Obama takes Iowa

[rdaneel]

I may think Obama is a paper tiger, but I applaud him on beating Hillary in Iowa. Anytime someone beats the "anointed" candidate I have to give them props.

That's how I feel about it, the whole idea of an anointed candidate just sticks in my craw and I freely admit it's an emotional response rather than a reasoned response. My other "gut feeling" is that Obama has more charisma than Hillary, and that's not something to be dismissed lightly in a country that's been known to elect the taller candidate.

 

[latent aaaack]

Well finally we get an easily-beat-by-republicans presidential candidate who believes in the power of words, just like another great historical figure who he bears no resemblance to at all except for happening to believe that as well, and just thought he'd bring him up in his political speech to the country and then literally speak the same words Lincoln spoke without crediting them to him in his final sentence.

Yeah I know he claims to be non-divisive as part of his "change and hope" theme but a lot of that seems to center around him saying "I believe Bush is a nice, honest man trying his best" and things like that. It's funny, Bush said the same things in 2000, so I'm suggesting that a better way to guage non-divisiveness be found, like for example experience and not giving off clear signs of being mentally impaired like Bush and Obama gave in their campaigns.

 

[Hokulele]

You know Obama can make a mistake without him being a bad candidate, I just want to know if you have some self deluding though process that makes you think he's perfect or a great historical figure because he's charismatic and a triumphant self-lover.

How, um, bizarre.

 

[joobz]

That's how I feel about it, the whole idea of an anointed candidate just sticks in my craw and I freely admit it's an emotional response rather than a reasoned response. My other "gut feeling" is that Obama has more charisma than Hillary, and that's not something to be dismissed lightly in a country that's been known to elect the taller candidate.

Being a leader is more than just having the right ideas. If Obama can motivate people and not generate resentment, then he'll get more done. Hillary has always had an uphill battle against her.

And, I'll admit one other point that I find hard to get past. If we plan to start any developing healthy, long term relationships with the middle east states, we need to have a leader they will respect. And it won't be a woman. I don't like that fact, but it's there. I've seen enough of the Islamic attitude towards women to know that all but the most progressive muslim nations have no respect women and will not respect a woman leader. They'll see Hillary as merely Bill's puppet.

 

[latent aaaack]

How, um, bizarre.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with many of Obama's supporters and aura of his campaign but there is definitely a media constructed narrative of him as cherubic.

And of course he is the most politically uber-religious and morally self righteous candidate in recent memory which is a fact. That's why I've had difficulty understanding his appeal with skeptics.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

 

[Hokulele]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with many of Obama's supporters and aura of his campaign but there is definitely a media constructed narrative of him as cherubic.

And of course he is the most politically uber-religious and morally self righteous candidate in recent memory which is a fact. That's why I've had difficulty understanding his appeal with skeptics.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

I would strongly recommend reading the article that triggered that blog entry.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/FRONTPAGE/801040301

I really can't see how you get "morally self righteous" out of his opinions.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Interesting.

According to CNN (TV, still looking for it in an article), young Republicans chose Huckabee over people like Ron Paul at a rate of over 2 to 1. Obama faired better, getting chosen by young Democrats over fellow Democrats at a rate of around 4 to 1.

Could this be a year, if someone like Obama gets the Democratic nod, that my fellow members of the 18-25 bracket end their streak of pitiful turnout in elections?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well finally we get an easily-beat-by-republicans presidential candidate who believes in the power of words, just like another great historical figure who he bears no resemblance to at all except for happening to believe that as well, and just thought he'd bring him up in his political speech to the country and then literally speak the same words Lincoln spoke without crediting them to him in his final sentence.

Yeah I know he claims to be non-divisive as part of his "change and hope" theme but a lot of that seems to center around him saying "I believe Bush is a nice, honest man trying his best" and things like that. It's funny, Bush said the same things in 2000, so I'm suggesting that a better way to guage non-divisiveness be found, like for example experience and not giving off clear signs of being mentally impaired like Bush and Obama gave in their campaigns.

Do you think repeating the same crap over again and ignoring anything anyone else says will make it any more true or effective?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with many of Obama's supporters and aura of his campaign but there is definitely a media constructed narrative of him as cherubic.

And of course he is the most politically uber-religious and morally self righteous candidate in recent memory which is a fact. That's why I've had difficulty understanding his appeal with skeptics.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

Have you heard of Huckabee? Heck, even Edwards.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Have you heard of Huckabee? Heck, even Edwards.

Look up Hugh Cort. He thinks that if he isn't elected, God will punish the US.

 

[Kopji]

Eh, speculation. I do see the point, but to avoid a US woman president because of what Mideast leaders might think is definitely condescending, (not that we are innocent of that).

Shorter - "that would be wrong".

Treating them like backward children is no way to earn their respect either. I would hope that if there were a woman US president they would quickly adapt. There are still a lot of men with guns walking around their yard. Is that 'wear perfume and carry a big stick'?

 

[TriskettheKid]

Have you heard of Huckabee? Heck, even Edwards.

Look up Hugh Cort. He thinks that if he isn't elected, God will punish the US.

 

[latent aaaack]

Do you think repeating the same crap over again and ignoring anything anyone else says will make it any more true or effective?

That wasn't a repetition that was a closing statement. You did not answer in a credible way why Obama believes the same thing as Lincoln. He doesn't, and believing the US is one country and that (lol) words have power isn't believing the same things as Lincoln.

But I started out my questions with a suspicion that a lot of Obama supporters are weird like Paul and Bush/Cheney/next supporters in that they can't even admit when their candidate makes a mistake.

In that sense debating with you Obama comparing himself to Lincoln for no reason except personal grandiosity has proved my point, a lot of Obama's campaign is just plan irrational and weirdly quasi-religious.

 

[latent aaaack]

I would strongly recommend reading the article that triggered that blog entry.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/FRONTPAGE/801040301

I really can't see how you get "morally self righteous" out of his opinions.

I got the morally self righteous impression from his statements in and themes of his speeches but ok he sounds good in the article except for this:

Generally, Obama has shied away from the specifics of his faith in favor of the universal elements of religion. Speaking before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ in Connecticut in June, Obama said "doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life."

He criticized the definition of religious issues as gay marriage or abortion and said religion should be used to combat poverty and fight genocide.

Using religion as a motivation for entering into a war? How would he do that even practically, tell the congress that if they don't agree to authorizing force against Sudan that they're godless heathens? He's either lying, mentally impaired, or doing the Reagan/Bush act of being like a blowhard fake American hero in chief.

 

[Hokulele]

I got the morally self righteous impression from his statements in and themes of his speeches but ok he sounds good in the article except for this:

Using religion as a motivation for entering into a war? How would he do that even practically, tell the congress that if they don't agree to authorizing force against Sudan that they're godless heathens? He's either lying, mentally impaired, or doing the Reagan/Bush act of being like a blowhard fake American hero in chief.

How are you interpreting the first part you bolded? I don't see what it has to do with your point.


(Actually, I cannot see how either section supports your point, other than the fact that the words "combat" and "fight" are used.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That wasn't a repetition that was a closing statement. You did not answer in a credible way why Obama believes the same thing as Lincoln. He doesn't, and believing the US is one country and that (lol) words have power isn't believing the same things as Lincoln.

But I started out my questions with a suspicion that a lot of Obama supporters are weird like Paul and Bush/Cheney/next supporters in that they can't even admit when their candidate makes a mistake.

In that sense debating with you Obama comparing himself to Lincoln for no reason except personal grandiosity has proved my point, a lot of Obama's campaign is just plan irrational and weirdly quasi-religious.

Thanks for the compliments .

This "Ignore" button is looking seriously tempting...

And yes, the only reason was personal grandiosity . The point was to get votes, plain and simple. He compared himself to an American hero because everyone would vote for Lincoln. He's saying that he believes in things that Lincoln did (If you think that Lincoln didn't believe in those things, then take that up with the speech writer, not me), Lincoln was disadvantaged to be president, and Lincoln was good and he can be good.

And when you ignore what people write you seem a tad rude.

I'm not irrational or quasi-religious or whatever other generalizations you planned on making about people voting for Obama from the start of this conversation.

I and others have given plenty of rational reasons for voting for him. But all you want to hark about is one speech in which he talked about Lincoln and how he is an insane Bush clone, and his supporters are just as deluded.

If you want a genuine discussion, I would be happy to have one.

But this isn't discussion, this is just you shouting ranting accusations.

 

[latent aaaack]

I didn't ignore your rational reasons for supporting Obama. If you read back you'll see I said my initial questions didn't apply because people responding had better reasons and then I recognized when you brought up reasons like he's anti-corruption as valid reasons I'd look into.

And again you simply can not say that Lincoln and Obama are disadvantaged at winning in the same way. Inexperience is not a good thing because Lincoln was inexperienced, unless you are as great as Lincoln and it's the 1860s. No it wasn't just that one speech.

Additionally, inexperience is not good thing just because experienced people in Washington have screwed things up. That kind of thinking is called desperation and hoping that a candidate is capable of performing grandious miracles despite all logic, "ushering in a new era of freedom on this earth."

And finally I'll just say that even though I hate your candidate I like you so no need to accuse me of being insulting. I said Obama's campaign was irrational and quasi-religious not necessarily all his supporters.

Thanks for the compliments .

This "Ignore" button is looking seriously tempting...

And yes, the only reason was personal grandiosity . The point was to get votes, plain and simple. He compared himself to an American hero because everyone would vote for Lincoln. He's saying that he believes in things that Lincoln did (If you think that Lincoln didn't believe in those things, then take that up with the speech writer, not me), Lincoln was disadvantaged to be president, and Lincoln was good and he can be good.

And when you ignore what people write you seem a tad rude.

I'm not irrational or quasi-religious or whatever other generalizations you planned on making about people voting for Obama from the start of this conversation.

I and others have given plenty of rational reasons for voting for him. But all you want to hark about is one speech in which he talked about Lincoln and how he is an insane Bush clone, and his supporters are just as deluded.

If you want a genuine discussion, I would be happy to have one.

But this isn't discussion, this is just you shouting ranting accusations.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I got the morally self righteous impression from his statements in and themes of his speeches but ok he sounds good in the article except for this:



Using religion as a motivation for entering into a war? How would he do that even practically, tell the congress that if they don't agree to authorizing force against Sudan that they're godless heathens? He's either lying, mentally impaired, or doing the Reagan/Bush act of being like a blowhard fake American hero in chief.

I think he is saying that the better use of religion is for humanitarian goals, rather than the typical social conservative ones.

And he isn't always talking about what he would do as president. Sometimes he is talking about politics and society in general.

He is saying that religious efforts and motivations should focus more on taking care of God's children than punishing sinners.

But then, I am sure you're interpretation is just as likely .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I didn't ignore your rational reasons for supporting Obama. If you read back you'll see I said my initial questions didn't apply because people responding had better reasons and then I recognized when you brought up reasons like he's anti-corruption as valid reasons I'd look into.

Alright then.

And again you simply can not say that Lincoln and Obama are disadvantaged at winning in the same way. Inexperience is not a good thing because Lincoln was inexperienced, unless you are as great as Lincoln and it's the 1860s. No it wasn't just that one speech.

The point was that they were disadvantaged. No Obama isn't ugly, but that wasn't really the point.

And all you've brought up was that one speech.

Additionally, inexperience is not good thing just because experienced people in Washington have screwed things up. That kind of thinking is called desperation and hoping that a candidate is capable of performing grandious miracles despite all logic, "ushering in a new era of freedom on this earth."

He wasn't claiming that inexperience is a plus, he has said numerous times that he considers judgement more important. The fortunate aspect of not being in Washington long is that you get to be the fresh face and anti-corruption candidate, but that doesn't mean inexperience is a plus.

What he has been saying is that experience isn't all that is needed, and he makes up for it in other categories.

And finally I'll just say that even though I hate your candidate I like you so no need to accuse me of being insulting. I said Obama's campaign was irrational and quasi-religious not necessarily all his supporters.

Very well then.

 

[latent aaaack]

How are you interpreting the first part you bolded? I don't see what it has to do with your point.


(Actually, I cannot see how either section supports your point, other than the fact that the words "combat" and "fight" are used.)

If you don't consider that too politically religious then that's a personal judgement call, but in his words he thinks there's a relationship between his politics and God's will. That wouldn't be what I'd call conclusive evidence that he's a theocratic maniac but a sign on par with signs that Bush showed in 2000 that went unnoticed.

What do you interpret to mean exactly? How do you fight genocide with faith?

This is why being experienced helps, so you don't have to guess that he's not a theocratic maniac who lets God's will inform his decision making as president, which we've already had too much of.