Cult of Obama (1 Viewer)

I think it is peachy that I actually get to vote in a primary and it actually might count. It is usually decided by now.
 
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

Listening to Obama speak, he doesn't remind of Bobby Kennedy so much as Huey P. Long. His rhetoric is very classic populism. Also along the lines of William Jennings Bryan (to go way back in history):
A lot of flowery talk about how everything will be better, "A change is gonna come", and "a chicken in every pot" (to quote Long), but no specifics, no outlines, and no plans on how to pay for anything. I'm not saying he's some horrible monster or anything (which some people are running around claiming), just that when I hear him speak, all I hear is a lot of empty populist talk rather than any substance.

As to the "Hildebeast Cult", why should we be surprised that the wife of the Prince of Lies is using smear campaigning, threats, and lies to try to woo/intimidate voters and party members into backing her? S.O.P. for the couple from Arkansas, IMHO.
 
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.

I'm sure that it's different in other parts of the country but here in the Chicago area black has nothing to do with his baggage. His Muslim background is the only issue that I have seen that gets people's ears up.
 
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:

Yeah, I edited the above. I realized you had to jump through hoops to get the info. As you might expect, the specifics didn't make me like him more.:hihi:

Anway, as for the "of the people" claim, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, went to college at Columbia, spent some time as a community activist in Chicago and then went to and graduated from Harvard Law School. I don't know about the rest of you, but that's not the kind of people I'm "of.":hihi:
 
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.

That's all well and good, but the point is that the guy has never been tested. Never.
Look at how the press treated George W. Bush in the 2000 primary calendar. They didn;t let his campaign dictate the coverage he got, as contrasted with the press corps today basically labeling Obama as the "change" candidate (whatever the hell that means). They delved heavily into his past - before he was Governor, with Obama that seems to be off limits. I even remember stories about his Pentecostal or whatever Church, you can find info on Obama's church, but its not exactly front and center from the press corps covering the campaign.
 
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.

I agree that you could make the argument that Obama gained momentum with Bill's attacks. But Obama had been gaining momentum well before Clinton's attacks. And frankly, the attacks weren't all that harsh to begin with. It would probably do Obama a lot of good to go a few rounds with Bill Clinton. Bill's a heck of a lot better politician than McCain, so if Obama can hold his own against Bill Clinton in a political back and forth, he would be well prepared to take on McCain.

It appeared pretty clear that Clinton was bringing out the race issue. This isn't something that the Dems, as a party, are going to take to kindly. It sort of rubs against the facade of the party's image. But it's going to be an issue the Rebublicans are going to attempt to sublty exploit. imo, it's better to have gone through the mill a time or two with the best politician of his generation and be ready for the general election.
 
Claims of cultishness are also rather amusing, considering Obama's dominance amongst the affluent and well-educated.

Do we really need the media to explain a candidate's shortcomings for us, given the absolute plethora of information at our fingertips?
 
Last edited:
>>Bill Clinton is writing the playbook on stopping Obama for the Republicans, not that they need the help

No they don't. Their current crop of uber conservatives include many white-flighters and racists among them. Them thar will never vote for a ******. :shrug:

TPS
 
Claims of cultishness are also rather amusing, considering Obama's dominance amongst the affluent and well-educated.

Ever watch Oprah? Watch how the women in the audience behave when they see and touch Oprah.
See also, Tom Cruise, Kirstie Alley, Will Smith, etc.
 
Hillary is getting a free pass also -- the only time the press got on her was in conjunction with Bill's antics -- and even the democratic leadership criticized her for that -- but lets face it -- she is upset that people are flocking to Obama -- she figured it was her legacy and right to be the democratic nominee and thats causing her to make mistakes in her campaign to which the press is jumping on
 
That's all well and good, but the point is that the guy has never been tested. Never.
Look at how the press treated George W. Bush in the 2000 primary calendar. They didn;t let his campaign dictate the coverage he got, as contrasted with the press corps today basically labeling Obama as the "change" candidate (whatever the hell that means). They delved heavily into his past - before he was Governor, with Obama that seems to be off limits. I even remember stories about his Pentecostal or whatever Church, you can find info on Obama's church, but its not exactly front and center from the press corps covering the campaign.

Are they covering these things with any other candidate? Romney got some I guess with the Mormon thing. I've seen the usual players, Hannity, Rush, etc. bring up the Church.

I guess I'm just confused what you expect the media to do with him. He seems to be getting treated on par with under candidates to me. Maybe I just watch and read too much coverage but I've seen a number of critical spots on him. Nothing too devastating because, it appears, there's just not much there.

Hillary was the media's anointed before Iowa. If there was something for them to pull on Obama they would have gladly. She was the anointed after New Hampshire too and only lost that when Bill decided to try and turn Obama into Toby.

Now, the Republicans will certainly be tougher but that's true every primary season to the general election. It's always harder outside your party.Unlike Hillary though the only real attacks to mount on him seem to be cultural which may or may not play well. He just doesn't have enough of a record to go after and his public persona is pretty much squeaky clean. He hasn't been around long enough to stick a dozen feet in his mouth like many others.

What's a po' media 'sposed to do?
 
I agree that you could make the argument that Obama gained momentum with Bill's attacks. But Obama had been gaining momentum well before Clinton's attacks. And frankly, the attacks weren't all that harsh to begin with. It would probably do Obama a lot of good to go a few rounds with Bill Clinton. Bill's a heck of a lot better politician than McCain, so if Obama can hold his own against Bill Clinton in a political back and forth, he would be well prepared to take on McCain.

It appeared pretty clear that Clinton was bringing out the race issue. This isn't something that the Dems, as a party, are going to take to kindly. It sort of rubs against the facade of the party's image. But it's going to be an issue the Rebublicans are going to attempt to sublty exploit. imo, it's better to have gone through the mill a time or two with the best politician of his generation and be ready for the general election.

Actually look at the polls. Obama was on his way down before Bills attacks. Hillary had stretched to her widest lead (20 pts.) in the polls before Bill attacked. California was a lock with Hillary up by more than 30 pts. before Bill screwed it up.

020608DailyUpdateGraph2.gif
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom