Barack Obama for President 2008

[20DNewbie]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Except the reference was to HIM, not the old relatives.



Then why would a commentator bring it up? If it's of no significance, why say "it's a great day when the descendant of slaves becomes president"? Because (a) it's wrong, he's not a descendant of slaves and (b) it's irrelevant.

My point is that a year from now, the reality of exactly who is sitting in the Oval Office will start to sink in. He's a man, just like anyone else. Tell that to any Obama supporter and you'd think it was no different than calling him a Muslim, terrorist, or anything short of a Messiah.

It's scary. Truly, utterly scary. This and the Election Thread have merely shown me what I've felt all along: liberals can't debate facts and ideas. They argue from an emotional base that is less about reality and more about a Utopia that is only attainable if you join their cause and give up all you feel is right. Conservatives have moved closer and closer to center over the years, including during the Bush Administration. Liberals haven't. Their version of compromise is give up and do what we want.

Every time I've presented facts and asked for rebuttal, I've been lambasted personally, including being labeled as a racist. Why is that? Why is it not okay for McCain to have attacked Obama's past relationships but it is okay to label me with something that has no evidence backing it?

Different standards, once again.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by AlbertP

It's now official:

President Barack Obama

Yes, we can.

Yes, we did.

Yes and God help us all!

[gjb]

Originally Posted by Ellbee99

Yes and God help us all!

He did.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by gjb

He did.

Time will tell.

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by Ellbee99

Time will tell.

Yes, time will tell. And you won't be able to take any credit for doing anything other than fear-mongering, will you?

[saluta]

It's not Barack Obama for President. It's President Barack Obama of the United States of American. The first African American president to reside at the White House. Definitely, a new change has come to america.

[Regency]

Originally Posted by saluta

It's not Barack Obama for President. It's President Barack Obama of the United States of American. The first African American president to reside at the White House. Definitely, a new change has come to america.

Is he truely african-american?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by AlbertP

Yes, time will tell. And you won't be able to take any credit for doing anything other than fear-mongering, will you?

Uhm...like you've been doing for the last two years here?

Different standards, further exemplified....

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Regency

Is he truely african-american?

Why would you ask? If he's the progeny of a black African father and a white American mother isn't that enough to say he's African American?

[PetersenPhotography]

The fact is, as Paul pointed out, that Obama has an African father and an American mother. But he also spent time in Indonesia and Hawaii - that's not part of his bloodline, but it's definitely part of who he is. He does have a breadth of world experiences, which I think explains his global-mindedness.

Personally I think it's thrilling that an African-American will now be sitting in the White House. I wish it had been JC Watts, or Condi Rice. I don't agree much with Obama's politics, either his statements or his record. He has been quite partisan in the past and rather leftist. As a politically conservative person, that makes me nervous. However, he's also an ambitious pragmatist and has shown that he's willing to do what's necessary to achieve his goals. That may mean that, now that he's in the White House, he'll become more centrist if he's got his eye on a second term.

What will REALLY make the difference is how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid relate to him - if they pull his strings, we're all in for a world of hurt. But if he can manage to be more cunning than they are, come out from behind their collective shadow, and govern from the center, he might be a balance against an increasingly liberal congress.

[Paul Shields]

Nic, a thoughtful post. I personally doubt that he's quite as left wing as some have made him out to be. He seems more of a pragmatist to me. He's not stupid enough to alienate half the population, and I'm sure he'll be very aware that he'll have to reach out and work for the many and not the few.

[Heika Werner]

Obama brings tears of joy and hope to the eyes of many.

[littlegal]

EXCELLENT Photographs Heika!

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Nic, a thoughtful post. I personally doubt that he's quite as left wing as some have made him out to be. He seems more of a pragmatist to me. He's not stupid enough to alienate half the population, and I'm sure he'll be very aware that he'll have to reach out and work for the many and not the few.

Uhm....have you really ever looked at his record and viewpoints? I truly hope he'll govern from the center but the reality is that all of his positions have been modified over the past year to move him back to the right and into the center.

He HAS been left wing and sometimes extreme. He's modified almost every position he's taken on illegal immigration, abortion, gun control, and many other left/right issues in the last 12 months.

I really don't get it here. Any other candidate would have been grilled on all this stuff.

Different standards.

[PetersenPhotography]

Paul, thank you for your vote of confidence, but I'm with Brian on this one. I think Obama was given a free pass by the media who very much wanted to see a Democrat in the office, and it sure didn't hurt that he's an African American. His record is very liberal and he has been known to flip-flop on some issues. Personally, I think it's rather uniquely American to expect a political candidate to stay true to relatively minor political issues (the "bridge to nowhere", for example) for their entire careers - look at the Romans, they flip-flopped as the wind blew!!

The fact is that the double standard does VERY much exist. I.e., blacks can say all kinds of discriminatory and stereotypical things about whites and we white males have to sit in silence and take it. But the minute we disagree with those statements or criticize a black person or the black community for ANY reason (stereotypically or legitimately) we are immediately condemned as racists bigots. It's the tyrrany of the minority. I live in Prince George's County, Maryland, where the population is 90% black, 8% white and 2% asian/latino. There is no political dialogue between the black community and the white community here, not because of anything that the white community collectively has done in the last 20 years (pre-1960's, of course, is a TOTALLY different story) but because the black community seems not to want to hear from an outside source. To borrow a phrase, we in the white community are indeed judged by the color of our skin, not by the content of our characters. As an example, I was told by a black woman that I shouldn't buy a particular anniversary card for my wife because that line of greeting cards (Mohagany) was for black people only. I wanted to ask "should I go to the back of the bus as well", but I wasn't quick witted enough that day.

With Obama elected to the White House, the "rules" will necessarily have to change. The black community can no longer say that they are politically disenfranchised - there are black supreme court judges (have been for 50 years), black senators, black congresspeople, black chiefs of staff, black city councilpeople, and now there will be a black president. Good - it's about time.

But I hope that this election serves to open lines of communication between the black community and white community about issues common to us both and does NOT serve to further alienate us from each other.

[20DNewbie]

As far as I'm concerned this election was a complete and total farse, I have never or expect to ever again see such a media blitz to get someone elected.

Funny how the Dems are one second trying to jam the Fairness Doctrine down the throats of conservative talk radio but it doesn't seem to apply to the barrage of pro Obama propaganda within the past few months.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by 20DNewbie

As far as I'm concerned this election was a complete and total farse, I have never or expect to ever again see such a media blitz to get someone elected.

Funny how the Dems are one second trying to jam the Fairness Doctrine down the throats of conservative talk radio but it doesn't seem to apply to the barrage of pro Obama propaganda within the past few months.

The numbers are staggering on what Obama spent on this thing.

McCain: $84M from public financing, as originally pledged
Obama: $650M+ from private donations after going back on his public financing pledge

What's more interesting...

McCain was blasted for negative ads by the media yet Obama actually had more negative ads on the air in several states. The media never mentioned it.

McCain was on six magazine covers, the last being a very unflattering shot on the Atlantic. Obama has been on over 50 covers.

McCain/Palin was the butt of late night comedians more than seven times more often than Obama.

News coverage from the Big Three was positive for Obama 65% of the time while McCain only had positive reports 36% of the time.

All of that got him 52% of the popular vote (with two more states still not reporting). And the Conservatives didn't even LIKE their candidate, who has never been a bastion of Conservatism in the least.

Obama did an excellent job of campaigning and winning over the media. Far better than anyone I've ever seen or read about. Will he make a decent President? Probably, at least on most issues. But having to outspend your opponent by that much...at such a staggering amount of money (that is the ALMOST the ENTIRE BAILOUT BILL!)...that's hardly a "mandate" or even an overwhelming majority. And when he's not the media's messiah any longer, I sure wouldn't want anyone digging too deep into those campaign finance records. Things aren't going to look good if some less than upright donors got through the process.

It won't take much to put a Republican back in the Presidency if he screws up even a little. Remember, folks, that America has a 15 minute memory. After about 9-10 months, it's not going to be about Bush any longer, despite what they'll try to do. The media will start looking for a new piece of meat to chew on.

[Paul Shields]

Well it's a shame that Obama is seen in that light by the previous posters. I thought that the McCain/Palin ticket was a freakshow compared to how Obama conducted himself, but that's obviously a sign of my political viewpoints as well as yours . It seems to me that the ultra right wing have had their day and the general electorate decided they didn't like it any more.

It'll be interesting to see how the Republicans reshape themselves for the next election. If they move even more to the right then I believe they'll be unelectable. Lots of precendents exist for this type of scenario. Of course, if Obama makes a complete hash of it then it wouldn't matter so much, but he does seem to be a very canny operator. Interesting times ahead methinks.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

The numbers are staggering on what Obama spent on this thing.

McCain: $84M from public financing, as originally pledged
Obama: $650M+ from private donations after going back on his public financing pledge

Hmm...



I know these figures don't indicate how much each candidate can spend directly, but there are lots of ways of spending which don't necessarily have to come directly from the campaign, and the likes of the RNC can still raise money above and beyond any self-imposed limit agreed by the candidate.

In the end, Obama received a lot of money because a lot of people wanted him to win. Small donations were the norm.

McCain was blasted for negative ads by the media yet Obama actually had more negative ads on the air in several states. The media never mentioned it.

In several states...

The McCain campaign was overwhelmingly negative towards Obama. In contrast, Obama mostly ignored the negativity and emphasised the key issues that the electorate were concered about. I think that was a mistake by the McCain campaign and it backfired spectacularly.

McCain was on six magazine covers, the last being a very unflattering shot on the Atlantic. Obama has been on over 50 covers.

You've got to agree that Obama is much more attractive - those magazines don't sell themselves you know .

McCain/Palin was the butt of late night comedians more than seven times more often than Obama.

That's because they were hilarious. To a comedian it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Heck, they didn't even need to write scripts for the Palin sketches - just repeat verbatum what she says.

Obama did an excellent job of campaigning and winning over the media. Far better than anyone I've ever seen or read about. Will he make a decent President? Probably, at least on most issues. But having to outspend your opponent by that much...at such a staggering amount of money (that is the ALMOST the ENTIRE BAILOUT BILL!)...

Suerly that's exagerated by a factor of 10?

that's hardly a "mandate" or even an overwhelming majority. And when he's not the media's messiah any longer, I sure wouldn't want anyone digging too deep into those campaign finance records. Things aren't going to look good if some less than upright donors got through the process.

It won't take much to put a Republican back in the Presidency if he screws up even a little. Remember, folks, that America has a 15 minute memory. After about 9-10 months, it's not going to be about Bush any longer, despite what they'll try to do. The media will start looking for a new piece of meat to chew on.

It's a shame the media seems to possess so much power. Maybe if the electorate were educated enough to see through media bias then such concerns wouldn't matter any more?

There's nothing more scary to a politician than an informed electorate...

[roncgizmo]

It looks as if Obama is all ready back peddling...


President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations

Posted Nov 05, 2008 12:15pm EST by Henry Blodget in Newsmakers, Recession, Election Related: ^dji, ^gspc, ^ixic

From ClusterStock, Nov. 5, 2008:
If President Elect Obama were the incoming CEO of a corporation, he would now be preparing for the first act of his tenure: A massive write-off of the mountains of rotted junk buried on the company's balance sheet and an announcement that recovery will take a long, long time.
This flush would clear the way for several years of better than expected results. It would also take advantage of the new leader's one chance to blame the sorry state of the organization on his sorry predecessor.
President Obama began this process last night, in his victory speech, when he noted that restoring the country's health might take more than a term. In the next few weeks, he should go well beyond this:

• The deficit will be more than $1 trillion a year for several years
• The country needs a massive new fiscal stimulus
• The housing market will continue to decline through at least 2010
• Interest rates and taxes will eventually have to rise (after the economy stabilizes)
• Weak corporations have to be allowed to fail
• Millions of homeowners will lose their house
• Unemployment will probably rise to 10%
• The government simply cannot "bail the country out" -- not because it lacks the will, but because it lacks the power

In short, Obama needs to acknowedge reality, erring on the side of overstating the problems and challenges, and he needs to prepare the country for several tough years. Because if he doesn't, within six months of his taking office, the country will have forgotten all about the prior administration and will instead be blaming everything on him.




http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/106822/President-Obama%27s-First-Step-Reset-Expectations?tickers=^dji,^gspc,^ixic