to think that he is the greatest person since Jesus. I personally do not see what they like so much. I think he's a pretty cool guy, but I would not want him as president unless our other choice was Joey Buttifucco. the man just doesn't seem to understand mainstream America and it's values.

"Just becuase you have been lucky enough to avoid them does not mean they aren't there."

I'll keep an eye out for them. :bugeye:[/QUOTE]

They're the ones who won;t let anyone say anything negative about him. or they faint at his rallies. Or are like the Obamagirl.

TW Scott: "Enforced charitable contributions is beyond the pale of imagination. It's my money, I will donate it to who I wish, when I wish."

Can you reference what specific Obama proposal or plank you're referring to? I'm not aware of any enforced charity initiative, and it seems like a contradiction in terms.

"And if does pull out of iraq the way he has claimed he wishes, then you'll find me setting up my farm on the outskirts of civilization."

So I take it that remote farming is not your ideal career choice. Do you sincerely believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for the good of our country and civilization?

"Now we are on a path that is working and actually has a chance to succeed and pay off in ways that will be heralded for centuries."

Unprovoked invasion? Ethnic separatism? Millions of refugees? Civil war? A broken economy? Disaster capitalism? It astounds me that you sincerely believe that these things work. There is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

"If Obama gets his hand on it, survivalists everywhere will start actually getting what they have been waiting for."

I take it you are insinuating that an Obama Presidency will precipitate the collapse of society. That seems more than a bit paranoid to me.

"his idea to openly meet with Iran will undo every smidgen of progress the middle East has seen."

Surely you've heard that the present Bush Administration has recently reversed policy, and is opening diplomacy with Iran. Will this also undo neoconservative "progress" in your view?

"You don't start holding open meetings with a ruler like that. It gives legitimacy to him and people who think like him. "

So you believe that the cold-shoulder treatment rules the world, and removes disagreeable foreign leaders? Can you provide examples of how this has worked in the past?

"his campaign is becoming a cult of personality. Right here you have proven it true by your efforts. "

I have not tried to prove your thesis, nor do I personally consider Obama (or any person) worthy of cultish worship.

"didn't you notice that only John Stewart has let a little joke slip by."

I don't understand what you mean. John Stewart is a liberal. There are Conservative comics too. At the extreme right, there aren't many popular comics, and I suspect it's because it helps to be smart, to be funny.

"I have met people... who seem to think that [Obama] is the greatest person since Jesus."

Wow. I've never met anyone like that, and I doubt that such people number in the dozens nationwide.

"[Obama] just doesn't seem to understand mainstream America and it's values."

How can a campaign be so successful without appealing to mainstream values?

"[Supporters with the Messiah Complex are] the ones who won;t let anyone say anything negative about him. or they faint at his rallies. Or are like the Obamagirl."

Do you really think a higher proportion of people faint in Obama rallies than other crowds? I have doubts that you're being objective about that. On "Obamagirl", I don't remember what that was about, just that it was some Youtube moment. What did I miss?

...On review, I see that "Obamagirl" is a politically superficial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFa5AmAruNs) actress (Amber Lee Ettinger) who was hired by barelypolitical.com (http://www.barelypolitical.com/) for her role. Checking into that hasn't helped me in the least to grasp what you really mean to convey by evoking "Obama Girl"- I can only guess that you're just insinuating (without an honest basis) that Obama supporters include a higher-than-average contingency of shallow people. I have a very different impression of Obama supporters- that we're more sincere and informed than those who won't take a stand, or who support the McCain candidacy.

Hype, I've met Obamists both on this forum and in real life. Not one of them can point to anything specific Obama has done to deserve their uncritical approbation; nor got I the sense that any of them were actually openminded in any way about the upcoming election. They were, quite simply, fanatical. Meanwhile, the man is a cypher. Why? Why such secrecy?

GeoffP: "the man is a cypher. Why? Why such secrecy?"

There is no secrecy. You can learn about Obama's platform and bio in detail at BarackObama.com (http://www.barackobama.com).

Okay, fair enough, you think a Junior Senator who has not sponsored a single bill in the Senate and whose voting record is as far left as American Politics will allow is better candidate. Better than a terminally corrupt and unprincipled backer of authoritarian corporate power, ignorant of the fundamentals of US economic structure and the history of even US foreign involvements (let alone others'), supported by the worst of the profiteers of misfortune and a lifelong enabler of the disastrous policy approaches so recently run rampant in American federal administration, hampered by aging mental faculties and serious anger management issues ?

Obama could be a dachshund and get my vote over McCain, or anyone in the power elite of the current Republican Party. And he seems rather more competent and better informed, with comparatively adult and astute opinions on things, and fewer hypocrisies or entanglements involving the worst sources of trouble over the past few decades, so that's a bonus.

BTW: in addition to featuring a generally authoritarian and center-right approach to most issues (FISA, health care, etc) not even as slightly left as other Federal level politicians (Kucinich, Feingold, etc), he has sponsored bills in the the Senate.

So where are you getting this BS about "far left" and "not sponsored a single bill" from ?

GeoffP: "the man is a cypher. Why? Why such secrecy?"

There is no secrecy. You can learn about Obama's platform and bio in detail at BarackObama.com (http://www.barackobama.com).

Can I learn more about it without giving my email, secret Cabal symbol and three drops of blood to the webmasters? I mean, why isn't it more freely available? We're talking about his past more even than his present.

Or, to be more specific, this NRO link.

(Just clutch your crucifix and click.)

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY1NWQ3YmIxODEzM2ViM2JiMzE2MWRjZDA0NDFlMzc=

So where are you getting this BS about "far left" and "not sponsored a single bill" from ?

I checked Hype's link and found nothing about sponsored bills on "Meet the candidate".

GeoffP: "Can I learn more about it without giving my email..."

Yes, you can skip right by the optional registration without restriction. Click on "Skip Signup" at the lower right of the intro.

"I checked Hype's link (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php) and found nothing about sponsored bills on 'Meet the candidate'."

With one more click after bypassing registration, you can click on "Learn" and begin doing just that: In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law (http://obama.senate.gov/press/060407-coburn_introduc/) was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent (http://www.usaspending.gov/). He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.


You can review Obama's Senate voting record in complete detail at obama.senate.gov (obama.senate.gov/votes/)

Looking further back, NYT did a breakdown on Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html).

Still further, IHT provides a review of Obama's organizing years (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/07/america/07community.php), before he ran for elected office.

On years prior to that, the Chigago Sun-Times has a review of Obama's legal career (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article).

Obama at Harvard Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html).

College anecdotes (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F1C46FDE-3048-5C12-00ED1702A906DC5F).

High School anecdotes (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3082803)

"Barry" playing High School basketball (http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/05/08/obama-high-school-basketball-footage/)

Early years, photo essay (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,0,5458360.photogallery)

Such links are not difficult to find (these are from a 5-minute Google) and are representative of a past that is considerably more publicly-accessible, and noticeably less "scrubbed" than (for example) that of our current President.

GeoffP: "the man is a cypher. Why? Why such secrecy?"

You can lead a dork to wonder, but you can't make him think.

I checked Hype's link and found nothing about sponsored bills on "Meet the candidate". Try Googling on "Obama bill sponsored Senate".

Now you might ask yourself why Obama's record has earned so much less attention from your favorite news media than his lapel jewelry or context-free selections from his wife's college writings, that someone can actually claim he is a leftist who has sponsored not one bill in the US Senate - and be taken seriously by people in a forum like this.

Is that what you would expect from a media biased in favor of Obama, acting to his benefit ?

We have seen how the many repetitive stories about Obama's lapel pin and secret Muslim identity and so forth are counted as "favoring Obama" when they ostensibly debunk the nonsense - or mock it, as in the New Yorker cover - but the effects are quite otherwise, aren't they.

Dork, is it? Then I must begin to dissect you. Otherwise, I would have simply let it go.

You can review Obama's Senate voting record in complete detail at obama.senate.gov

The vast majority of which indicates "not voting".

Looking further back, NYT did a breakdown on Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate.

He sponsored 800 bills? Unlikely. Co-sponsor, maybe. Puff.

Still further, IHT provides a review of Obama's organizing years, before he ran for elected office.

Another puff piece. The Messiah's early years.

"On years prior to that, the Chigago Sun-Times has a review of Obama's legal career."

No. It has a puff review of his career. Gives very few clients and what it does indicate is that Obama was an existential submarine. Here's some quotes:

Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm. Many trial lawyers spend their time similarly, part of a trend over the last 20 years of settling a greater percentage of cases before trial.

"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.

And Rezko?

Rezko was a client of the Miner firm, and Obama worked on some of his redevelopment projects. Miner says Obama put in six to seven hours of work on Rezko projects. He has not produced detailed records of Obama's billings on the cases.

The firm was headed by Allison Davis, who eventually left the firm to become a developer of low-income housing himself, sometimes in partnership with Rezko. Obama worked on some of those projects.

Rezko and his friends have donated at least $168,000 to Obama's campaigns over the years.

Smells like fish. What other Rezkos lurk in the background? Standard politician, no different from any other except that his followers are more fanatical.

Standard politician, no different from any other except that his followers are more fanatical. And his speeches are better, and AIPAC doesn't like him, and his campaign is better organized, and he has yet to make gaffes at the McCain level.

Coming from Chicago politics and legal career, having only one obvious Rezko in his baggage wagon speaks very well for him. Of course, he's still young.

The New Yorker is just mocking all the false crap the right wing and Fox News have been throwing at Obama..the kitchen sink strategy Republican style.

And his speeches are better, and AIPAC doesn't like him, and his campaign is better organized, and he has yet to make gaffes at the McCain level.

Aside from implying that he thought Pearl Harbour was hit by an atomic bomb, none at all. Why's he avoid the foreign press on these tours, anyway? And why does the domestic press swirl all over him? I heard that the chiefs of all the major media outlets are with him on his little foreign jaunt right now. Didn't happen with McCain or Clinton, before or after they announced their candidacy?

Coming from Chicago politics and legal career, having only one obvious Rezko in his baggage wagon speaks very well for him. Of course, he's still young.

He is young, so I expect more.

countezero: "Oh, please. Rush Limbaugh?"

That's Right: With intense jealousy for a campaign with traction, and lacking a contemporary Ronnie Reagan, the best the far right can muster is the Rovian messiah meme. (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) It's presently the most popular shlock that dittoheads 1 (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/tools/search.guest.html) unprepared to debate the issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) default to.

-----------------

1 If you search "messiah" in the dittoheads link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/tools/search.guest.html) (Rush Limbaugh.com) the references go way back. I wasn't able to link the java search results directly

I could care less what Limbaugh said or what some are doing with the moniker. The simple fact is the "messianic" statement is my own conclusion, and it's a fairly easy metaphor to reach for, what with the fainting and the hyperventilating masses.

Better than a terminally corrupt and unprincipled backer of authoritarian corporate power, ignorant of the fundamentals of US economic structure and the history of even US foreign involvements (let alone others'), supported by the worst of the profiteers of misfortune and a lifelong enabler of the disastrous policy approaches so recently run rampant in American federal administration, hampered by aging mental faculties and serious anger management issues ?

Obama could be a dachshund and get my vote over McCain, or anyone in the power elite of the current Republican Party. And he seems rather more competent and better informed, with comparatively adult and astute opinions on things, and fewer hypocrisies or entanglements involving the worst sources of trouble over the past few decades, so that's a bonus.

BTW: in addition to featuring a generally authoritarian and center-right approach to most issues (FISA, health care, etc) not even as slightly left as other Federal level politicians (Kucinich, Feingold, etc), he has sponsored bills in the the Senate.

So where are you getting this BS about "far left" and "not sponsored a single bill" from ?

His voting record puts him as one of the most liberal senators. The fact that doesn't make him liberal enough to you means very little.

His voting record puts him as one of the most liberal senators. And if it doesn't, the nutters in charge of that kind of stupid BS will change "liberal" until it does.

What is he, the third or fourth consecutive Dem Pres nominee to be "the most liberal Senator" or "the most liberal governor" or whatever? According to this clown box we have for punditry I remember even Gore and Kerry were, which pushed the limits of self-parody.

That's quite the transitory job, being "most liberal Senator" - lasts about as long as AQ's second and third in command.
Aside from implying that he thought Pearl Harbour was hit by an atomic bomb, none at all. Oh baloney. Why's he avoid the foreign press on these tours, anyway? Does he?

Maybe he has an idea how many Americans pay any attention to it, and who they are, and how strange foreign press coverage of his candidacy would look in the context of an American campaign under the US propaganda umbrella. The foreign press probably can't help him, and could easily hurt him. He avoids the domestic lefty press as well - same reasons ?

And if it doesn't, the nutters in charge of that kind of stupid BS will change "liberal" until it does.

What is he, the third or fourth consecutive Dem Pres nominee to be "the most liberal Senator" or "the most liberal governor" or whatever? According to this clown box we have for punditry I remember even Gore and Kerry were, which pushed the limits of self-parody.

That's quite the transitory job, being "most liberal Senator" - lasts about as long as AQ's second and third in command.

I hope you're trying to be funny.

It's the fault of the commentators that the Dems continue to run people to the Left of their party and not the party or the primary process which rewards such people and puts them forward to crash and burn?

Seriously. Look at the list. Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale.

Notice I don't list Clinton among them, because he was an American centrist. Notice he's also the only one who has been elected since Carter. I might be generous and give you Gore, as Gore prior to his enviro-wacko days, was fairly middle of the road, but other than that the list speaks for itself.

Obama is "liberal" in American terms. And one doesn't need biased commentators or partisan hit men to reach that conclusion. One can simply look at non-partisan assessments of his voting record like the one Anthony posted a few months back.

One can simply look at non-partisan assessments of his voting record like the one Anthony posted a few months back. That was a fairly silly and quite obviously "partisan" (to go along with one of the many instances of your coincident use of the nutters' fad vocabulary, which you as always claimed was your own term when the obvious was pointed out) assessment of carefully selected and described parts of Obama's voting record, and one which IIRC was debunked in some detail at the time, right here as well as widely throughout the more responsible web.

I might be generous and give you Gore, as Gore prior to his enviro-wacko days, was fairly middle of the road, but other than that the list speaks for itself. You might also show some common sense and give me Kerry and Mondale and Obama. Unless, that is, you are going to retroactively apply whatever adjustments were necessary to fit a "most liberal" box on Obama to Mondale - best be careful, lest you pick up HW and Dole along the way. Not even you guys could miss the absurdity of that.

And yes, the list does speak for itself. So having the nutter crowd speaking nonsense for it doesn't add much.

Ice, you grow more funny and delusional by the day...

Kerry and Mondale are centrists? Since when?

TW Scott: "Enforced charitable contributions is beyond the pale of imagination. It's my money, I will donate it to who I wish, when I wish."

Can you reference what specific Obama proposal or plank you're referring to? I'm not aware of any enforced charity initiative, and it seems like a contradiction in terms.

The idea he has proposed of adding even more faith based initiatives to the government rolls. that is enforced charity. I don't mind wlefare or foodstamps, or SSD/SSI as they are helping people survive to get back on their feet 99% of the time. Nobody is turned away and nobody profits. Not so true with Faith based Initiatives. Plus it reeks of government involvement with religion.

"And if does pull out of iraq the way he has claimed he wishes, then you'll find me setting up my farm on the outskirts of civilization."

So I take it that remote farming is not your ideal career choice. Do you sincerely believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for the good of our country and civilization?

I believe that at the time and information that the WHOLE WORLD believed to be true it was the right choice. We found out tlater that the intellignce was flawed and not entirely accurate, no WMD but he still had parts and facilities he was supposed to destroy. The problem is now that we created a mess. A mess that can become a haven for people who have lashed out at us and allies. We cannot allow for those people to make our mess into a haven. So we have to clean it up. That will take a long time, but it is neccesary.

As for my farm, it wouldn;t be a profession as more a way of life for those who will survive. Come on over and visit sometime. Just don't expect free food just becuase you're a friend.

"Now we are on a path that is working and actually has a chance to succeed and pay off in ways that will be heralded for centuries."

Unprovoked invasion? Ethnic separatism? Millions of refugees? Civil war? A broken economy? Disaster capitalism? It astounds me that you sincerely believe that these things work. There is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

Excuse me but it was provoked. Saddam could have swung the doors open and averted the whole thing and shamed America about being parranoid over spare parts. I admit we messed up in the beginning, however with new adminsitrators, Generals and strategy we have turned this situation around to where it is supposed top be. Of coutrse the only reason you are ignoring it, is that it does not fit what you have decided is the truth.

"If Obama gets his hand on it, survivalists everywhere will start actually getting what they have been waiting for."

I take it you are insinuating that an Obama Presidency will precipitate the collapse of society. That seems more than a bit paranoid to me.

Well, it might be a bit Paranoid, but the man's relentless optimism and niavette will unwittingly empower exactly the wrong type of people. The type of people who will shape the thinking of the next generation of fundamentalists.


"his idea to openly meet with Iran will undo every smidgen of progress the middle East has seen."

Surely you've heard that the present Bush Administration has recently reversed policy, and is opening diplomacy with Iran. Will this also undo neoconservative "progress" in your view?

Excuse me, there is a ton of difference between sending an Envoy for closed discussions, which we have been doing for decades now, and have a open furom with the President. The first is recognizing we must deal with you and we will keeping you as far from us as possible. The other is saying, well your're alright and we recognize your right to abuse your people as you see fit. No directly of course but it is what the people under the Ahdemijahd(sp?) will take as the message. Meanwhile Ahdemijah(sp?) will be able to say. "You see. They only respect someone who threatens them. You cannot play nice with them. You must threaten the infidel in order for him to treat you as equal."


"You don't start holding open meetings with a ruler like that. It gives legitimacy to him and people who think like him. "

So you believe that the cold-shoulder treatment rules the world, and removes disagreeable foreign leaders? Can you provide examples of how this has worked in the past?

We have not been cold shoulder. We have always had under the table deelaings with Iran and similair countries. It may not remove a leader but it does undermine his position. Sooner or later the leader tips his hand and reveals his true nature. Ahdemijahd has already doen this by his comments of the Holocaust and Israel. Eventually this will lead to his downfall unless he can point to some political victory, like for instance having open talks with the PotUS.


"his campaign is becoming a cult of personality. Right here you have proven it true by your efforts. "

I have not tried to prove your thesis, nor do I personally consider Obama (or any person) worthy of cultish worship.

You might not, but that does not mean others have the same opinion. And you didn't try to prove it. In trying to disprove it you ended up sending me to a source that pretty much gives anyone all the evidence they need. I'm not blaming Obama himself, but it does not make him a palatable president.


"didn't you notice that only John Stewart has let a little joke slip by."

I don't understand what you mean. John Stewart is a liberal. There are Conservative comics too. At the extreme right, there aren't many popular comics, and I suspect it's because it helps to be smart, to be funny.

Okay, yes John Stewart is a liberal, but he did lead the charge of jokes on both Gore and Kerry. In fact ever comedian had a ball with every presidental candidate. Except right now for some reason Obama seems off limits and forgiven for some of his most questionable acts and comments.

"I have met people... who seem to think that [Obama] is the greatest person since Jesus."

Wow. I've never met anyone like that, and I doubt that such people number in the dozens nationwide.

Try millions nationwide, not many millions but enough that Obamania is nationwide. I don;t mean the epople who for politcal reason want to vote for Obama. I'm talking all the others who just seem tio think he is the second coming.

"[Obama] just doesn't seem to understand mainstream America and it's values."

How can a campaign be so successful without appealing to mainstream values?

Well his comment about middle-class america clinging to religion and guns out of bitterness seems to drive the point home. And you can have a highly successful campaign if you only influence the people who head to primaries.

"[Supporters with the Messiah Complex are] the ones who won;t let anyone say anything negative about him. or they faint at his rallies. Or are like the Obamagirl."

Do you really think a higher proportion of people faint in Obama rallies than other crowds? I have doubts that you're being objective about that. On "Obamagirl", I don't remember what that was about, just that it was some Youtube moment. What did I miss?

...On review, I see that "Obamagirl" is a politically superficial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFa5AmAruNs) actress (Amber Lee Ettinger) who was hired by barelypolitical.com (http://www.barelypolitical.com/) for her role. Checking into that hasn't helped me in the least to grasp what you really mean to convey by evoking "Obama Girl"- I can only guess that you're just insinuating (without an honest basis) that Obama supporters include a higher-than-average contingency of shallow people. I have a very different impression of Obama supporters- that we're more sincere and informed than those who won't take a stand, or who support the McCain candidacy.

No, what i was trying to get across was the fact that not since the Beatles have we had a person so widely accepted and even adored. His blunders overlooked and explained away as "well that not what he meant." Despite the fact that it was clearly what he meant. It's just not right for someone who has accomplished so little to aspire so high. the man is already making promises to allies and other nations as if he was already PotUS, yet nobody calls him on it.

No, what i was trying to get across was the fact that not since the Beatles have we had a person so widely accepted and even adored. Not since W ran in 2000, you mean.
I believe that at the time and information that the WHOLE WORLD believed to be true it was the right choice. We found out later that the intellignce was flawed and not entirely accurate, Best not to confuse even a large fraction of the American public with the "WHOLE WORLD". The only large group of people completely suckered by W&Co's war propaganda campaign were right here in the US, most of them conservatives or otherwise not following the news much.

The fact that the "intelligence" was mostly garbage, and probably had been rigged, was fairly well known in the "WHOLE WORLD" outside the US media umbrella. It was certainly well known among the lefties in the US, who sometimes read the foreign press, and often have less corrupted sources information than are available in the US major media.
We cannot allow for those people to make our mess into a haven. So we have to clean it up. We're making it dirtier every day. That's one of the problems with setting out to do filth and evil - the only way to avoid making things filthier and worse is to fail.

And we can too allow the Iraqis to make of our mess what they will, in their own country. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do just that. And pay for it, beginning with a confiscation and refund of the stolen oil revenues.

Oh baloney.

Well, what does "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbour" mean to you? "The" bomb. Not "the bombs and torpedoes".

Does he?

Maybe he has an idea how many Americans pay any attention to it, and who they are, and how strange foreign press coverage of his candidacy would look in the context of an American campaign under the US propaganda umbrella. The foreign press probably can't help him, and could easily hurt him. He avoids the domestic lefty press as well - same reasons ?

My suspicion is that Obama is woefully ignorant of most of the facts of the world wars and probably a fair chunk of history. I hope this isn't so, but I'm pretty pessimistic about it.

Could you point out the instances that struck you? About his ignorance of most of the facts of the world? And a fair chunk of history?

The bomb thing, the avoiding the international media thing. Sorry, I just don't think Obama is genuine, or any more genuine than any other politician.