I'm sure most of you have heard of this fellow, but for those who haven't:

He's a 42-year-old two-termer in the Illinois legislature who's now running for the Senate. Originally, he was running against popular incumbent Jack Ryan, but Ryan dropped out after papers from his divorce (to "Star Trek" Borgian hottie 7 of 9) became public; apparently, people don't look too kindly on politicians who ask their wives to have sex in public. The GOP has been frantically searching to find a replacement for Ryan, including Mike Ditka before he declined the offer, but so far they've got nobody.

So, basically, Obama is poised to become the third black Senator since Reconstruction.

(That's so sad, it's worth repeating: the THIRD black Senator since Reconstruction. It makes my stomach churn.)

He's by no means radical, but he's what you could call moderately liberal: pro-gun control, pro-choice, pretty green. He's also somewhat attractive, articulate, and fresh-sounding. And despite the fact that he's never held national office, he's giving the keynote address tonight, the first night of the Democratic National Convention.

Like ... damn.

I almost worked for his campaign.

I think it's great that he will be delivering the keynote address at the convention.

I hear all about him because I live in Chicago. People seem to love the guy.

Yeah, he is/was here at the Law School at The University of Chicago so he's got a lot of support amongst intellectuals in the city (& maybe state). I don't know enough about him, but from what I've read he seems like just my kind of candidate.

"the third black Senator since Reconstruction."

:( It's reasons like this that I feel that race relations in the US are still more important than many realize. Maybe class issues are a lot more pertinent nowadays, but I think it's unwise to completely shift the gaze from our race issues.

I too, almost worked for his campaign, but I am lazy, so I'm not. I will vote for him, not because he'd be the third black senator, but because he's a good decision maker with the intellect & compassion to lead.

Carol Moseley Braun was the first black woman and first black democrat elected as US Senator. She too, was from Illinois.

Oh wow. His speech was incredible. That man has some charisma. He seems like the type that'll definitely go places.

His speech almost moved me to tears. It was AMAZING.

Originally posted by BlueStar
I almost worked for his campaign.

I think it's great that he will be delivering the keynote address at the convention. Yes, the guy you want delivering the keynote speech is someone with zero experience who won a seat by default.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes, the guy you want delivering the keynote speech is someone with zero experience who won a seat by default.

What the fuck? Why do you need experience to give a speech about how powerful and moving America is - and the vision that he feels it should have?

If that's the case, never make another fucking political post ever, because you have zero experience.

Originally posted by sppunk


What the fuck? Why do you need experience to give a speech about how powerful and moving America is - and the vision that he feels it should have?

If that's the case, never make another fucking political post ever, because you have zero experience. I'm not giving the keynote speech at a major party convention.

If you really don't see what that was, than you're blinder than I thought. The man was given the "honor" because now the Democrats can put a black man on television. Do you think he would have been given a shot if he were white? No, of course not. This was the Dems playing the race card, pure and simple.

The keynote speech IMO should go to someone who deserves it. This guy hasn't even been elected to anything yet, but will win because his opponent doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
This guy hasn't even been elected to anything yet, but will win because his opponent doesn't exist.



Yeah, there won't be any race baiting on the republican side. I wonder if Vicente Fernandez will sing again this year?

But more importantly, this is the 2nd time you say this, and you are totally wrong. He was beating the republican candidate fairly handily and Ryan in the end was forced to quit by his own party. So quit saying he won by default, because he was winning it in a walk anyway.

Originally posted by Future Boy




So quit saying he won by default, because he was winning it in a walk anyway.

Yeah, seriously.

Here in IL, I've been hearing about this guy for a long-ass time. And I don't pay attention to anything ever.

People have pegged him as someone who will definitely go places. Ryan didn't stand a chance.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'm not giving the keynote speech at a major party convention.

If you really don't see what that was, than you're blinder than I thought. The man was given the "honor" because now the Democrats can put a black man on television. Do you think he would have been given a shot if he were white? No, of course not. This was the Dems playing the race card, pure and simple.

The keynote speech IMO should go to someone who deserves it. This guy hasn't even been elected to anything yet, but will win because his opponent doesn't exist.

Who cares? He's a Democrat, a good speaker and popular in the party. He's a young, energetic leader - exactly what the Republicans aren't. And why would the Dems need to kiss more black's, the Republicans ignore them completelly.

And, apparently you didn't watch, because his speech trumped anything I've seen at a convention. That, by itself, merits him speaking.

Whoever told you, or whatever makes you believe, you need "experience" and "a history of winning" to give a passionate speech is idiotic and simply false. Of course, you refuse to ever admit your faults on anything, so I will await your reply where you again try to rationalize how you are right - though everyone else sees the faults.

Before the GOP, unfairly, I think, forced him to step down (there wasn't any public outcry just continued amazement that a couple's personal life was again aired by the media) and leave the race, the two were on equal footing, but Obama already had a well established lead and was seen as the likely winner, but you'll get the chance to read that in tomorrow's papers most likely.

Since when have the Dems NOT chosen a charismatic, educated, eloquent, inspiring, intelligent speaker? You must be somewhat biggoted if you saw a black man dancing for his supper. He is intelligent. Bill Clinton, even if you don't like him, still intelligent. John Kerry, intelligent. HIllary, Teresa, Gore........

As Ron Regean says, "...cannot embrace a culture of ignorance"

"eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white" - Barack Obama

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove

"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be—a literate country and a hopefuller country."
—Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2001 from the man I cannot believe gets the chance to stand before a crowd of more than one. Earning the right to speak at the podium? He proves that anything goes.

Originally posted by spa ced
His speech almost moved me to tears. It was AMAZING.

same here, the guy is amazing

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'm not giving the keynote speech at a major party convention.

If you really don't see what that was, than you're blinder than I thought. The man was given the "honor" because now the Democrats can put a black man on television. Do you think he would have been given a shot if he were white? No, of course not. This was the Dems playing the race card, pure and simple.

The keynote speech IMO should go to someone who deserves it. This guy hasn't even been elected to anything yet, but will win because his opponent doesn't exist. Hey, dude, politics is image. And Obama was able to convey an image of intelligence, youthfulness and conviction in a time where the Democratic Party is attempting to get more young people to vote. He fit the needs of the convention and it was a good pr move for him to have the keynote address. To some degree it could be construed as courting the young black vote, but hey, is that worse than slanderous advertisements hurled at Kerry?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

The keynote speech IMO should go to someone who deserves it. This guy hasn't even been elected to anything yet, but will win because his opponent doesn't exist.

Ashcroft lost his senate race to an opponent who didn't exist and the Republican President gave him one of the most important positions in the nation. i think giving Obama a keynote speech at a convention is hardly as grievous an offence.

but it is all PR bullshit. what do you really know about him? the way people cream over him makes me think he's the anti-christ. charming politicians are dangerous.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
This was the Dems playing the race card, pure and simple.




That is a lie. He is an incredible speaker, and he is an up and coming member of the Democratic party. Do you think Gov. Napolitano was given a chance to speak b/c she's a woman? If so, I feel badly for you.

Originally posted by Irrelevant

charming politicians are dangerous.

indeed they are

Originally posted by tear stained glass
To some degree it could be construed as courting the young black vote,

Don't democrats already have the black vote??

And I just watched his speech. It was very, very good. Who are the republicans gonna bust out that has nearly as much charisma as Clinton or Obama?

John McCain? ha.

Is it just me or is Nimrod against anything and anyone Democrat just for the sole sake of being it?

Originally posted by spa ced
Is it just me or is Nimrod against anything and anyone Democrat just for the sole sake of being it?

i may start calling him Hannity's Son

Originally posted by mpp



That is a lie. He is an incredible speaker, and he is an up and coming member of the Democratic party. Do you think Gov. Napolitano was given a chance to speak b/c she's a woman? If so, I feel badly for you.

Obama himself did say in an interview that he believes that he was chosen in part because he is African-American and the Dems need him to reach out to the African-American community.

Someone find me the video of that speech, stat please. :(

Originally posted by sppunk
Someone find me the video of that speech, stat please. :(

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125925

near bottom of page

Originally posted by bittertrance


http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125925

near bottom of page

Wow, thanks man. :)

How've you been? I haven't seen you around much at all.

Regarding the Race Card, explain how CONDI was trotted out to speak in a publicly televised hearing? Despite memos clearly stating that Osama, not Saddam planned to attack, why was she still employed much less speaking to members of Congress? Were she a white, middle aged guy, she would have been behind the closed doors with the others.


Race card? Maybe not, but a better argument for using race than a keynote address.

This year's GOP speaker -

Zell Miller, iconoclastic Democratic senator from Georgia. There he was in 1992, delighting Democrats with his "Zell zingers" lacerating the GOP.

And there he will be next month, at the Republican convention in New York, taking shots at his own party's nominee.

How does he "deserve" the keynote speech for the GOP more than Obama for the DNC?

Originally posted by Future Boy




Yeah, there won't be any race baiting on the republican side. I wonder if Vicente Fernandez will sing again this year?

But more importantly, this is the 2nd time you say this, and you are totally wrong. He was beating the republican candidate fairly handily and Ryan in the end was forced to quit by his own party. So quit saying he won by default, because he was winning it in a walk anyway. You're missing the point. The guy hasn't won anything yet.

And if the Republicans race bait as well, we'll call them on that, too. You can't say it's right for one side to do it because you think the other side will.

Originally posted by sppunk


Who cares? He's a Democrat, a good speaker and popular in the party. He's a young, energetic leader - exactly what the Republicans aren't. And why would the Dems need to kiss more black's, the Republicans ignore them completelly.

And, apparently you didn't watch, because his speech trumped anything I've seen at a convention. That, by itself, merits him speaking.

Whoever told you, or whatever makes you believe, you need "experience" and "a history of winning" to give a passionate speech is idiotic and simply false. Of course, you refuse to ever admit your faults on anything, so I will await your reply where you again try to rationalize how you are right - though everyone else sees the faults. What faults? I simply said that this is a simple case of race baiting. Ask yourself if the guy would have spoken had he been white.

No? Then it's obviously a racial ploy.

God, some of you are so liberal that you can't even see (or perhaps admit) when your major party of choice does wrong.

Originally posted by spa ced
Is it just me or is Nimrod against anything and anyone Democrat just for the sole sake of being it? Uh, it's the Democratic Convention right now. The GOP is staying quiet for now. Wait until their convention, buddy.

Originally posted by homechicago
Regarding the Race Card, explain how CONDI was trotted out to speak in a publicly televised hearing? Despite memos clearly stating that Osama, not Saddam planned to attack, why was she still employed much less speaking to members of Congress? Were she a white, middle aged guy, she would have been behind the closed doors with the others.


Race card? Maybe not, but a better argument for using race than a keynote address.

This year's GOP speaker -

Zell Miller, iconoclastic Democratic senator from Georgia. There he was in 1992, delighting Democrats with his "Zell zingers" lacerating the GOP.

And there he will be next month, at the Republican convention in New York, taking shots at his own party's nominee.

How does he "deserve" the keynote speech for the GOP more than Obama for the DNC? I compare Miller's appearance more to Ron Reagan's than Obama's. He was chosen as symbolic of the other party's "defector." Is he deserving of a keynote speech? Probably not. However, he certainly has more experience than Obama, but that doesn't mean he should do the keynote.

I think John McCain deserves that honor.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
What faults? I simply said that this is a simple case of race baiting. Ask yourself if the guy would have spoken had he been white.

No? Then it's obviously a racial ploy.

God, some of you are so liberal that you can't even see (or perhaps admit) when your major party of choice does wrong.

He's been the only "black" person to speak in prime time. If they were "baiting" the blacks ... wouldn't they run more out there? OK then, that's what I thought.

You're so conservative and right-wing you can't stand anything Dems, liberals, etc. say. If they said let's give everyone a raise you'd probably oppose it simply because it was said by someone who supports gay marriage. Pot. Kettle. Black. a bit do you?

And, again, how is having the most dynamic speaker in the party speak wrong? Oh, he's black, so he spoke based on nothing he has worked for. You know, that's probably the most racist thing ever - saying someone did something based on their skin color, not their stance or abilities.

Just leave this thread. You didn't watch the speech, you know nothing of the man, so arguing with you is like arguing with Frank about American politics: Pointless and trivial.

Originally posted by sppunk


He's been the only "black" person to speak in prime time. If they were "baiting" the blacks ... wouldn't they run more out there? OK then, that's what I thought.

You're so conservative and right-wing you can't stand anything Dems, liberals, etc. say. If they said let's give everyone a raise you'd probably oppose it simply because it was said by someone who supports gay marriage. Pot. Kettle. Black. a bit do you?

And, again, how is having the most dynamic speaker in the party speak wrong? Oh, he's black, so he spoke based on nothing he has worked for. You know, that's probably the most racist thing ever - saying someone did something based on their skin color, not their stance or abilities.

Just leave this thread. You didn't watch the speech, you know nothing of the man, so arguing with you is like arguing with Frank about American politics: Pointless and trivial. Uh, I did watch the speech, douchebag. Stop making assumptions. In fact, I've seen nearly all of the speeches so far in the DemNatCon.

Pot/Kettle/Black? How does this apply at all? You give a flawed analogy and then accuse me of being a hypocrite?

Look, all I said was that the ONLY reason this guy got to speak is because he's black. If you think that's a good thing, then fine. I don't like anyone - liberal or conservative - race baiting in politics.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Look, all I said was that the ONLY reason this guy got to speak is because he's black. If you think that's a good thing, then fine. I don't like anyone - liberal or conservative - race baiting in politics.

And I said that's not true. If they wanted to race bait, they'd run out more and more blacks ... which they're not. If they were race baiting, they'd talk about black issues ... which they're not. They picked a man (who happens to be black) who is an up-and-coming figure in the party, who is the next Democratic senator and who is a dynamic speaker and personality. If anything, that's personality baiting ... not race baiting.

I think John McCain deserves that honor.

He deserves that and more especially from the campaign that maligned his good name with phone canvassing, to knock his more than 20 years of spublic service out in favor of one who spent a few, with no foreign policy experience or war heroism.

The press rolled over in its coverage of the McCain vs. Bush campaign in the 2000 Republican primary, failing to investigate who was responsible for the systematic phone canvassing in South Carolina that used racial slurs and innuendos about McCain's children to slime his character. Seldom did the press bother to compare Bush's suspect military record to McCain's heroic one.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
You're missing the point. The guy hasn't won anything yet.

And if the Republicans race bait as well, we'll call them on that, too. You can't say it's right for one side to do it because you think the other side will.

1) That was your point, not my point, that's why I didnt address it. I dont think it would be fair to claim on either side of this argument that his race had nothing to do with his selection.


2) I wasn't trying to justify it, but it's politics, what do you expect?


My point was you basically kept saying "He's only gonna win cause no one is running against him." and that's totally untrue, and lead me to think you had no idea how that particular race was playing out, yet choose to repeat some crap you probably heard Sean Hannity say. Maybe he hasn't "earned" the right to speak, but he at least deserves credit for his victory.

upon further thought, his completed speech showed why he earned the right to speak. i've not seen legislation anywhere that stipulates how the GOP or DNC have to choose a keynote speaker.

Obama drafted and passed landmark legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases, and was chief co-sponsor of comprehensive reform of the death penalty system in Illinois.

Obama passed legislation to provide targeted tax breaks for investment in depressed areas and to hold corporations accountable for tax breaks they receive from the state. Working with community colleges and area employers, he helped design and fund an innovative job-training program that has moved hundreds of unskilled, low-wage workers into high skill, high wage jobs.

Barack Obama has spent a lifetime fighting effectively to empower working families and the poor - as community organizer, civil rights attorney and a leader in the Illinois Senate.

He earned it.

Originally posted by Future Boy

My point was you basically kept saying "He's only gonna win cause no one is running against him." and that's totally untrue, and lead me to think you had no idea how that particular race was playing out, yet choose to repeat some crap you probably heard Sean Hannity say. Maybe he hasn't "earned" the right to speak, but he at least deserves credit for his victory. I didn't say "only." I said he *is* going to win because there's no one opposing him. There's a difference.

Before the Ryan "scandal" hit, the race was purportedly neck and neck.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Before the Ryan "scandal" hit, the race was purportedly neck and neck.


Nah, he was already losing by then, that simply took away his GOP support. That was actually his 2nd "scandal", he previously had had one of his people stalk Obama video taping his every move. I still have no idea what in the hell that was supposed to do.

Most big political campaigns these days do employ so-called trackers. They videotape the opponents' speeches at news conferences so they can immediately react to a flip-flop and inconsistency or attack. But the tracker hired by the Jack Ryan campaign has been behaving more like a stalker, who got so up close and personal the Ryan campaign is offering an apology and ordering the tracker to back off.


this is from the local ABC news affiliate

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/052104_ns_ryan_taping.html


politics can be creepy, it's a wonder people actually get into it.

Soon it will be learned that Ryan actually planned his sex scandal to get out of the race instead of getting his ass beat by 20 points. Ditka did not get into the race because he didn't want to lose by 20 points.

I love how Ditka is classified as an "ultra, ultra, ultra conservative" yet supports gun control and opposes the death penalty.

Republican senators are about as rare as democrats who are NRA members anyway.

Speaking of Ditka:

I should have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it's pretty much been accepted in Democratic circles that the main reason Obama was picked to give the keynote is because Dems were afraid Ditka would enter the race in Illinois and take away what's become their surest pickup. It's not a "because he's black" thing; it's self-preservation.

Obama seems to have his shit together...and that is not representative of the Democratic party at present...so he doesnt fit.