Does It Bother You That Obama's Middle Name Is Hussein? (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

>>I'm more concerned that he's Dick Cheney's cousin than what his middle name is.

Olbermann or someone cracked on Cheney last week, "Look out, Vice President Cheney is going on a hunting trip this weekend." As far as Barack Hussein Obama (get used to hearing that like you used to hear George Herbert Walker Bush), he also cracked on his relationship to Dick Cheney.

Reacting to the news, Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton told CNN's Dana Bash with tongue in cheek, "Obviously, Dick Cheney is sort of the black sheep of the family."

Obama is also an 11th cousin of President Bush tied to a Massachusetts anscestor in the 1600's. He's related to Cheney via the first Richard Cheney who came to America in the 1650's.

What Obama said about it last week was that you want to be related to someone cool, like a king. But he's related to Dick Cheney, not so cool. :17: Of course we all probably are too, but, yeah, he's the blacksheep.

TPS

 

[Saint77]

No, that's not my point. They're all crooks IMO, he might be just as bad, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, unlike her. Like I said , I KNOW she's a liar. Obama might not be...

Hey, its all cool with me. I understand yer point of view.

For me its down to this, Its been said that both Obama and billery share a fair amount of positions on the issues, one has a past (perhaps checkered) and one doesn't so much. To me, its 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Folks want to believe that since he doesn't have such a history behind him, he offers more hope. I am just not so sure of this.

This is where as an independent, I am highly frustrated. Its not like I like the alternatives (McCain, etc)

 

[Ozark Mountain Saint]

Sorry - I misunderstood. I think you're in better position than anyone else to answer that, since not many of us are in touch with the Arkansas voter. I think the simplest explanation is that he didn't campaign there, and Clinton's husband was governor there and Arkansas Democrats appreciate that. Outside of that, I don't know.

No problem at all. I didn't do a very good job of communicating what I was looking for. I am more interested in why people in some areas outside of Arkansas are so supportive of Obama.

What makes him attractive to so many? It can't be simply his policies, I would say a lot of the people voting for the candidtates in the primaries couldn't articulate most, if any, of their actual policies.

Im sure the fact his last name is not Clinton or Bush may have a lot to do with it......

 

[Severum]

Granted, that is true to an extent, but I think there were other factors at play here as well. I don't think his message resonated with the people here for whatever reason.
Mike Huckabee only got 62% and he is an Arkie by birth, not a northern transplant.

Perhaps, but what other factors would make Arkansas so different from other states? Interestingly, the five states that Clinton has won by more than 10 points are AR, NY, or states that border them.

 

[Severum]

No problem at all. I didn't do a very good job of communicating what I was looking for. I am more interested in why people in some areas outside of Arkansas are so supportive of Obama.

What makes him attractive to so many? It can't be simply his policies, I would say a lot of the people voting for the candidtates in the primaries couldn't articulate most, if any, of their actual policies.

Im sure the fact his last name is not Clinton or Bush may have a lot to do with it......

I agree that BushClintonBushClinton fatigue and general disgust for Washington politics drives some votes his way. Clinton's war vote and DLC history lost her a lot of support among the left side of the party as well.

Obama's message of hope and change is probably what resonates best among low-information supporters. Clinton's campaign misjudged the political tides when they decided on the inevitability, experience, and tested themes.

 

[JimEverett]

It obviously doesn't bother many people voting in the Democratic primary season.
I think you are hiding your head in the sand if you think it is not going to play a role in the general election. As will his time spent in Indonesia studying Koran, his grandmother talking about how he was such a good little Muslim boy, his black nationalist church in Chicago, and no doubt other things.

 

[Jonesy77]

I'm more bothered by Hillary's last name.

 

[Thorin]

I'm more bothered by Hillary's last name.

Yeah, that's what I said. I'm more bothered by names like Clinton, Reid, Boxer, Kennedy, Pelosi.

 

[DavidM]

It obviously doesn't bother many people voting in the Democratic primary season.
I think you are hiding your head in the sand if you think it is not going to play a role in the general election. As will his time spent in Indonesia studying Koran, his grandmother talking about how he was such a good little Muslim boy, his black nationalist church in Chicago, and no doubt other things.

I agree with that. I expect all to become bigger issues if he gets the nomination. But it's also naive to think that Hillary sits in a substantially loftier position in this regard. The Repubs and support groups will show no restraint in dredging up her past -- every scandal, allegation, untimely smile or laugh, or out-of-step breath.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree with that. I expect all to become bigger issues if he gets the nomination. But it's also naive to think that Hillary sits in a substantially loftier position in this regard. The Repubs and support groups will show no restraint in dredging up her past -- every scandal, allegation, untimely smile or laugh, or out-of-step breath.

That is true. But Hillary is a known commodity. Her defects have been in the public eye for almost 2 decades. And there isn't much chance the Republicans have in defining her like they do Obama.
With hillary Democrats give themselves a fighting chance - a replay of 2000 and 2004. With Obama the risk is a blowout loss, and at the same time a blowout win.
I guess you can look at it as an insight to personality. Between the two I favor Hillary, and I almost always hedge my risks.

 

[DavidM]

With hillary Democrats give themselves a fighting chance - a replay of 2000 and 2004. With Obama the risk is a blowout loss, and at the same time a blowout win.
I guess you can look at it as an insight to personality. Between the two I favor Hillary, and I almost always hedge my risks.

Which gets back to what you and I have already touched on -- among the hurdles each face, which are the toughest to overcome?

I agree with you that Obama is almost certainly facing some very tough challenges to his personal background (blatant or covert). I can't realistically believe that his race and familial-ties to Islam will just be allowed to fly under the radar.

The question becomes, are the challenges he faces more insurmountable than the ones she faces? Though that is typical of any election, it's compounded because these are anything but typical candidates.

Certainly there is a subset of voters who will never vote for Obama (not counting those who have reasonably disqualified him -- or will -- because they don't like his policies, he doesn't represent their ideology, and/or they are uncomfortable with his relative inexperience.) The same is true of Clinton -- there is a core of voters who will never vote for her, whether it's because of gender that she's a Clinton.

 

[gaminerie]

It bothers me that even after having Iraq rammed down our throats for the past five years (and Iran for the past twenty +), that so much of America is STILL too ignorant to understand that there is a difference between Shiite and Sunni.

Never mind making an attempt to understand what that difference IS.

i don't care if his middle name is Fitzgerald.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

That is true. But Hillary is a known commodity. Her defects have been in the public eye for almost 2 decades. And there isn't much chance the Republicans have in defining her like they do Obama.
With hillary Democrats give themselves a fighting chance - a replay of 2000 and 2004. With Obama the risk is a blowout loss, and at the same time a blowout win.
I guess you can look at it as an insight to personality. Between the two I favor Hillary, and I almost always hedge my risks.

I'm a lot like you in that I always hedge my risks.

The difference is I see Hillary as a sure losers. She has way too much baggage to be exploited and unlike Bill she's not good at brushing these things off.

Obama on the other hand I think gives the Dems a fighting chance because the only really things to attack are cultural. Also, with cultural things you run a 50 - 50 on success. Sometimes they work, sometimes they back fire. The Clintons learned this as it backfired brutally on them trying to play the race card. With Hillary's scandals and high degree of personal conflict it all sticks 100% of the time.

I see Hillary as being a sure fire loser and Obama as being a possible winner.

 

[St. Greatness]

Then again, there are people in front of closed doors (or behind open doors?) WOULD vote for Obama [simply] because of his race. And again, sad but true.

One day we will judge politicians for their positions (and of course how convinvingly they lie to us, but that's another story) and not their party affiliation or race or gender or past occupation or amount of wealth, but until then we deal with what we got.

:bravo-applaudi-147: Yay! At least someone here has the right idea (especially the last part).

 

[thewyrm]

http://http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

I am by no means an Obama supporter, but these rediculous rumors about him have got to stop.

By the way, if he wins the nomination he wins the Presidency in a landslide. If Hillary wins the nomination she will win the Presidency in a lanslide. There is just no chance at all that a Republican will be sitting in that office after the next election. None.

Do America a favor and vote Libertarian.