Front Office Football Central - Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=62530)

NPR did a story on black liberation theology.

Quote:

Black liberation preaching can be a loud, passionate, physical affair. Linda Thomas, who teaches at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, says the whole point of it is to challenge the powerful and to raise questions for society to think about. Thomas says if white people are surprised by the rhetoric, it's because most have never visited a black church.

"I think that many black people would know what white worship is like," Thomas says. "Why is it that white people don't know what black worship is about? And I think that is because there is this centrality with white culture that says we don't have to know about that."

I don't think it's that white people "don't know" are "are surprised by" about the idea of this -- I thought the issue is that Obama shouldn't be supporting it. Also, detailing the differences between "black worship" and "white worship" is the most divisive thing I've heard in a while. Before you know it, someone will come in and say they're not talking about the same God. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1697079)

It might be divisive, but..it's still pretty true even today.

From MLK in 1963:

Quote:

"We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation. This is tragic. Nobody of honesty can overlook this."

It just comes off to me as saying: "You don't understand. That's just how black people are."

And while MLK's speech calls it a tragedy, here it's being used as an excuse.

Heh, it's funny. In church last Sunday, one of the praise band singers (this is in the "contemporary" worship) was remarking on the up-tempo songs for the week and said something to the effect of "we're still somewhere between the conservative churches and the African-American churches...but we're getting there!" This is to a primarily (oh, say 98%) white audience, where maybe a smattering of the crowd is comfortable clapping to a song, and even fewer will raise a hand up. I think that "getting there" is going to take a long time.

From Alice Walker:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...selections2008

Quote:

I have come home from a long stay in Mexico to find - because of the presidential campaign, and especially because of the Obama-Clinton race for the Democratic nomination - a new country existing alongside the old. On any given day we, collectively, become the goddess of the three directions and can look back into the past, look at ourselves just where we are, and take a glance, as well, into the future. It is a space with which I am familiar.

When I joined the freedom movement in Mississippi in my early 20s, it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who had been thrown off the land they'd always known - the plantations - because they attempted to exercise their "democratic" right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a lot better than the men did, but I cannot. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that white women have copied all too often the behaviour of their fathers and their brothers. In the south, especially in Mississippi, and before that, when I worked to register voters in Georgia, the broken bottles thrown at my head were gender-free.

I made my first white women friends in college; they loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered.

I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the United States at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him, cannot hear the fresh choices toward movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

When I have supported white people, it was because I thought them the best to do the job. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

True to my inner goddess of the three directions, however, this does not mean I agree with everything Obama stands for. We differ on important points, probably because I am older; I am a woman and person of three colours (African, Native American, European); I was raised in the south; and, when I look at the world after 64 years of life, there is not one person I wish to see suffer.

I want a grown-up attitude to Cuba, for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq. I want the Israeli government to be made accountable for its behaviour to the Palestinians, and I want the people of the US to cease acting as if they don't understand what is going on. But most of all I want someone with the confidence to talk to anyone, "enemy" or "friend", and this Obama has shown he can do.

It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to use her own name) referred to as "a woman" while Barack Obama is always referred to as "a black man". One would think she is just any woman, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in the US in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to try to make her innocent of her racial inheritance.

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader - or any person - in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into 21st-century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others' lives that has so marred the country's contacts with the rest of the world. But because Clinton is a woman and may be very good at what she does, many people (some in my own family) originally favoured her. I understand this, almost. It is because there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of colour and poor whites.

When I offered the word "womanism" many years ago, it was to give us a tool to use, as feminist women of colour, in times like these. These are the moments we can see clearly, and must honour devotedly, our singular path as women of colour in the US. We are not white women, and this truth has been ground into us for centuries. But neither are we inclined to follow a black person, man or woman, unless they demonstrate considerable courage, intelligence, compassion and substance.

We have come a long way, sisters, and we are up to the challenges of our time, one of which is to build alliances based not on race, ethnicity, colour, nationality, sexual preference or gender, but on truth. Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may be beyond his power to lead us to rehabilitation. If he is elected, however, we must, as citizens of the planet, insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us. And remember, as poet June Jordan and Sweet Honey in the Rock never tired of telling us: We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1697099)

It just comes off to me as saying: "You don't understand. That's just how black people are."

But it was NPR. So the person they interviewed was probably some liberal apologist. To quote James Baldwin:

Quote:

"A liberal: someone who thinks he knows more about your experience than you do."

The stuff some of those folks do is almost more indefensible than the folks on the right that they revile with such disdain as "not understanding" the so-called plight of colored folks. Because if those folks were so progressive minded, they'd be living in communities and practicing what they preach. But in reality, they're just visiting and making themselves feel good and then going back to their suburban tracts and privately wondering the same stuff the folks in "less enlightened" areas, just they'd never say it out loud except with their well-meaning friends.

Saw this at Instapundit. It's an op/ed from GayWired.com.

hxxp://www.gaywired.com/print_this_article.cfm?ArticlePage=3&Section=67&id=18614

Quote:

Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Anti-Gay Rev. James T. Meeks
Op-Ed
03.31.08

By Duane Wells

Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

The problem for Obama is that Rev. James Meeks, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preaches a message that appears to be directly at odds with the promise of hope, unity and bridging social, racial and political divisions upon which his campaign is built.

Over the years, Rev. Meeks has garnered significant media attention as a result of a number of racially charged remarks he's made from both behind and out in front of the pulpit. Most notably, in 2006, Meeks came under fire for an inflammatory sermon he gave in which he savaged Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others, including African-Americans who were Daley allies.

In the course of July 5, 2006 attack, Rev. James Meeks ranted:

"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated."

"You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.

Perhaps of even more concern than race-baiting diatribes like these is Rev. Meeks disturbing history of antagonism towards the LGBT community.

A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… [who]… has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'”

The SPLC newsletter also noted that, "Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that ‘fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.’"

On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."

And so here we are again confronted with a situation in which Barack Obama’s choice of allies is likely to confound voters. Though his relationship with Rev. Meeks is not nearly as significant as his affiliation with “spiritual mentor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Obama’s ties to Meeks are nonetheless disconcerting, particularly in the wake of his recent address on race in America and his campaign’s early fumble surrounding the decision to invite homophobic gospel artist Donnie McClurkin to perform at a campaign Faith and Family Values fundraiser in South Carolina.

Some, like CNN contributor Roland S. Martin (who, for the record, is a member of Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church), say, as he did in a recent commentary on the cable news network: “Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.”

But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?

Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can’t.

Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband’s administration that suit her campaign, neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his relatively short political career.

Put even more plainly... Barack Obama can’t have it both ways, which increasingly seems to be his campaign’s modus operandi.

While it is altogether plausible that, in the spirit of bringing hope and unity, a civil rights leader might sit down with members of white supremacist groups to address racial differences, it is another thing entirely to propose that the same civil rights leader could count any of those white supremacists among his closest friends because he finds them to be inspirational people if, you know, you take that pesky race thing out of the equation.

Similarly, while potentially capable of co-existing peacefully in an environment of mutual respect, the homophobe and the LGBT rights advocate aren’t likely to be found cooing at or canoodling with one another in private because they share so many other common interests. Yet these are precisely the kinds of scenarios that Barack Obama asks the American people to accept on faith each and every time unsavory questions arise about the associates with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Ultimately, it is this porous type of reaction that may be Sen. Obama’s undoing. But, then again, perhaps not.

Obama’s critically well-received speech on race in response to the Jeremiah Wright scandal seems to have quieted mainstream concern over the senator’s views about race while simultaneously forcing the media to tip toe around discussing race as it pertains to his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee. So maybe talk about Rev. James Meek and Barack Obama will summarily disappear from the political radar, but one thing is for sure —it shouldn’t.

Growing up, my octogenarian grandmother always told me, “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.” Life and experience have taught me she was right, which says to me that in light of his cozy relationship with anti-gay poster child, Rev. James Meeks, Barack Obama ought to be feeling awfully itchy right about now.

Identity politics is such a wonderful thing. :p

Hillary Clinton has challenged Obama to a bowling match to decide the primaries, even spotting him 2 frames. If they actually went through with this I would vote for the winner in the GE.

But sadly she had to issue the challenge April 1st.

Who cares about Iraq and the economy, let's focus on analyzing every speech given by a person Obama said hi to in the last 20 years. Yay!

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1697165)

Who cares about Iraq and the economy, let's focus on analyzing every speech given by a person Obama said hi to in the last 20 years. Yay!

You may think it's foolish to spend so much time and energy looking at the people that Barack Obama is close to, but you don't help your case when you create a strawman argument.

Quote:

James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

Hardly someone that Obama's just said "hi" to. Plus, are you saying that members of the GLBT community shouldn't be concerned about someone like Meeks having a place in an Obama presidency? This isn't some "retired reverend" we're talking about. This is an Illinois State Senator who's closely involved in Obama's campaign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1697151)

But it was NPR. So the person they interviewed was probably some liberal apologist. To quote James Baldwin:

The stuff some of those folks do is almost more indefensible than the folks on the right that they revile with such disdain as "not understanding" the so-called plight of colored folks. Because if those folks were so progressive minded, they'd be living in communities and practicing what they preach. But in reality, they're just visiting and making themselves feel good and then going back to their suburban tracts and privately wondering the same stuff the folks in "less enlightened" areas, just they'd never say it out loud except with their well-meaning friends.

Right. So he's a bigot...but for the left. (name the movie!)

Like I said, McCain, Clinton, Obama all have people they are in some way associated with that would be considered "evil" by one faction. Point is, if this is all they have to bring to the game, they lose. The American people have shown over the past few weeks that they don't really care about this. People who supported him still do, people that supported McCain and Hillary don't like Obama regardless. Polls show that most Americans are concerned with Iraq and the economy. I'd even be willing to bet more care about global warming. So instead of trying to constantly dig up something negative that somebody said along the way (old politics) maybe it's time to actually pay attention to the voting public.

But then, you'd have nothing to hem and haw over while your candidate figures out who to attack.

Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with 5 in Pennsylvania. But the Real Clear Politics average is still at about 14%

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1697396)

Dude, your partisan hackery is really showing. It really must bother you that this story has legs as oppose to the millions of crappy things the federal govt has done the past 40 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1697396)

This is like, in the NFL, asking how one of the wild card teams matches up with a team that got a bye. Of course those questions will come up; but first you've got to beat the opponent in front of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1697396)

Keating has been a part of every campaign McCain has been in since 1988. There will undoubtedly be more in the fall, but here's some for you to check out in the meantime:

"Is John McCain a crook?" - Feb, 2000
http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

and one from last week from the AP:
"Lessons from Keating scandal applied to McCain presidential campaign" - March, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...in-Keating.php

But the NY Times alone has run between 7 and 12 stories on it over the past 10 years. Here's a beauty back in Feb of 2008 that was later corrected for numerous smears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...=1&oref=slogin

Column by Dowd in Jan 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A96F958260

Another story in Nov 1999:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A96F958260

October 7, 1993:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A965958260

There's numerous more if you Google McCain and Keating.

Yeah, I seriously doubt the Keating 5 thing will have much legs, especially since to McCain it was his "wake up call" and when he decided to take on the special interests in Washington. It's almost a strength for him, ie, the thing that got him "born again" (so to speak).

I to a certain degree can understand where Obama is coming from, inexperience is a killer. Hopeful he can get pass this and make his way toward the white house.

"Yes We Can"

:)

I was hoping for Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact.

Barrack will do.

If you smell what Barrack is cooking.

http://

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

LOL, that's awesome.

She's no Sara Silverman.

Obama raised 40 million in March with an incredible 218000 first time donors. Hillary's campaign says they won't release totals until they are legally required to do so on April 20. She's expected to be below 20 million.

McCain is expected to come in around 13 million.

dola

Obama has raised over 130 million just in 2008.

You know what bothers me about Obama, though? It's that his entire campaign is centered on how it's time for "change" and he's not "politics as usual"...and then you see something like this. It's not that he's doing something others aren't doing; they all do it. The problem is that he's built his entire campaign on not being "politics as usual." But isn't the misleading advertising, the splitting hairs, the claiming to not do something that no one is allowed to do and playing word games to suggest he's acting in a way the other candidates are not... isn't that the very definition of "politics as usual"?

hxxp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

Only Legal Contributions, Please

Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest ever recorded by any company.

Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changed

Obama: Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available, was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

– by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank

Sources
Kornblut, Anne E., and Perry Bacon Jr. "Clinton Resists Calls to Drop Out." The Washington Post, 29 March 2008.

Mouawad, Jad. "Exxon Sets Record Profit Last Year." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2008.

"Open Secrets" Database. Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 31 March 2008.

Hillary for President. “False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money from Oil Companies.” 28 March 2008.

Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices," accessed 31 March 2008.

So let me guess this straight...if a guy who is some employee (one of 100,000s) and donates money to a campaign, in this article's judgement that's the same as taking money from the oil company? I work with stats for a living and this data is funky. There are much better ways to figure this out.

Well first, somewhere around 50% of that "oil money" has come from bundlers, so it's pretty obvious there's a concerted effort from top execs in the oil industry to collect money for Obama. Second, all of the candidates' contributions are compared the same way in this regard, Obama's not being singled out (other than in the context of his ad claim).

The big issue is Obama's claim that HE does not take money from oil companies (insinuating that others do). NO candidate can. And then he claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists...but he takes it from their spouses and others at their firms. That's the kind of two-faced political crap that he's supposed to be the alternative to, isn't it?

I agree, I just like my stats and numbers a little more detailed in the breakdown. Personally, I think you would be a better president than anyone running.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup (Post 1698719)

That's the kind of two-faced political crap that he's supposed to be the alternative to, isn't it?

If you (or anyone else) is planning to vote for Obama because he is some sort of weird post-partisan Jesus figure, then I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote. Obama is a politician. He is nothing more and nothing less.

Try telling him that.

Wow. It was hard today to follow the regular news with all of the outrage against Randi Rhodes' vulgar, sexist, anit-semitic rant.

Or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1698976)

Wow. It was hard today to follow the regular news with all of the outrage against Randi Rhodes' vulgar, sexist, anit-semitic rant.

Or not.

I missed the anti-Semitic part. I've only heard about Hillary and Ferraro being "f***ing whores". What else did she say?

Guess I read that wrong. Sorry.

Quote:

At the performance, Rhodes also joked that if Clinton doesn’t get her way, “she’s going all Lieberman on you.” Joe Lieberman won re-election to his Senate seat in 2006 after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary. Though he still caucuses with Democrats, he identifies himself as an “independent Democrat” and offered his endorsement to expected Republican nominee John McCain.

Rhodes went on a rant about having “an anti-Semite racist in the White House like Nixon or Ronald Reagan or Dick Cheney.” Recently scandalized New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer also faced Rhodes’ wrath.

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1699029)

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

They already have Al Franken, Michael Moore and that dogs and cats chick. Oh yeah and Rosie. They don't need Rhodes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1699029)

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

There are two kinds of people who can't recognize that there are left-wing wackos. Left-wing wackos and the duped.

I don't get the "anti-Semite racist" comment. Nixon, ok, was anti-Semitic. And an argument can be made that Reagan's attack on "welfare queens" and some of his speeches appealed to racism somewhat. Cheney, perhaps there is something there somewhere.

But, how exactly were Reagan and Cheney "anti-Semitic"? You'd think anti-Semites wouldn't be all that fond of Israel for one.

Randi spent too much time in South Florida half-baked out of her mind while spinning Eagles records. Everybody's an anti-Semite.

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?

Look, Obama's a politician. For some (possibly many) he's an inspiring person as well. He has my support because, for a number of reasons I've detailed before, I think he could be a very good President, and certainly better than the two other current alternatives. But he's not JFK. Of course, JFK wasn't JFK either, if you really look at it.

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest. Woo hoo.

Quote:

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest.

It's like you've never followed politics before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1699141)

It's like you've never followed politics before.

Actually, it's like I've followed politics for a long time. Both races have been pretty exciting and interesting this year until lately, when they've reverted to ugly, boring, presidential-politics-as-usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1699144)

I was half-joking. However, every race turns into a "Oh, Gotcha!". It was only a matter of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1699149)

I was half-joking. However, every race turns into a "Oh, Gotcha!". It was only a matter of time.

Oh, I agree 100%. Mostly I just think I'm grumpy. I wonder if it's Bucc's influence.

I enjoy how we (FOFC posters as a whole) always blame our grumpiness on Bucc's influence :).

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1699140)

Nice spin. Gotcha! for misleading people. Great. Look, he brought this on himself. No one told him to make a big deal about not taking money from oil companies. That he would go out of his way to state as a "fact" something that, by law, NO candidate can do, smacks of "politics as usual." That's the issue.

And then there's the lobbyist thing...again, making a point to tell people he doesn't take money from lobbyists - but hey, if their spouses want to give me money (wink, wink), then that's A-OK!

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit. That's his campaign's overriding mantra, and he's demonstrating that he's not any different. I know he's a politician, but you can't tell me he's not campaigning as if he's not the usual candidate.

And BTW, I have no agenda here. I'm likely not voting for any of the 3 remaining candidates. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1699144)

Factcheck.org analyzes all candidate ads, statements, etc., regardless of party. Hard to see how an unaffiliated organization pointing out misleading statements or outright lies to aid citizens in determining what they can or should believe is "politics as usual."