posted
I'd like to think that the people who wouldn't vote for Obama because they think he's Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway, but that's probably not the case. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'd like to think that the people who wouldn't vote for Obama because they think he's Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway, but that's probably not the case.
Frankly I find your name to be far too Biblical for my tastes Tom. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the "Obama's a Muslim" conversation with my mom a few weeks ago. Her whole reasoning for Obama being Muslim was that he'd gone to a Muslim school while he was a child. At which point I pointed out that she'd gone to Catholic school but was not a Catholic. :shrug: She'll be voting for McCain anyway.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that Obama's school in Indonesia (or one of them) was a secular private school in a country full of Muslims, so the school had lots of Muslims. It wasn't a Muslim school anymore than an American secular private school would be Christian because most of the students are Christian.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really hate that Obama is a Muslim thing.
I think they base it on the idea that Muslims believe that once you're a Muslim, you're always a Muslim--or that you have no right to change your religion. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what they're basing it on. So, if Obama has a Muslim background, then he MUST be a muslim still, because that's how Muslims believe.
The thing that bothers me is that it's always been Christians who I've heard say this. Well, according to Christianity, anybody can be saved who believes in Christ, so why are they adhering to a Muslim belief? Do they really think that a Muslim can't be converted? Doesn't that go against the core of Christianity?
Doesn't make any sense to me. If you're going to hate a politician, at least hate him or her for their stance on the issues and their history in politics. Not on made up facts, or gender, or race.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: I had the "Obama's a Muslim" conversation with my mom a few weeks ago. Her whole reasoning for Obama being Muslim was that he'd gone to a Muslim school while he was a child. At which point I pointed out that she'd gone to Catholic school but was not a Catholic.
posted
To be honest, I don't see why we can't have a Muslim president. When I hear the Muslim complaint, my first thought is not, no he's not, but so, what if he is? Why couldn't a Muslim mak an excellent leader? As far as the war on terror, maybe his unique understanding of the "enemy" would lead to us coming to a resolution.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, someone should tell all those people that while "madrassa" can connote an Islamic religious school, it's actually the Arabic word for "school." I lived in Amman for a year when I was six, and the word for the place I went in the mornings was "madrassa," despite their being no religious component to the education I received there.
Added: It was also pronounced more like "med-reh-seh" than "mahd-rah-sah."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think they base it on the idea that Muslims believe that once you're a Muslim, you're always a Muslim--or that you have no right to change your religion. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what they're basing it on. So, if Obama has a Muslim background, then he MUST be a muslim still, because that's how Muslims believe.
Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And he's got a funny-sounding name, and he's not a Republican. Because no one would ever believe a Republican could be Muslim. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to talk about misrepresenting someone's positions:
quote:BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.
President Bush said that in an interview on February 10th with Mike Wallace from Fox News. Nice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's a long way from Whitewater.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
posted
You know what would be really helpful for voter turnout? For local orgaizations to include printed inserts with lists of local polling places with the leaflets. When I (somewhat forcefully) told this to campaign organizers, I was told (by a very nice young man) to direct people to the web site. Seriously. Many of the houses I canvassed had plywood doors and boarded up windows. I don't think that all of them - especially older people - are going to be checking out the website. There was also a phone number they could call. It lead to the national headquarters and a "press 1 for..." tree, where option 4 was "find polling information. After volunteer, donate, and get campaign material! What doofus decided to make possibly tentative voters wait through more options than people who were already invested enough to buy buttons?
Seriously. I don't think that people realize how fragile the chance of some of these people voting us. Extra hoops to jump through is not helpful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But Obama will need to give more wonkish speeches and give more details, or Clinton's attacks will stick.
I agree. And so does Obama:
quote: Yet as he traveled across Wisconsin last week, Mr. Obama seemed to have let loose a little more of his inner-wonk, which his strategists had once urged him to keep on the shelf.
Even as he was dismissing Mrs. Clinton’s criticism, he appeared to be taking it at least mildly to heart — a suggestion that as a line of attack, she might be on to something.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think they base it on the idea that Muslims believe that once you're a Muslim, you're always a Muslim--or that you have no right to change your religion. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what they're basing it on. So, if Obama has a Muslim background, then he MUST be a muslim still, because that's how Muslims believe.
Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
Conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories? You honestly think the media doesn't decide who it likes and who it doesn't like?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You're starting to hear Obama hit back with criticizing Clinton's mischaracterization of his 'lack of positions.'"
The obvious answer is "I suppose someone who didn't understand my positions, and the needs of the American people, might think I had no positions..."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "You're starting to hear Obama hit back with criticizing Clinton's mischaracterization of his 'lack of positions.'"
The obvious answer is "I suppose someone who didn't understand my positions, and the needs of the American people, might think I had no positions..."
If I were Obama, I'd find a way to hire the campaign manager Clinton just fired, and mention that I don't think the people around me should suffer needlessly for my mistakes.
Count me with Jon Boy on the whole, "folks believe Obama is a Muslim just because somebody told them so."
I think it's alot easier for people to just believe that lie and be able to say they can't vote for him, then actually invest time into looking at the facts and all the candidates positions and realize it isn't true and now they have to actually think about who to vote for.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Google Ads: Jonas Brothers VS Zac Efron Who's hotter? Tell us your opinion!
Well that's some effective target advertising!
Also, I've never heard of the Jonas Brothers, but all of the guys in the ad look pretty slimy to me. Guess I'm not part of the target audience, though.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Ah. I haven't gotten one of those, so I didn't realize people were actually saying that.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
Conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories? You honestly think the media doesn't decide who it likes and who it doesn't like?
There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Ah. I haven't gotten one of those, so I didn't realize people were actually saying that.
I can't prove it, I just think that's what I read in the emails. I tend not to read those things very closely, and I had a conversation with my mother, who sent me the email, afterwards and I seem to remember her saying something similar. I can't find the email now, though.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
I've read this several times, and I'm still having a hard time making sense of it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. The email forward that really ticked me off said something like "and it's even on Snopes!" (without a link). The next day, the list owner apologetically responded to the many emails he apparently got saying that yes, Snopes did say that it wasn't true. (Of course, this isn't supposed to be a political list at all, which was my primary irritation with the message.)
Edit: Heh. Snopes has added something about that!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got an email about his refusal to respect the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and it not only said something like "verified by Snopes" but actually included a link to the Snopes article that debunked it. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I got an email about his refusal to respect the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and it not only said something like "verified by Snopes" but actually included a link to the Snopes article that debunked it.
Oh! That's what my dad's going on about now! Time to send him a link to Snopes.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of that is based on his standing for the national anthem but not putting his hand over his heart. Which is the proper way to show respect during the anthem. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
I've read this several times, and I'm still having a hard time making sense of it.
Someone needs to send Blayne a book on punctuation and grammar.
And on paranoia, since no one said anything about left wing conspiracies, let alone vast ones.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not my intention to completely derail this thread from it's purpose, but while we're on the subject, I'll ask this question.
Have you heard the smear campaign about Obama's church allegedly being 'racist'? I keep encountering people who say that, and I honestly don't know what to say. Somehow, rolling my eyes at such a statement doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
That'd be a good line, though for Obama it might be too pointed. He's by and large avoided hitting back at Clinton (a lot anyway) and instead has spent his time using her own attack lines against her by debunking them publicly, which I personally like better.
Blackblade -
No way would she work for Obama. The entire reason she had the job to begin with is because Clinton made her campaign manager based on loyalty rather than skill. She never should have had the job to begin with, along with a lot of Clinton's top advisors and campaign runners. The fired manager just wasn't built for this, and never should have had the job, but she's still a Clintonista, and wouldn't work for Obama.
Clinton's major failing thus far this campaign just a total lack of management skills. If you treat both campaigns like what a presidential administration looks like, McCain and Clinton would have horribly inefficient bungled administrations. McCain only seems to do well when he's in the "insurgent" position, otherwise he wastes money, makes vocal gaffes, and in general doesn't know how to manage large numbers of people. Clinton hires people she knows and trusts, but that aren't necessarily the best for the job. These are old school Clinton supporters who have turf wars and don't communicate. A senior manager in the campaign described it as no one having any idea what was going on, because no one shared info. She thought she had it sewn up, and didn't have operations on the ground in post Super Tuesday states, where Obama had been for weeks. She also blew through $120 million with not a whole lot to show for it, and now she's banking on Texas and Ohio with barely any money, and 30 major media markets to buy advertising in. She's been playing catch up for weeks, and it's her own fault for not hiring the right people, not setting up a state by state apparatus before hand, and wasting money.
Obama in comparison is winning a lot of support for being a fantastic show runner. He hires the right people, spends wisely, gets the campaign machinery running at a state and local level, isn't wasting money and is spending it smartly in the right markets, so now he has a lot more ready to go in all those major expensive markets coming up. It's a lean fighting machine, and it's turning a lot of heads in the Democratic party's upper echelons.
No new polling data today, but I'm expecting new Ohio numbers soon, and maybe a new Wisconsin poll before Tuesday.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No way would she work for Obama. The entire reason she had the job to begin with is because Clinton made her campaign manager based on loyalty rather than skill. She never should have had the job to begin with, along with a lot of Clinton's top advisors and campaign runners. The fired manager just wasn't built for this, and never should have had the job, but she's still a Clintonista, and wouldn't work for Obama.
I'm sure the fact that that campaign manager was a Latina probably came into play as well.
But yes I agree that the Clintons are pretty big into the whole cronyism schtick.
I don't think she'd work for Obama's campaign realistically, but it does not hurt to put the hand out there, she just might have a grudge and decide she does want to throw her support behind you. I'm sure the Hispanic community noticed that Clinton fired her.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB.
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: It's not my intention to completely derail this thread from it's purpose, but while we're on the subject, I'll ask this question.
Have you heard the smear campaign about Obama's church allegedly being 'racist'? I keep encountering people who say that, and I honestly don't know what to say. Somehow, rolling my eyes at such a statement doesn't seem to be the right thing to do.
As far as I can tell, they're racist insofar as they believe the land Israel occupies belongs to Palestine. I certainly understand disagreeing with that stance, but calling it racist seems like a stretch only possible for someone with a big axe to grind.
Obama, on the other hand, has come out firmly in support of Israel in the region--more so than any other Democratic contender (in the original field) except Clinton. How fair it is to label him a jerk for an political position maintained not by him but by someone he is close to is left as an exercise for the reader.
As far as the claims against the Church, both of the articles I found them in were from "news sources" that were far from balanced or mainstream. Imagine, for instance, if Lisa or Ron Lambert ran a cable news network. The editorial part of the articles I've read is long on wild accusations, but both have the exact same quotes from the Church itself, which, while arguably extreme, don't seem to say precisely what the articles condemning them say, leading me to wonder just how out of context these snippets might be:
quote: “We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
quote: . . . “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.”
quote: . . . “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
quote:. . . “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
Here is the context from which many of these statements were pulled:
quote:We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION. 2. A congregation preaching SALVATION. 3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION. 4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA. 5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION. 6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION. 7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. 8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION. 9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION. 10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
quote:To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
quote:Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
There are certainly some ideas worth debating in there, but the article I first linked to seems extreme and context-less.
As for the positions of the man actually running for president? Remember, Barack Obama?
quote:Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in January 2006, Obama denounced Hamas while praising former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At a meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the eve of Hamas' sweeping election victory,[39] Obama stated that Sharon's role in the conflict had always been "absolutely important and constructive."
Emphasis added. Suddenly Lisa's objections make more sense.
Some other random shotgun quotes, not intended to provide a full picture (for that, you can follow the above link yourself or, better yet, go to barackobama.com) but rather to address the notion that Obama is not supportive of Israel:
quote:In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction."
quote:Obama was also a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which in part calls on "members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap." [emphasis added]
quote:He defended Israel's response to the Zar'it-Shtula incident on August 22 in an interview with Tim Russert, saying, "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." A month earlier he said, "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles."[44]
Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
posted
Link. He's accepting a fundraising dinner from a former SF mayor, but won't have his picture taken with the current one. That's obnoxious. It's part and parcel. If you want to keep your distance, do so. But don't accept the contributions at the same time that you're snubbing the guy.
And Tstorm, you don't have to roll your eyes. It isn't a smear campaign. It's less than a year since the head of Obama's church gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award. Link.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having read your link, I really don't get what the hubbub is about. First off, the event in question was thrown by Brown, not Newsom. That's like saying if you go to a Bill Clinton fundraiser you'd be a jerk for not getting your picture taken with George W. Bush. I don't really see the connection there.
And I can also understand, at the time, not wanting to give the religious right any fire power to use against him. That photo would have written its own mailer to be used against him in Conservative districts. Photo ops these days are used as tacit, if not spun as outright, approval of whatever issue the other guy in the photo is on the "wrong" side of. What is Obama's actual position on gay marriage? I'm honestly not sure. But if he's like many Democrats, who support equal rights but not forcing religious institutions to marry homosexuals, then I don't see how objectively that makes him a jerk, it just means he doesn't support something you do. I guess that makes him a jerk to you, but I don't think it makes him a universal jerk.
And I'm even more skeptical of hammering the label of Obama's church onto his brow. You can be a member of a lot of organizations and not agree 100% with everything they do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am just impressed with the length Conservative talking heads are fishing in order to say anything negative about Obama. That fact that it sticks in peoples minds is not surprising, since some people are searching for a reason to not vote for him.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What is Obama's actual position on gay marriage? I'm honestly not sure.
He personally believes that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, but he favors civil unions (for all, I believe, but maybe it's just for gays) and voted against the various "defense of marriage" measures.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He's accepting a fundraising dinner from a former SF mayor, but won't have his picture taken with the current one."
SanFrancisco's current mayor is more of a Clinton-kinda guy, as is the current mayor of LosAngeles. So unless there's a law that says, "Don't campaign in Alaska unless ya wanna embrace Stevens. Don't fundraise in Oklahoma unless ya wanna play kissyface with Inhofe. Etc...", ya really don't have a point.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like he lines up pretty squarely with what I believe. By and large it seems like these types of social issues haven't been a big deal thus far, but they will be in the General.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Obama will need to give more wonkish speeches and give more details, or Clinton's attacks will stick.
I agree on this from a political perspective, but I also think there is something else that Obama can do here that is better and is I think what he is trying to do.
Have you ever noticed that most extremists seem angry with the world and with the other side? In our country, we see this every day--for the conservative, it's the liberal agenda and media that is the other side, for the liberal its the conservative extreme and Fox News, for the pro-lifer (not all of them of course) it's the pro-choicer that is committing murder and vice-versa, and there are many other poles of the debate that can go the same way. Unfortunately, for many of the extremists in our country (and even those extremists outside of the country--Bin Laden is one) and those not, solutions are beyond them because for them victory is not necessarily winning their issue, it's *also* destroying the other side in the process. Victory for an extremist, for the most part, means not only winning their issue, but more importantly going through and defeating the other side to do so, and in American politics and policy around the world, that kind of thought is tempered not with logic or reason, but with a true anger that drives their own position.
That's important to understand because I think *hope* has more to do with helping our country than simply making people feel better, its the driving force that causes those in the middle, those who get shouted down, those who don't scream loud enough to be heard because they aren't angry like the extremist, to stand up and fight for policy that does not seek to defeat the conservative or liberal. It is the force that can drive those in the middle who understand and are disenfranchised with the idea that victory means defeating the other side instead of coming together with the other side in compromise and brotherhood, who understand that extremism is not who we are, and that defeating the other side is not the end for any justified means. For the person who sees this country from the middle, who sees the on-going wars between two sides of an extreme, the person who understands that there will come a day when pro-choice advocates won't hate pro-life advocates, and who understands that compromise, understanding, and empathy, are much more useful tools to employ than hatred, violence, close-mindedness, and who sees that though extremists try to claim that we are either with them or against them, hope is something that can be more powerful than the pull of extremism. And once we pull away from that sort of idea, the idea that extremists attack this country so we have to fight it with extremism, we can then begin to heal wounds and address the real problems that face our country.
I think *thats* the argument Obama is trying to make, I think that he understands that we cannot allow the status quo to continue in this fashion, and that hope is how we can break out and serve *everyones* interest instead of the few who have chosen sides and are motivated by anger. And I think thats the argument we *have* to make too, I think thats the only way truly substantive policy and political power can help this country because if we cannot do away with the status quo, then we cannot change. In other words, I think Obama's substance is in hope, it is in optimism, it is in the idea that he appeals not to the extreme but to the middle of America, the people who do not want to defeat the other side but those who want everyone to get to play, because in the end, we can't simply leave half the country behind not even the extremist. And maybe along the way, that optimism and hope exhibited by those in the middle can help to alleviate the anger and bitterness that divides us and keeps us from coming together, so that one day everyone can play and things might actually get done.
There is substance in hope, and I think thats the argument that is most important.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humean, I don't know if I agree with all of the notes in the third paragraph, but I appreciate the tune.
Generally, I think the word "moderate" has become abused such that I can't even grasp its sense, but I'm pretty sure I'm not it. Kind of like Middle Class. Which is fine. I think some of the best people I know are immoderate, as are some of the best people in history. I know it's a fashionable term, especially in a majority-ruled, democratic society, but I have no problem equating moderation with the petty virtues, as moderation seems to me to often be the friend of complicity, narrow self-interest, and fear. Maybe it's just my view, but from what I've seen of these people in the middle, they are cowards. I don't know if it's their fault, or if society conspired to make them that way, but they are small, busy cowards.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
