The Barack Obama thread

[Mayfuck]

I wouldn't put much stock in what BlueStar says on democrat candidates that aren't Edwards. She's on the Edwards camp payroll and smear season is underway.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Effloresce

After 2000-2008, maybe they'll get it, Corganist.

If by "they" you mean the Democrats, and by "getting it" you mean putting up a candidate the average voter feels understands them, then maybe you're right. But I don't think voters are suddenly going to decide that likeability is not important, if that's what you're implying. No one wants to vote for an asshole...at least not on purpose.

[Effloresce]

Corganist, it's not that it isn't IMPORTANT, but it should not be the MOST IMPORTANT THING.

Anyway, Kevin Rudd (Australia's opposition leader) comments on John Howard's Cheney-esque scare tactics:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...obama-remarks/

How can the man who is Prime Minister of this country
come into this parliament and say that he is a person
of experience on the question of national security
when within the last 24 hours he has made the statement
that, when it comes to the operation of al-Qaeda
and its dealings in the world of international affairs
today, somehow al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation
that would prefer to see a Democrat win the next presidential
election rather than any other representative of
another political party?
The Prime Minister today has inserted that in fact he
was only making a reference to Mr Obama, one of the
US Democratic Party presidential candidates. It is important
that we place this unequivocally on the record.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gave this answer to a
question in relation to the Obama plan:
Yes, I think he is wrong. I mean, he is a long way from being
President of United States. I think he is wrong. I think that
that would just encourage those who wanted completely to
destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and victory for
the terrorists to hang on and to hope for an Obama victory. If
I were running al Qaeda in Iraq I would put a circle around
March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory—
not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.
That is not an addition invented by the Australian Labor
Party. That is not an addition invented by anybody
else. That was spoken, or would we dare say misspo-

ken, yesterday by the Prime Minister of Australia on a
matter of great consequence—that is, the future of this
country’s relationship with the United States, particularly
on the question of the future direction of Iraq policy.
To accuse the Democratic Party of the United States
of being al-Qaeda’s party of choice, to accuse the Democratic
Party of being the terrorists’ party of choice,
to accuse the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and
Johnson of being the terrorists’ party of choice is a
most serious charge. I cannot understand how any responsible
leader of this country can say to the nation
that it is his serious view that the Democratic Party of
the United States is the terrorists’ party of choice. But
these are your words, Prime Minister. I did not invent
them; they are yours. In this parliament today we gave
you every opportunity to say that you got it wrong.

The SPEAKER—Order! The leader will refer his
remarks through the chair.
Mr RUDD—We gave the Prime Minister every opportunity
to say that it was wrong. It may have been
that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. It
may have been that he did not hear it clearly. It may
have been that he did not understand it clearly. I understand
that these things can happen, but the Prime Minister
was given not once, not twice but on three separate
occasions in this place today an opportunity to say,
‘I got that wrong; I didn’t mean that.’ For him to pass
up each of those opportunities says much about the
partisan way this Prime Minister now views the relationship
with our great American ally.
Let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake
here. This is not just an attack on a single US senator
but an attack upon an entire political party. Here is
where Australia’s national interest kicks in: the Democratic
Party currently controls the majority in the United
States House, controls the majority in the United States
Senate and, within a year or so, may control the White
House itself. In this parliament today, this country’s
Prime Minister has reaffirmed that he describes this
party as the terrorists’ party of choice. This is a serious
matter.
Prime Minister, can you imagine if I stood up in this
parliament as the alternative Prime Minister and said to
the people of Australia that the terrorists would be advantaged
if the Republicans were to return to the White
House at the next presidential election? Ponder for a
moment how that would be regarded. How would it be
seized on by those opposite? Can you imagine the reaction
from those opposite if I stood at this dispatch box
or appeared on national television and said that the
Republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of
joy on the part of al-Qaeda and on the part of terrorists?
This is a grave mistake and I fear that it reflects a
deep view on the part of the Prime Minister about

those within the US political system with whom he
may not share a view.

Well said. Howard, don't think you're going to give the impression that you were just talking about Obama, you're quoted as grouping in the whole party with him.

[homechicago]

it's frightening how this administration and it's warped friends call ANYONE who doesn't agree 100% with their beliefs is derided a terrorist or an aid to them.

why are there so many sheep who are eager to be in a dictatorship, supporting a war for freedoms they don't want for themselves?

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by homechicago

obama just announced candidacy on saturday. edwards has has time on his hands since the '04 loss to construct stances, and it would be pathetic if he had nothing to discuss.

Edwards had a job after his '04 loss until his announcement of his candidacy, it just wasn't a job as an elected official. And prior to his '04 announcement, Edwards was an elected official, yet he had a booklet detailing all his policies that he released when he announced his candidacy. So, there is no excuse.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

I wouldn't put much stock in what BlueStar says on democrat candidates that aren't Edwards. She's on the Edwards camp payroll and smear season is underway.

I'm not on the payroll of any presidential candidate (yet). In fact, the candidate that I am most closely aligned with in my current work is actually Obama.

[BlueStar]

This story brought to you by Politico.com

Get Ready for 'Barchelle'
By: Helena Andrews
February 15, 2007 03:53 PM EST

Beware, Brangelina. Barchelle has your number.

http://images.politico.com/global/070214_ebonycover.jpg

The Obamas (Barack + Michelle) steamed up newsstands recently as Ebony's "hottest couple" in 2007 -- gracing the cover of the magazine's February issue. And if recent sales are any indication, Barack can do more than draft legislation and make campaign stump speeches. He (and his wife) can sell the heck out of a magazine.

Although Ebony refused to release sales figures for the issue, company spokeswomen for two of the nation's largest booksellers said the February issue featuring Barack and Michelle sold significantly better than recent past issues.

"We did see a lift in sales," said Holley Stein, a spokeswoman for Borders, adding that the increase was "significant."

"Sales have been above the average rate," reported Carolyn Brown of Barnes and Noble.

Ebony would not divulge preliminary sales for the February issue "because they are not firm," Chelsea L. Stalling, corporate communications manager, wrote Politico in an e-mail. The magazine claims more than 12 million readers a month.

But Bryan Monroe, Ebony's editor-in-chief, described the impact of the Obama issue as "tremendous," saying he's received a storm of phone calls and e-mails about "America's Next First Couple."

The February issue hit news stands Jan. 8, a week before Obama announced his presidential exploratory committee. It was replaced by the March issue just last week -- days before Obama officially announced his 2008 run in Springfield, Ill.

On the magazine's cover, the Obamas strike a traditional political pose: he in his power stance -- a navy jacket accented with a blue-and-white striped tie -- and she standing at his right shoulder in the proverbial helpmate position.

But the real magic happens on page 53. Obama embraces his wife (who wears patriotic but va-va-voom red) from behind and nibbles on/whispers in her ear.

Monroe said that during the photo shoot, the two jammed to Frankie Beverly and Michael Jackson.

In the article the senator quotes his wife as saying, "You are a good man, but you are still a man," and he went on to explain her remark, saying that he leaves his socks around and hangs his pants on the door like any regular guy.

Later in the article, Michelle tells Ebony that before meeting Obama at a Chicago law firm where both worked, she thought he would be "just another Brother who can talk straight."

"I already had it in my mind that this guy was going to be lame," Michelle says in the Ebony article.

But there is nothing boring, dull or even speechified about the Obamas. The two together are bringing sexy back to politics.

They also revive the image of a devoted and affectionate black couple -- something not often celebrated by the media.

"Particularly in the mainstream media there aren't enough images of loving black couples beyond 'The Cosby Show,'" said Monroe, referring to the iconic 1980s television show that featured Bill Cosby and Phylicia Rashad as Cliff and Claire Huxtable. (The show won won six Emmy awards in eight seasons.)

The Huxtables were the quintessential power couple by any generation's standards. They both had respected careers -- he was a doctor and she was a lawyer -- cooked family dinners together, and enjoyed (and routinely disciplined) their five children -- all the while looking fabulous. (Remember those classic Coogi sweaters?)

They also appeared to be very much in love, playfully teasing each other or cuddling on the couch to strains of jazz in the background.

When it comes to comparing the Huxtables and Obamas, the similarities go beyond the obvious -- successful, black and well-off. Barack and Michelle, much like Cliff and Claire, have been charged, by some, with being too good to be true.

"I know there was a lot of discussion as whether the (Huxtables) were realistic," said Nate Norment, chairman of the African American Studies Department at Temple University in Pennsylvania.

Harriette Cole, Ebony's creative director, agreed. "There were so many people who believed that was a fairy tale story," she said of the show, before adding that the Huxtables' neighborhood in Brooklyn looked a lot like her own growing up.

"There were thousands of families across the country that looked exactly like that," Cole said. "And yet that still seems to be a surprise."

The Obamas face similar questions. "People think it's fake, it's not real or they're not really black," said Noliwe Rooks, associate director of African American studies at Princeton University. She said it would take some time to decipher whether or not the Obamas reach Huxtable cult status.

But Cole thinks the Obamas have one advantage: They're more authentic than any television character. "They're regular folk."

[homechicago]

But Cole thinks the Obamas have one advantage: They're more authentic than any television character. "They're regular folk."

------

but do they clear brush incessantly and own a ranch? apparently that is the 'regular folk' benchmark.

[Pheeew]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

and no one really knows yet where Obama stands on anything

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Pheeew

img

Not just general ideas (i.e. universal healthcare), but full, detailed policies (i.e. exactly what he means by universal healthcare and exactly how he will achieve it and exactly how he will pay for it).

[Effloresce]

He does need to have full, detailed policies and I for one am looking forward to what he is going to propose.

[BlueStar]

Obama Planning Big Push To Win Jewish Voters
By Greg Sargent
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b..._jewish_voters

Senator Barack Obama is planning a big campaign designed to win over Jewish voters, according to The Jewish Week:

With millions of campaign dollars at stake as well as votes in a handful of key primary states, the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is poised to dramatically increase its Jewish outreach.

That *******s the recruitment of top Jewish donors and advisers, and an expected major speech on Israel and the Middle East that a Democratic insider said will set the baseline and establish Sen. Obama as a reliable, strong supporter of Israel...

The campaign has also signed on a leading Jewish Mideast expert, Dan Shapiro, a former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration. Shapiro is leaving his position as a top aide to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) for a job with a Washington lobbying firm and a role doing Mideast policy and Jewish outreach for the Obama campaign.

Obama campaign officials are reportedly in talks with leaders of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which is staging an event later this month that "could provide a high-profile venue" for Obama's anticipated speech about Israel.

Article in The Jewish Week: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/ne...p3?artid=13676

[Nimrod's Son]

this thread is funny.

[Travis Meeks]

Originally Posted by sppunk

He's got about the same chance as becoming the next president as I do.

hah

[sppunk]

Dude, I'm running for prez in 2016 ... mark it.

[Future Boy]

Quality bump.

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

Hope isn't going to solve all the problems, though. I'm still waiting for him to actually release details for any policy on anything. And he's a complete ass in real life (for example, going off on a staff assistant for not holding the door open for him). And there's no way he can win the nomination (at least at this point in time) - he's black, he won't be able to overcome the "inexperienced" label, he doesn't actually stand for anything concrete, he's not perceived as "electable", and the primary schedule is stacked against him.

How are the Gaddy's these days?

[dudehitscar]

this thread rocks.

[Debaser]

i bet, these days, bluestar is applying like crazy to work for the Obama administration

[Gish08]

hahaha @ op

[Tchocky]

Obama shouldn't have stood a chance against the other Democratic candidates, Hillary in particular. The difference between Obama and everyone else was his campaign was almost flawless, whereas the campaigns of just about everyone else were atrocious. If Hillary had run a better campaign, she would have easily won the nomination (though I think the general election would have been a lot closer in that case due to the fact that Hillary is far more polarizing a political figure than Obama is).

[Debaser]

the difference between Obama and everyone else was that he's better

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

the difference between Obama and everyone else was that he's better

no, his campaign was better.

[dudehitscar]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

no, his campaign was better.

[Gish08]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

(though I think the general election would have been a lot closer in that case due to the fact that Hillary is far more polarizing a political figure than Obama is).

This is another reason why Obama won. Not just because Hillary ran a shitty campaign. People realized that there's an automatic 40% of the country that simply DOES NOT want to see Hillary as President, with no hope of even trying to persuade them to change their minds. And the scary thing is, a great deal of them weren't even Republicans.

[Future Boy]

del

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

No, that was on point. And I gladly voted for Obama.

I would like to know how BlueStar felt about Edwards fucking around on his sick wife. I also would like if she Sed his D like I always said she did because I knew that fuck was putting his dick in mud to see if it would wriggle.

The whole electability nonsense she kept talking about was the sinking ship she didn't realize she was on. Electability is a buzzword that means my candidate is white, good looking, and charming. And that means fuck all.

[28if]

Originally Posted by Gish08

This is another reason why Obama won. Not just because Hillary ran a shitty campaign. People realized that there's an automatic 40% of the country that simply DOES NOT want to see Hillary as President, with no hope of even trying to persuade them to change their minds. And the scary thing is, a great deal of them weren't even Republicans.

I'm a pretty fierce democrat, but it would have been really hard for me to vote for Hillary. Obama was a million times more electable in a general election, I really didn't understand why people had such a hard time seeing that in the primaries.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by 28if

I'm a pretty fierce democrat, but it would have been really hard for me to vote for Hillary. Obama was a million times more electable in a general election, I really didn't understand why people had such a hard time seeing that in the primaries.

why in the motherfucking hell would you have had trouble voting for hillary? you're not a "pretty fierce democrat" if that is the case.

[Mablak]

Originally Posted by sppunk

He's got about the same chance as becoming the next president as I do.

Dude, why the fuck didn't you run?