Discussions
I am "Really" Proud of Michelle Obama
Posted by gmoney • 8/26/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Barack Obama, michelle obama
I think that it is time that we put aside our differences as people and recognize that if our country had more stand up women like Michelle Obama that were family orientated our country would be better off.
Last night what Michelle Obama showed America and the world is that her family was no different than any other American family.
The Obama family is the "American Dream", Barack Obama's American Dream was forged around the world and in Hawaii then in Chicago and Michelle Obama's "American Dream" was forged in Chicago.
Honestly if the Obamas last name was Johnson, Smith, Thomas and they were white, they would be the corner stone of American society.
We can try to hide the "Racial" aspect of this election all we want. We can say that it is all based on politics, but the truth is that it is sad that in this country we are still concerened with the color of ones skin.
The Obamas are an American Family, they are the dream. I would dare to say that we want our kids to grow up in a world without war, a world where we help people, a world that we care about the well being of everyone. If you could predict 40 years from now your 6 year old was going to be a successful attorney married to a beautiful INTELLIGENT woman with 2 great kids....... you would say that your life was complete.
America wake up. Disagree with politics but ignore the hype and the BS. The Obamas are an American Family!
User Comments
-
She gave a very strong speech last night. I was moved by what she said. -
not only strong, but the message (apart from the political BS) was very special. I think more than anything it shows that regardless of race, we all stand on common ground.
-
research her term paper on snopes.. might change your mind-
Why would I change my mind. She is a thinker and her term paper dealt with her feelings and emotions while attending Princeton.
Snopes article link and a portion of the entire article follows.
www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp
******************************
After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.
Obama drew on her personal experiences as an example.
"As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates — acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation," she wrote, citing the University’s conservative values as a likely cause.
"Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments," she said, noting the small size of the African-American studies department and that there were only five black tenured professors at the University across all departments.
Obama studied the attitudes of black Princeton alumni to determine what effect their time at Princeton had on their identification with the black community. "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."
Much scrutiny and discussion has been focused on a single phrase contained within the thesis, the statement that "blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." This phrase has repeatedly been quoted out of context and presented as if it reflected Michelle Obama's own philosophy, but in its full context it is clearly her speculation about what she thought some of the respondents she surveyed for her thesis (i.e., students who had attended Princeton in earlier years) might have been feeling:
As discussed earlier, most respondents were attending Princeton during the 70's, at a time when the Black Power Movement was still influencing the attitudes of many Blacks.
It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor. As the few blacks in a white environment it is understandable that respondents might have felt a need to look out for one another.
Last updated: 31 March 2008 -
[Edit: Dang! GMoney beat me to it, but I'll post my view anyway...]
Nice try, but no. Here is the Snopes discussion of the section you probably want us to care about, but slander and misrepresentations aside, there is no substance to it at all.
From Snopes:
Much scrutiny and discussion has been focused on a single phrase contained within the thesis, the statement that "blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." This phrase has repeatedly been quoted out of context and presented as if it reflected Michelle Obama's own philosophy, but in its full context it is clearly her speculation about what she thought some of the respondents she surveyed for her thesis (i.e., students who had attended Princeton in earlier years) might have been feeling:
As discussed earlier, most respondents were attending Princeton during the 70's, at a time when the Black Power Movement was still influencing the attitudes of many Blacks.
It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor. As the few blacks in a white environment it is understandable that respondents might have felt a need to look out for one another.
------------------------------------
Perhaps John McCain and his surrogates can run a campaign based on his policies rather than on baseless and slanderous accusations of his opponent and degrading comparisons of him to a "celebrity". Oh, wait, for McCain to shift to that sort of a campaign, his platform would have to have substance...sorry. -
It's just depressing that so many Americans think there's something "radical" about African Americans having the audacious idea that they've been oppressed or that racism lingers among the powerful. People need to turn off Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and read some history.... -
who wants to read when we can have our opinions fed to us??????
-
-
great speach and great role model.. -
I missed her speech last night, but I love them both and write about them as often as I can.-
You can check out an interactive speech here elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080825_OBAMA_SPEE...
-
Thanks for the link.
-
-
Her speech was magnificent! I wrote a whole post about it on my blog opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=35.
She moved me as she discussed Barack driving her and their then newborn first daughter home from the hospital and described how she could sense that Barack felt the weight of his daughter’s future in his hands and that he was “determined to give her something he never had - the affirming embrace of a father’s love.” That was just so personal to me.
She presented his vision of change as one shared by all Americans and I completely connected with her. It truly was a magnificent speech.-
Thanks I will check it out.
-
she is a woman, an American, a lawyer, a mother, a sister, a daughter
and oh yeah
she happens to be black
-
-
"We can try to hide the "Racial" aspect of this election all we want. We can say that it is all based on politics, but the truth is that it is sad that in this country we are still concerened with the color of ones skin."
I agree with this, but probably not in the way that you meant it. I think that if Obama were white, he would never have made it as far as he has and would have little chance at the Presidency.-
How does your statement even make sense? He is who he is because of his biography. You can't remove any ingredient and still have Obama. -
In other words "he's a stuffed shirt and America only cares about him because he's black." *Sigh* I'll refrain from stating why this sentiment actually proves GMoney's point. Of course, even assuming the truth of the statement (which is a stretch), we can point to all sorts of our fellow stuffed suited White Americans who achieved high office inspite of their stuffed-suitedness (*achem* George Bush). So the argument that only a stuffed-suited BLACK man can make it in politics doesn't hold any water.
-
Opinionstream, you should probably refrain from saying "in other words" and then making up something that may or may not have anything to do with the original poster's point--in this case, it did not. I'm going to hope that your "in other words" was a radical misunderstanding and not a lie.
I'm entirely uncertain what the "stuffed shirt" comment means or how it applies to this discussion, so I can't even respond to it. If this is a judgment you've made about Obama, please don't attribute it to me.
What I DID mean was that, despite Obama's charisma, as a white man with the same background and positions, he would have looked very much like all many of the other Democratic candidates in the primary except less experienced. Without that clear distinguishing characteristic, I think he would have had a much more difficult time rallying the support that he did early in the process, while there were many other Democrats with similar positions and more experience still in the game. -
MadameX,
Part of me wants to believe that, but his message of change (however vague people think it is) is powerful. I think that even a young Senator with the same message and the same family makeup would have risen to the top. His makeup is different than most politicians. I guess in this case him being black is a positive thing.
Maybe this is just a perfect political storm. -
MadameX - My "in other words" was the intro to my interpretation of your comment based on the similarity of it to those of so many people who have made your comment (almost down to an exact quote) as an introduction to calling Barack Obama a stuffed suit. "Stuffed suit" is a derogatory term used to say that Barack Obama really doesn't have any experience and he really is just a glossy persona with no substance. And as that term has been used throughout this election cycle, I'm somewhat surprised you haven't heard of it.
Your clarification that "as a white man with the same background and positions, he would have looked very much like all many of the other Democratic candidates in the primary except less experienced" seems to me a colloquial way of saying exactly what I perceived your prior statement to say. But I'll admit that that may be due to me being hardened by debating so frequently with people who feel that Obama is a "stuffed suit" and use language that you used to express their feeling. So with that, I apologize for putting the words of others in your mouth. If you do not feel Obama is a stuffed suit, my comment was inappropriately directed toward you.
I do, however, stand by my George Bush comment. He possessed no qualification (perceived or actual) that set him apart from his peers in 2000 other than that he is the son of a former President, and he got elected...twice. -
But that very fact--that he was the son of a former President, and thus felt like a known quantity to a certain sector of the population in a way that governors usually do not, DID set him apart. And he had powerful string-pullers in the party. And even with all that going for him, he wasn't able to win the election legitimately.
-
Well, having a President as a father doesn't make you qualified in my book (and I suppose yours either) but I see your point. I must still respectfully disagree with your position that Obama's blackness is the (only?) reason he was able to elevate himself above all the other Democratic nominees. Certainly you couldn't help but notice he was black. But his core message of change and the revolutionary way he ran his campaign from the beginning, coupled with his charisma, are what drew me to Obama above the rest of the field. I was also drawn to the pleasant air of a fresh new face providing a breather from dynasty politics and also-ran candidates. You can't undercut that by owing his success (merely?) to his blackness.
-
I see what your concerns are of Obama getting so far in this race. But you seem to forget all the grassroots support he built from the ground up, with close to 10,000,000 supporters on his facebook page before he even announced he was running for president. This is the peoples election and the whole shebang has been thrown out the window. Its not the typical who has more money or experience, its background and voters looking in line with the way a senator votes.
You need to forget the whole black issue because no matter what you may think about different races, genes prove everyone evolved from Africa. What you are saying is like what the media says about Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, Turns out nothing is that black and white.
-independent for Obama. -
[genes prove everyone evolved from Africa.]
Quoted for truth.
-
-
I loved the speech. I thought she hit it out of the park. The adorable kids didn't hurt, either.
On the race stuff, I'd just say this: America was founded on a social and economic base that had racism as a fundamental component. It was written into the very document that formed our country that blacks counted as 3/5s of a person. We had a civil war about it. And for 100 years after that war, segregation as a matter of law persisted, and racial discrimination in housing, employment and elsewhere was perfectly legal.
So, it just kinda baffles me when people suggest that Michelle Obama doesn't love America enough, merely because she acknowledges that this country has had a 200 year struggle to come to terms with the political, economic and social implications of a problematic history, where race is concerned.
We'll see what happens in this election, but I'm hopeful that we may be turning a corner. -
I can honestly say I have never been proud of a single politician or their respective partners or wives here in the UK.
I find it very odd how anyone can be proud of anyone in politics (irrespective of their colour which is totally immaterial really). Is it the norm in the USA?
I find myself wondering if people from other countries share this sort of patriotic outlook that extends to members of political parties? Also, is there a UK blogger who is proud of any particular politican? I am quite intrigued!-
Last night was more than just a political party, it was a woman, with kids and a husband that has lived the American Dream. There is really nothing not to like about Michelle Obama.
-
-
Michelle Obama...simply put...hit a home run!-
I totally agree, gave a clear picture to how their backgrounds shaped their motivations.
-
-
Well, it's certainly not my place to be proud of Michelle Obama, but I will say that she impressed me.
-
I think...IMO...the "pride" thing was a play on her "never more proud to be an American" speech awhile back...not so much about this blogger being "proud" of her. Simply a headline capturing device.
But I would have to agree that she gave a great speech last night. -
mark
you know me and my titles
@thebigRuski, thank you for breaking it down for MARK:) -
Dunno how I missed that. Me be dense sometimes.
-
-
Her speech was brilliant. -
wrong spot
-
If McCain picks a woman for his VP, he will win I think in November. Is he smart enough to do it though?-
A large majority of black people are voting for Obama because he is black so I am guessing that if McCain picked a woman, women would be influenced by this. Let's keep it real Obama picked an older white male to play to America's heartland, so I am not going to get upset if McCain plays the same old tired game.
-
gmoney - I wouldn't lump "a large majority of black people" into that camp. I don't doubt that some black people are voting based solely on race, but Blacks have been a stronghold for the democratic party since the Voting Rights Act. It is equally possible that a majority of Blacks are voting for Obama because he continues to reflect their core democratic values. McCain certainly doesn't represent them, so I think if you remove Obama's skin color, Black people would still vote for him in large numbers because he continues to speak to their core concerns.
-
There are more black people in this election supporting Obama than ever before. Black people have the largest portion of the delegate count at the convention than ever before. Barack Obama got 70+% of the black vote in most if not all primaries. I would say that those facts constitute a LARGE MAJORITY.
I have to disagree with you, if Obama was white, the same numbers of people would not be out voting and supporting him. Again the support would be there, but no where close to the numbers we are seeing now. -
I never disputed that a large majority of black voters are voting for Barack Obama (which is the only fact that your stats point to), I just disputed your inference that those large numbers were due to Obama's race. It seems like every election cycle, the media points to "a record number of black people" voting for whatever democratic candidate is up for election. So the large numbers have some historical context. Also, during polling in the primaries, I remember that a large majority of voters who said race played a part in their vote voted for Hillary Clinton (something like 70/30 in W.Va. and 60/40 in PA, if I remember correctly) so based on that statistic, it seems that race has been more of a reason to vote against Barack Obama than for him.
Again, I'm sure race informs the votes of some Black people, but I'd hesitate to say that it informs the votes of "a large majority" of Black people. -
maybe I should say that MORE "blacks" will be and have turned out to vote and it is do to Obama being black. That is a fact. I am just to lazy to go and gather all my sources.
-
LOL!
-
-
As a non-American, I was surprised to learn that so many Americans have this negative feeling toward Michelle. I think she's adorable and I watched her speech last night and thought is was good. But I've heard her speak at other events and thought she was good too. I don't quite get where the anomosity is coming from. Sure, I hear what people say about that one slip-up in a previous speech, but I'm not convinced that's why ... I think it's just racial and they use that as an excuse. Same with her college stuff...it's hardly worth hating a person for ... and she was in college, lol. And their kids are so freaking adorable how can you not love that family?-
I agree!
-
I agree, too.
-
-
It was an excellent speech, however some right-wingers still find a way to inject lies and hatred into the event.
Conservative shock-pundit, Michelle Malkin claimed to have an advanced copy of Michelle Obama's speech which she posted on her blog:
michellemalkin.com/2008/08/25/exclusive-advance-text-of-michelle-obamas-spe...
Do most Republicans agree with the current climate of smear and fear mongering coming from their side?!?!
I'm sickened to think I live among people like this. The same people who claim to be of high morals, patriotic and God-fearing seem to love their party more than they love this country.
Pathetic. -
If you think her speech was good, wait til Thursday. She was good, but Barack is the speech giver in the family. -
I didn't care for it, because I don't really give a damn about their emotional drivel. I want solutions that will work. I want answers. I demand competency.
(Note: I'm not one of those Obama-bashers; but I haven't endorsed anyone either. Odds are, I'll vote for Obama. BUT, I'm tired of emotional bullshit.)-
maybe you should care about emotional drive. I would say that McCain's emotional drive is a bit screwy after spending 5 years in a POW camp.... How do you deal with Evil "defeat it"...... no questions no logic, just defeat it GRRRRRRRRRRR, that is McCain for you.
-
[maybe you should care about emotional drive]
I'm not a slave to my emotions. -
Hey voodoo, I'm sure you realize that very many Americans have to connect to their candidate on an emotional level before they can connect to that candidate's policies. The candidate has to be someone you feel you can trust to lead you and in order to gain trust, the candidate has to open up emotionally and draw commonality with the voter. Michelle did that masterfully. Now, of course, I understand you want none of that, but just appreciate that our electorate demands it. As for policies (drum roll for the shameless promotion...) I'm running a series on the policy positions that make Obama a better candidate than McCain. Check out my lead post if you haven't already: opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=24 (feel free to comment, stumble and digg, of course
). I'm researching the next article and will post as soon as it's done. -
[I'm sure you realize that very many Americans have to connect to their candidate on an emotional level before they can connect to that candidate's policies.]
I don't care about the candidate's feelings, I only care about their ideas.
[Now, of course, I understand you want none of that, but just appreciate that our electorate demands it.]
Appreciate that the electorate demands the flooding of the airwaves with drivel? No thanks.
[As for policies (drum roll for the shameless promotion...) I'm running a series on the policy positions that make Obama a better candidate than McCain.]
McCain's stance on technology issues alone makes me not want to vote for him. Also, grid.ontheissues.org/Grid_Frontrunners.htm
[I'm researching the next article and will post as soon as it's done.]
Good luck. At least there are people out there doing REAL research. *coughObamaNationcough* -
Thanks voodoo
[edit: LOL on your edit!]
-
-
Michelles speech was very touching, there wasn't a dry eye in my home. This country is need of change. I support Obama always have. I was raised in a Jewish household and was taught that there is no color. I am raising my daughter the same way. So Obama being a man of color doesn't bother me one bit. What concerns me is this, the white supremacy groups are very quiet and the closer we come, the closer Obama is in jeopardy of being assassinated. I know I am not the only one who feels this. I hope and pray that never happens, Obama will be a great leader, but this is in the back of my mind everytime I see him speaking.-
That's so very sad. And I just saw something briefly on Yahoo about a plot to assisnate him...I just don't get it.
-
-
Wow! Voodoo, do you have a problem complimenting someone? Good for you, vote for McCain.
-
Learn to read. I'm PROBABLY voting for Obama. It would take something significant to make me vote for McCain. (85% Obama, 15% McCain is how I would draw the line)
-
-
Thank you for the compliment....
-
wrong spot
-
-
Hmmm...Gmoney your reasoning of "a large" majority would make sense if the African-American community WAS the majority in the U.S., which it clearly is not. Whites are the majority. Hispanics are the second largest group. Blacks are third.
Whites and Hispanics generally did not support Obama. Most whites who voted in the Democratic primary voted for Hillary Clinton or some other candidate. Obama was nominated by the superdelegate vote. Hispanics in particular voted massively for Clinton.
By my count, Obama is in deep trouble if he can't swing enough Clinton supporters his way. Republicans will vote McCain. Whites who for racist reasons will not back a black for president will either stay home or vote McCain. Hispanics will probably fall in line with the party and vote for Obama, but a fair number will stay home. Few of them will ever be convinced to vote Republican. But a small fraction just might.
It's interesting to me that I neither supported Clinton (I'm a New Yorker, but I still wouldn't vote for her) nor Obama. I supported Biden since November of 2007 believing him to be the best and most qualified and most electable. Obama seems to understand this.
There is also the thorny issue of party pecking order that nobody, but nobody (save Tim Russert, may he rest in peace) raised. It was always a tradition of American politics, indeed, of two-party democracies, that the party's successor is usually known well before any primary contest is held. Any opposition to that successor from within the party is token opposition to preserve the essentials of the democratic process and to force policy and platform agendas. Obama jumped that pecking order with the active help of renegade activists within the party (the caucuses, the superdelegates). That is a rift that average Democrats on the street have a subtle sense of but can't quite put their finger on. It almost smacks of the Gore-Bush election. Some people have a queasy feeling about Obama's sudden meteoric rise within the party but don't know why. That's the reason.
Was Hillary robbed? No. She wasn't. It was her election to lose and she lost it. But was she jumped ahead and was party protocol ignored to annoint Obama? Oh you better believe it and party insiders, district captains, party club chairs will advise their constituents accordingly. I have no hope that there will be a Democrat in the White House any time soon.
The euphoria with Obama is cute. Yes, it's a historic time in our national poitical life. But once the heady high wears off, you begin to understand so much of it is just that...a heady high. I have yet to hear anyone discuss any issues of substance or even take Obama to task by asking exactly what kind of change is he talking about? What are his specific policy details? What does he propose to accomplish his first 100 days in office? These are questions that have always been asked. They aren't being asked now?
Not good.-
exModia - I disagree - with much of what you're opining, but I'll address the straw-man claim that Obama hasn't vetted the substance of his policy standpoints by pointing you to the first in my coming series of articles defending the substance of Obama's policies against the substance of McCain's policies. Check it out here: opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=24.
If you really want to know the substance of his policies, you can go many places, but I've given you a link to my site as a place to start. Good luck on your journey. By the way, I'm researching the next article in my series, which will probably address their differences on economic reform, and will post to BC when I've finished it. -
@exmodia
Let em clarify, a large majority of the black community that is a minority in America. The only majority in America is Whites/non-hispanic.
It is interesting that you see the "euphoria" around Obama as cute. I think that the euphoria that Obama brings is real and powerful. Obama did not come on the scene at the 2004 dem convention, the euphoria is not new. From his grassroots marketing methods and his fight to stay above the BS is a powerful thing and cannot be written off as CUTE.
See even in my 30's I still have hope and I will never give that up. It is not hope in a man, but hope in everyday people, hope that people know right from wrong and hope that we can make a change if WE want to.
Obama has talked about the specifics of his change, but it forces one to read and listen. It is not publicized on CNN, FOX or MSNBC.
Below is a link to 33 pages that lays out the Obama plan to bring change. Now you can no longer state that you don't know how Obama plans to bring change.
www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
-
-
I'm "really" proud of myself. -
Oh and as LGBT people we might add...
That for all the Rainbow Obama stickers plastered in our many neighborhoods all over the country, the LGBT community went for Hillary Clinton in large numbers too.
What we've got is a fractured party with a very vocal cheerleading squad. Cheerleading squads don't score touch downs in November. Votes do.-
nicely done, exModia. I like your style.
-
There are rainbow Obama stickers now?
-
just part of the marketing campaign... but yes...
btw... voodooKobra... I share your sentiment in the oversentimalization of politics.... -
while im not gay id love to have one of those rainbow stickers. It amazes me how people think other peoples views such as that might affect them in any way. People need to take the rainbow back as a sign of unity among races and sexuality.
-
-
Specifically with what opinionstreams?
With the fact that Hispanics voted massively for Clinton? Or that Obama won the nomination by the preponderance of superdelegate votes? Or that African-Americans are the third largest group in the nation and therefore incapable of electing anyone on the strength of their votes alone? Or that nobody has asked Obama what his agenda is for his first 100 days in office? Or that ever since the days of Whigs and Tories, there has been a tacit assumption that the acknowledged leader of the party is only given token opposition to force agendas and platform changes? Or that by any measure Joseph Biden was and still remains the most qualified Democrat to run for president? Or that even during the horrible months of May and June the media frequently made references to the Bush appointment vis a vis the superdelegate appointment of Obama? Or that Obama's mantra for change lacks specifics? After all, I'm willing to vote for change, but it's gotta be more than just changing the color of the behind in the Oval Office's chair.-
I read a very interesting article about the "change" mantra of the BO campaign... in the NYTs this Sunday.
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&...
"Last Call for Change We Can Believe In" by Frank Rich.... which argues that in order to win this election, they need to Change their slogan from this point out... it worked for the primaries, but won't for the general election. -
Nice way to succinctly restate your arguments, exModia. But the fact that they're stated in short-and-sweet form doesn't make them (or, more specifically, the agenda that apparently undergirds them) any more factual. Also, the fact that I've chosen only to address one of my points of disagreement doesn't mean I'm not armed to address all of them, as you seem to imply by restating all your points after the "specifically with what..." intro. I just don't feel like doing it today for the 11 millionth time. Catch me on another day. Anyway, I hope you'll take me up on my offer.
-
With the fact that Hispanics voted massively for Clinton?
Truth hispanics did vote is mass for Clinton. This has a lot to do with culture in the Hispanic community not to mention that times were good for most in the Clinton years. Also there is a rift between the hispanic and black community in America.
Or that Obama won the nomination by the preponderance of superdelegate votes?
The Super Delegates put Obama over the top.
Or that African-Americans are the third largest group in the nation and therefore incapable of electing anyone on the strength of their votes alone?
African Americans are the third largest group in America, but by how much. All the numbers that I found basicly states it is less than a million or so. Plusevery African of voting age does not vote, the same goes for hispanics and whites
Or that nobody has asked Obama what his agenda is for his first 100 days in office?
As with most presidents in recent memory this will come. but here is a look into those first 100 days
www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008
blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/28/bushs-laws-will-be-scrutinized-if-i-be...
Or that even during the horrible months of May and June the media frequently made references to the Bush appointment vis a vis the superdelegate appointment of Obama? HUH?
Or that Obama's mantra for change lacks specifics?
Again view below.
www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Please read After all, I'm willing to vote for change, but it's gotta be more than just changing the color of the behind in the Oval Office's chair.
The least we can do is give a African American a chance to screw up as bad as the previous presidents that were not African American ummmmmmmm errrrrrrr deeeeeeeerrrrrrrr ALL OF THEM.
-
-
Now mind you, I only mentioned Hispanics because of the strange wording in Gmoney's post about majorities. But you should realize that retired Americans also went for Clinton, so did women.
Retired Americans are the most consistent voters in the nation and they also happen to have very conservative views and are not easily swayed by "change".
None of this bodes well for our party in November. -
BTW: I hear that there is a "new" political debate group on BC... can someone give me the head's up on that one?
-
@ G
A few observations,/university
Obviously people citing the term paper have never done a term paper at a college which requires one to think past what we are told is the truth to the real truth.
The speech was good no doubt. I am an Obama supporter but the pride thing, I've never thought of pride as something I hold to things I have not done.I appreciated her speech.
Great read in the Times on Sunday if you didn't catch it.
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&... -
opinionstreams you are dissembling. To say that facts are not factual is beyond an oxymoron.
And I restate what I said earlier. Boosterism is nice, but it doesn't win elections. Bodies in the polling booth win elections. And right now, quite a few Democratic bodies have made their decision to either be absent or to pull the lever for somebody else. And that's something no one is boosting.
Obama and Michelle need to talk directly to these people and tell them WHY he should be president. He hasn't done that throughout this entire campaign. To just simply say that he should be president for the sake of change, well, isn't that why we have elections in the first place? Isn't that why we limit a president's time in office to only two four-year terms?
I am under the assumption that Barack Obama is smarter than that. He needs to live up to that assumption.-
You haven't provided any sources, though.
-
Well, not everything you said is a fact even in the barest sense of the word, but let me clarify - I don't disagree (yet) with everything you said so much as why you said it. I still have to verify some of what you said, but as voodoo points out, you haven't provided any support other than your statement (just like the statement that never in the history of American politics has the supposed heir to the throne been usurped by the non-heir apparent).
Your claim that the substance of Obama's policies has not been vetted is certainly NOT a fact, and that's why I pointed you to my article so that you could get my analysis of the substance of one of his platforms. Again, I'll be posting more substantive analyses of his platform and other sites have also vetted his policies. I provided my site as a good place to start (because I'm a shameless blog promoter )
[edit for your edit: Again, Obama has provided pages upon pages of substance for his "change" mantra. He's not asking to be President for the sake of change without telling what he's going to change or how and when. Many good blogs (mine included ) have vetted the substance of his policies. On his own website, he has detailed position papers laying out his plans point-by-point. He's done everything McCain has done and then some to lay out his plans in detail. He's already proven he's "smarter than that."
My article is about his stance on healthcare. I'm following up with his stance on the economy. I'm providing substantive analysis and Obama has provided me plenty of substance to analyze. Look into it. Again, enjoy your journey.] -
I have one question, exModia -- by what means is Sen. Obama supposed to communicate his plans to you?
He and John McCain have been making policy speeches for months now -- and you don't hear specifics? Have you been paying attention??
If you're a reader, look at Obama's website.
barackobama.com
His energy plan, economic plan, foreign policy, education policy, healthcare policy are outlined in detail. You can even print a bazillion page pdf file for goodness sake.
I wonder whether you have made an honest attempt to educate yourself as a voter? Or do you just hope to gaze at your TV screen and have the "specifics" magically appear before you?
If you are an American voter, it is your responsibility to educate yourself on policy and cast an informed vote! (So stop whinging on BC and do a little research, for goodness sakes!)
-
-
Well Done, Opinionstreams, Bravo..:)
-
*bow* thank you womenslegal. I assume you mean for my blog article?
-
-
Am I "proud" of Michelle Obama's speech??
It makes me feel good that we live in a country where she had the opportunity to go to the podium, yes. I think she will make an excellent first lady.
But I must say I like Michelle Obama most when she is drawn up to her full height and showing the full might of her strength and intelligence. I don't find 'tugging at the heartstrings' to be her best look. There is nothing so amazing as a powerful woman showing her power.
I will look forward to seeing *that* Michelle Obama more in the future. -
Man - some of y'alls comments are longer than the speech!
I think as senators - both guys have proved they really don't have plans - if they really wanted to do right - where are all the bills supporting their plans... sigh
I think it is funny how the McCain bashers are bashing McCain for bashing Obama -
did you vote for bush?
-
-
If you want to honestly delve into Obama's healthcare policy I call everyone's attention to this piece from the NYT that came out back in February. You will see what I mean about specifics and any substantive differences between what we have now and the "change" Obama speaks of:
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
This pretty much just nailed it for me:
"But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t."
It basically made it quite clear that Obama is not against getting into bed with the AMA and Big Pharma. That's not change. That's just more of the same. The proper role of governement is to bring about change and to mandate that change if necessary. When you relinquish your options to mandate, you bend to the whims of the corporate class by default. In this country healthcare is on life support. To remove mandated healthcare from the table is giving in to the healthcare lobby before they even paid the lobbyists to buy your vote in congressional committee.
Or maybe they did.
I also have to add that one of the arguments that really shook me from actively supporting Mr. Obama was the one made in our local newscast here in New York (by Mayor Ed Koch) on New York 1 cable news.
That argument pointed out that the Clintons combined are undefeated agaisnt Republicans in political contests, Obama has tasted defeat at the hands of Republicans in Illinois in the past.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary. But I concede that she'd be a more formidable opponent to any Republican today than Barack Obama. -
Oh and given the state of HIV and AIDS healthcare, Mr. Obama's healthcare policy is no trivial matter in the Gay Community.
Please, don't mistake my brevity and quick posting for lack of knowledge or ignorance of policy issues. I taught constitutional law at Hunter College in NYC. I don't think I need to get into quasi-intellectual frottage on a blog forum.
My comments are purely conversational in nature...like the kind you'd have around the watercooler at work. I hardly believe this is the place for policy-wonking.-
I am not teacher and I know very little about constitutional law, but I am wondering why you are allowing a op-ed piece to make your point?
I think that it makes sense to allow people the choice on health insurance and not make it mandatory. The Clinton plan would have fined you for not having health insurance. Now that is a plan! Let's not give people a choice and then fine them for having freedom.
-
-
To read some of Michelle Obamas transcript of last night go here
www.womenslegalresource.com/blog/archives/299. My post will show you where to go to read the rest. -
Regarding the college paper: How many years ago was that? Don't you think people have different perspectives when they're in college? My daughter and I were laughing at a high school paper she wrote that "she wanted to be on the Swat team."
People who haven't experienced racism often don't have a full perspective of its influences and ramifications.
I voted for Nader every year, was going to vote for Hillary - I'll probably vote for Obama because although I think he's a little "smooth" he'll do a lot more good than McCain - and health care has to come before military. (no healthy people - no good military)
I say Michelle Obama for President!-
2016! Maybe that will be the Obama/Clinton ticket?!
-
-
I agree with you about health care coming before the military. . . .although i think both are crusial and highly important i personally value the health of American citizens then the war. i didn't actually see the speach that she gave but from reading the previous posts i can tell it must have been good. -
Gmoney...
Did you read who the Oped piece is citing? I'm not allowing the writer of the Op ed piece to do anything. I'm allowing his sources to do it, specifically Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists.
Who are you allowing? And it says that the Clinton plan REQUIRES you to have health care. It doesn't say it fines you if you don't. A fine is what I get when I don't move my car in the morning in NYC.
In New York, we are REQUIRED to have health insurance for everyone and it is mandatory for children. Just like we are required to have car insurance and a drivers lincense. A lot of people don't have them, but they are required. They are only fined when a cop catches them. And I'd get a fine too from that same cop if I don't move my car because we are not required to move our cars on alternate side of the street days, we are obligated.
The Op-Eder clearly states that:
"Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead."
Clearly this circular congratulatory party that the Obama camp has thrown itself must come to end and start addressing issues like these because even their followers are confused.-
@exModia
It was widely reported that the Obama plan would NOT require everyone to have health insurance where as the Clinton plan would require every American to have health insurance.
From a ABCNews Article
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/clinton-says--1.html
he Obama ad states that Clinton's plan "forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can't afford it and you pay a penalty if you don’t." But Tanden said that was not true.
Clinton's plan would offer help to lower-income Americans and said the Senator "would consider a range of options" in terms of how to deal with people who do not purchase insurance, Tanden said. She said Obama's plan includes a mandate that children have health insurance and argued that it is Obama who would in fact "force parents to pay a fine" if they did not provide that coverage.
"Sen. Obama talks about running a positive campaign," said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson. "The fact is in the closing days of this campaign in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama has employed a kitchen-sink strategy against us."
I support Obama, I like the message and it is just as "VAGUE" as any other president in recent memory. He is new and fresh blood in the white house. -
exModia - what I find interesting is that you began your contribution by saying that Obama's policies were all fluff no substance. Then, to prove you were "engaged" in the face of claims from me and others that you obviously weren't, you point to an article that discusses, in part, the substance of one of Obama's policies! (from an op-ed standpoint, at least). Then, for your "see, I told you so" reply, you actually pointed to a substantive difference between Obama and Clinton and said you disagreed with - wait for it - a substantive component of Obama's healthcare platform.
So, let me get this straight: first you claim that Obama's policies have no substance; then, in support of your claim, you point out your disagreement with that substance. Yeah, okay...
-
-
I cannot vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with his race. The man has only ONE term in the US Senate. He doesn't have the experience.
Oh, and my brother is in Iraq at the moment, doing his job while wearing a Kevlar vest most of the time. I don't want a man with no military experience serving as his commander-in-chief.-
So serving in the national guard is experience?
I have cousins and friends that have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and I have friends that are in Saudi. I understand that this is personal, but McCain being held as a POW does not make him qualified to be President. If anything I think it might make him a bit of a liability.
We have given everyone else to Run this country and where are we NOW? We need FRESH new BLOOD in the whitehouse..... I want something better for my daughter. -
You're entitled to your opinion, but think about two things:
1) who is more likely to bring your brother home?
2) who is more likely to keep on sending your brother to every zone of conflict on the globe, even without a clear, achievable mission?
John McCain has a hot temper and seems (IMO) very willing to use the military as the first tool in the toolbox rather than as the US weapon of last resort.
You can talk about military experience as a priority for you, but a different way of looking at it is to ask "how has his experience shaped the choices he will make?" -
@MidwestMom, very well put!!!!
-
McCain has clearly stated that he supports Bush's Iraq policy and that he's prepared to commit to Iraq "for 100 years, if necessary". I realize this is a personal issue for you (I have a close friend who, thank God, just came home from Iraq), but as you consider your brother's best interests, remember who has committed to keeping him and other people's brothers, sisters, sons and daughters committed to Iraq for the foreseeable future. Obviously, McCain's prior military experience hasn't made him averse to unnecessarily committing soldiers to war.
Keep in mind also that Bush's Iraq policy includes ignoring Afghanistan even though the Taliban is resurgent and is causing more troop casualties there than in Iraq, and even though military experts have said we cannot win in Afghanistan without more troop commitment. Our soldiers are dying in a forgotten war because Bush cares more about an unnecessary one. McCain wants to continue that policy. How's that for caring about our soldiers' best interests? What good is that military experience doing for our country?
And don't forget that McCain opposed providing meaningful benefits for our veterans. How's that for a "thank you for your service to our country"? These are the policies of the "military experience" candidate.
No thank you! I'll take Barack Obama. -
double post
-
-
Nothing posted here has changed my opinion. My brother is not regular army so once he comes home, he's likely done. If he has to go back, though, he will. Military families that I know view it this way; there's a job to do and you do it.
Obama's whirlwind tour in Afghanistan includes something most folks don't know - he refused to shake hands or speak to any serviceman there. He was just there for a photo op.
Obama is a figurehead for the corrupt political machine; that's all. Obama's main financial backer is in prison. Democrats are banking on people being so pissed off with Bush they will vote for anybody.
I think Obama probably will win, actually, but he won't get my vote.-
@skribblerchick
I respect your opinion, but PLEASE state your sources for the claims that you are making.
Obama refused to shake hands and blew off soldiers...... sorry that email is a scam
Fact: read here www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
Who is the main financial backer?
Your claims are empty and based on FOX news and Right Wing Blog rhetoric.
I respect your right to believe what you want, but I hope you respect my right to point out when you are wrong and miss guided. -
Dang gmoney! You beat me to it! I get so tired when people believe slanderous lies and internet hoaxes and then quote it like it's the truth, perpetuating the proverbial "chain mail". I would respect a person's right to believe what they wanted, as long as they cared enough to find out whether what they believed was true.
This really makes me wonder how many people are gullible enough to believe that that hand gesture the Obama's exchanged - and that football and basketball players (and Howie Mandell) have been exchanging for years - was really a "terrorist fist jab". Or that Obama's really got bin Laden on speed dial. Can people please stop calling Karl Rove a news source!!!
-
-
"So, let me get this straight: first you claim that Obama's policies have no substance; then, in support of your claim, you point out your disagreement with that substance. Yeah, okay..."
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
Carry on ladies.-
sounds like we are the politicians
-
-
Obama's whirlwind tour in Afghanistan includes something most folks don't know - he refused to shake hands or speak to any serviceman there. He was just there for a photo op-
look above you ^^^ this is a scam and Snopes already disproved it. I sincerely hope you were truly ignorant, and not trying to start a smear campaign here...
-
Yeah, that whole "refusal" claim is bullshit.
-
Yeah, that whole "refusal" claim is bullshit.
-
wow are you serious. I guess this show the ignorance that is perpetrated everyday. www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
-
-
Let's all put our differences aside as long as you support Obama, because otherwise you are a racist fascist. Yeah, I hear the tolerance thing all the time. But, unfortunately some people are only tolerant of people who have the same opinion as them.-
I have tolerance and love for everyone, but if someone does not support Obama I am willing to listen to the real reasons why, not just some FOX new soundbite, or a fake email that is sent out.
-
-
I couldn't agree with you more GMoney. The truth has to be told and the Fox news machine has to be countered even if it is just one person at a time.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
