Cult of Obama

Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
You Clinton supporters just don't know how to handle this. :shrug: It's a bit weird and all, but it's probably similar to Bobby Kennedy early in '68. I was too young to have noticed, but we haven't had a candidate who seems to have been 'of the people' for quite some time. (Not trying to say that Bobby Kennedy was 'of the people' but he did speak that way.)

TPS
 
Admin #4

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
30,357
Ratings
12,258
Age
45
Location
Houston
Offline
Press being hard on Clinton? Really?

Not one mention I've seen, and I drown myself in this stuff, of the plethora of scandals etc. she's been directly involved. Nobody interviewing the huge number of former Clintonista's that have written negative books or come out against her. Nothing.

I agree they are being light on Obama but the idea they are being hard on Hillary is comical. No other candidate could have the ton's of baggage she has and have it only mentioned in passing as her "negatives" by the press.
 
Thread starter #5
OP
OP
JimEverett

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
23,906
Ratings
7,052
Offline
You Clinton supporters just don't know how to handle this. :shrug: It's a bit weird and all, but it's probably similar to Bobby Kennedy early in '68. I was too young to have noticed, but we haven't had a candidate who seems to have been 'of the people' for quite some time. (Not trying to say that Bobby Kennedy was 'of the people' but he did speak that way.)

TPS
I am not a Clinton supporter. I just don;t want Republicans appointing federal judges for the next 5 years.
Anyways - RFK had quite a lot more experience at the federal level than does Obama. RFK had at least been in some political wars and had been battle tested. Maybe RFK's speeches were just some wishy-washy inspiring message of change, but I think it was more than that.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
>>I am not a Clinton supporter. I just don;t want Republicans appointing federal judges for the next 5 years.

That's a little scary as they already have the benches stacked with their cronies. If the Supreme Court falls, we might as well rename us US of A, Inc. :shrug:

TPS
 

dapperdan

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Jul 29, 1998
Messages
9,899
Ratings
4,292
Age
56
Location
Juanita Beach, WA
Offline
Jim, I agree with you. If I were a Dem, I'd be concerned that Obama's really not going through the vetting process during the primaries. And, this is just a hunch, lol, but it's my guess that the Republicans are not going to treat Obama with the same kid gloves that the press is currently handling him with.

What's interesting is that when Bill Clinton started to take the gloves off a few weeks ago, I thought Obama's reaction was pretty weak. He seemed back on his heels without a very effective response. And then the Democratic Party came to Obama's defense and told Bill to call off the dogs. But just as the Eagles and the Ravens laid the foundation on stopping the Patriots, imo, Bill Clinton is writing the playbook on stopping Obama for the Republicans, not that they need the help.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #9
OP
OP
JimEverett

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
23,906
Ratings
7,052
Offline
Press being hard on Clinton? Really?

Not one mention I've seen, and I drown myself in this stuff, of the plethora of scandals etc. she's been directly involved. Nobody interviewing the huge number of former Clintonista's that have written negative books or come out against her. Nothing.

I agree they are being light on Obama but the idea they are being hard on Hillary is comical. No other candidate could have the ton's of baggage she has and have it only mentioned in passing as her "negatives" by the press.
My impression is that the vast majority of press coverage on Clinton is couched in the context of a political decision - everything is done to win. You don;t get that so much in coverage of Obama.
 

DMaestro

Sucker Puncher
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
5,568
Ratings
851
Offline
Speaking of cults.... it was a group of Hillary supporters who tried to publicly castigate Ted Kennedy for daring to back Obama over a woman. And another group in New Hampshire who took great pains to spread the word that Obama was soft on abortion rights, essentially propagating lies on Hillary's behest.

Cult, for sure.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
30,357
Ratings
12,258
Age
45
Location
Houston
Offline
JIm, I agree with you. If I were a Dem, I'd be concerned that Obama's really not going through the vetting process during the primaries. And, this is just a hunch, lol, but it's my guess that the Republicans are not going to treat Obama with the same kid gloves that the press is currently handling him with.

What's interesting is that when Bill Clinton started to take the gloves off a few weeks ago, I thought Obama's reaction was pretty weak. He seemed back on his heels without a very effective response. And then the Democratic Party came to Obama's defense and told Bill to call off the dogs. But just as the Eagles and the Ravens laid the foundation on stopping the Patriots, imo, Bill Clinton is writing the playbook on stopping Obama for the Republicans, not that they need the help.
When the Clinton's attacked he surged in the polls. He didn't need a response. Silence was his best response. If anything it hurt him to respond.

One of the good things about having so little record is there's nothing to pound you on. Obama has the benefit of being able to say anything he wants because there's nothing to use to contradict him on. In the age of conflicting sound bites this is actually a strength rather than a weakness.
 
Thread starter #12
OP
OP
JimEverett

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
23,906
Ratings
7,052
Offline
JIm, I agree with you. If I were a Dem, I'd be concerned that Obama's really not going through the vetting process during the primaries. And, this is just a hunch, lol, but it's my guess that the Republicans are not going to treat Obama with the same kid gloves that the press is currently handling him with.

What's interesting is that when Bill Clinton started to take the gloves off a few weeks ago, I thought Obama's reaction was pretty weak. He seemed back on his heels without a very effective response. And then the Democratic Party came to Obama's defense and told Bill to call off the dogs. But just as the Eagles and the Ravens laid the foundation on stopping the Patriots, imo, Bill Clinton is writing the playbook on stopping Obama for the Republicans, not that they need the help.
Exactly. Which is why I don;t think people laying off of him are doing him any favors - unless his goal is simply to be the first man nominated as a major party presidential candiadte who isn;t white.
 

St. Widge

Besmirching You
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
33,839
Ratings
14,355
Age
47
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
BTW, I do agree that some Obama supporter have that weird Ron Paul supporter thing going. It is a tad over the top.
All this made me a bit more curious about Obama. As you know, I have a fundamental disagreement with him on the function and nature of government, but I wanted to get more specifics on him, including TPS' contention that he is "of the people". So, I went to his web site. There are no specifics there. There is just a way to join his campaign and get invited to events and some vague references to hope and change. I'm really starting to wonder if he isn't just a cult of personality. I will keep looking, but I'm pretty skeptical at this point.

Edit: Apparently you just have to jump through the hoops to get to the actual info on the site. I refuse to give anyone I don't know or do business with my email so I made one up. I'm checking it out now.
 
Last edited:

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
30,357
Ratings
12,258
Age
45
Location
Houston
Offline
My impression is that the vast majority of press coverage on Clinton is couched in the context of a political decision - everything is done to win. You don;t get that so much in coverage of Obama.
Because that is their legacy. It's how they were viewed long before this election. As I've stated before the cynicism toward them is well earned.

Obama doesn't have that baggage. Really his only baggage is being black with a funny name and Muslim father. He's got no record to destroy, no history of scandal of any depth, no fake crying at funerals, no being caught switching positions for political expediancy... nothing.

That doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have all those things if he had been around longer but he hasn't. So his "negatives" are just far less.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
30,357
Ratings
12,258
Age
45
Location
Houston
Offline
All this made me a bit more curious about Obama. As you know, I have a fundamental disagreement with him on the function and nature of government, but I wanted to get more specifics on him, including TPS' contention that he is "of the people". So, I went to his web site. There are no specifics there. There is just a way to join his campaign and get invited to events and some vague references to hope and change. I'm really starting to wonder if he isn't just a cult of personality. I will keep looking, but I'm pretty skeptical at this point.
Tons of specifics here.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Having been on his newsletter for 3 years I kind of have an unfair advantage on knowing his specifics though. :ezbill:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
bclemms Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 24

Similar threads

Top Bottom