Has Obama become the front-runner for ’08?

posted at 2:38 pm on December 1, 2006 by Allahpundit

Ian blogged this yesterday but I got a solid e-mail from a friend about this this morning so I’m going to post on it again. My politically savvy pal advises us to prepare for full-blown Obamamania:

He has as much star quality and friendly media coverage as Hillary but, unlike Hillary, he opposed Iraq war from the start. That is a huge advantage.

If he runs–and I believe he will–he will quickly establish himself as the only viable alternative to Hillary and will easily win over Iowa’s very liberal, very anti-war caucus-goers.

He is smooth, good looking, and has an interesting life story. Unlike Howard Dean, he is not prone to gaffes. His candidacy will energize blacks and liberals more than any since Robert Kennedy’s.

Assuming no skeletons emerge from his closet, he’ll be competitive in New Hampshire and Nevada and will win overwhelmingly in South Carolina (30% black) and Delaware (19% black). The race will be over by early February.

He’s hip, he’s hot, he’s not Hillary. (Or is he?) What more do you need to know?

Krauthammer’s a skeptic, sort of: he thinks Obama should run now because he’s likely to lose. He’ll end up on the ticket anyway as the VP nominee. If the ticket loses, he’s the heavy favorite in 2012; if it wins, he’s the heavy favorite in 2016.

Republican strategist Ed Rogers is a skeptic too because he thinks Obama is little more than a blank canvas onto which voters can project their hopes. Right — that’s what makes him so appealing. Here’s a clip of him talking about it; it’s been making the rounds on liberal blogs because the lefties think he went out of his way to mention Obama’s middle name.

Either they’re stupid or Rogers is stupid. Although I’ll admit, the name “Robinette” strikes me as more than a little shady.

Vote it out, baby. Let’s do this.

Who’ll it be?
Obama
Hillary
Gore
Wafflesmania!
  
pollcode.com free polls

Update: Meanwhile, Rudy’s gone Christianist.

giuliani.jpg

Update: If you’re wondering what Rudy’s doing in that photo, he’s thanking god for Mitt Romney’s exceedingly poor taste in landscapers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So how ’bout that Romney–pro-life/pro-choice/pro-life. As Waffles is already taken, how about “Flip-Flopper”? I know the right won’t stand for that in a candidate!!

honora on December 1, 2006 at 3:12 PM

I think Romney has trouble with labeling his beliefs because he holds pro-life/death beliefs very similar to many Americans and many Mormans, that is; abortions should only be allowed in the cases of rape and incest, and should not be used as birth control. I think his position identifies him with more Americans than it alienates him from.

aero- your statement is valid, although I understand re-thinking a post post posting. Sometimes rocking the boat gets an interesting dialogue going, and you’ve defended your point well, IMHO.

In this time of religious warring, we need to ask questions about ALL religions to ALL candidates.

Obama’s blank slate and inexperience scares the heck outta me. He seems shallow enough to appeal to the MTV crowd. Who would be his running mate?

BTW, Kennedy was the first Catholic pres and Nixon was the first Quaker…

NTWR on December 1, 2006 at 6:33 PM

Well, Obama’s apparently Christian, and using it in his political stumping.

See Mark Finkelstein’s blog post on the subject at Newsbusters here:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9385

My guess is that Obama will be taking as many opportunities as possible to be seen and heard speaking religiously in Christian churches from here on out. He will have to do this to quell the fears of people like me who have a cautious reaction to his name and Muslim heritage.

Of course, regardless of how well he convinces us that his father’s faith would not be a factor in his prosecution of the GWOT, the fact that he’s a liberal is scary enough. ;-)

aero on December 1, 2006 at 6:36 PM

Obama’s blank slate and inexperience scares the heck outta me. He seems shallow enough to appeal to the MTV crowd. Who would be his running mate?

How about Obama/Pelosi, the blank slate and the blank stare.

Yikes.

fogw on December 1, 2006 at 6:44 PM

Well, Obama’s apparently Christian, and using it in his political stumping.

That’ll piss off the 1.33% of Muslims in this country-why would he choose Christianity over Islam? Almost makes him more of a target to extremists than the standard Christians raised for generations as Christians.

I’ve heard there are about 4 million Muslims in the USA, that means there are about 5 times as many illegal aliens as there are Muslims in this country. No point to make, just interesting.

NTWR on December 1, 2006 at 6:47 PM

I must be missing something — what’s wrong with the name Robinette? Why would it be a slam to bring it up?

Haven’t read the entire thread yet, so sorry if this has been addressed.

Bad Penny on December 1, 2006 at 7:14 PM

Why does his name remind me of this?
obama obama
bo-bama
banana fana fo-bama
mee mi mo-bama
obama

It must be Friday.

right2bright on December 1, 2006 at 7:27 PM

Oh, never mind.

/emily litella

I thought his middle name was Robinette because Allah mentioned it. I can’t watch the video because I am at work. Now I see that his middle name is Hussein.

As long as I’m being Emily Litella… what’s all this about Borat Obama running for president? Isn’t he a citizen of Khazakistan? I don’t think he can … what? Oh. Nevermind.

Bad Penny on December 1, 2006 at 7:55 PM

Well, Obama’s apparently Christian, and using it in his political stumping.

That’ll piss off the 1.33% of Muslims in this country-why would he choose Christianity over Islam? Almost makes him more of a target to extremists than the standard Christians raised for generations as Christians.

Right. I wonder if Muslims consider him to be apostate? If so, would Muslim world leaders even be allowed to deal with him if he were president, or would they shun him even more they usually shun the POTUS? I believe the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. How would Muslims reconcile that?

Now I’m very curious to see how this plays out. You say Muslims are 1.3% of the U.S. population. While that’s not a huge chunk, it’s certainly enough to sway the outcome of the general election (based on the closeness of the last few). Will Muslim Americans support Obama because he’s anti-war and has a Muslim father? Or will they refuse to vote for him because he chose Christianity over Islam?

aero on December 1, 2006 at 8:05 PM

Without Perot mucking up the election, Elvis would still be cruisin’ for chicks in Little Rock.

fogw on December 1, 2006 at 5:55 PM

But look how sad cigars would still be…

fogw, I’m saving a piggy-bank for you. If I ever meet you, I’ll pay you all the pennies I deposit for every time you make me almost fall out of my chair laughing :) The Obama/Pelosi comment warranted a dime!

Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 10:22 PM

naliaka on December 1, 2006 at 4:09 PM

Do you think that Obama, being of Muslim Kenyan heritage might well have a wife on the shamba back in Kenya? Most of the Kenyan Muslims do that. They can four. A pagan Kenyan can have as many wives as he wants.

My God, what an ignoramus.

First of all, there’s no evidence that Obama or his family are pagans.
Second, Obama was not raised by his biological father nor was he raised in Kenya.
Third, an Arabic name does not equal Muslim. Ask the family of Pierre Gemayel.
Fourth, most black Kenyans are Christian.

How do I know? My father is also Kenyan and from the same tribe as Obama (Luo). And Pops has only had two wives, married in the same serial monogamy manner which a good portion of us presumably non-pagan Americans have been. (For the record, Pops is an atheist.)

So spare us your so-called expertise in things from around Lake Victoria way.

BTW, tribal chauvinism aside, this conservative Republican wouldn’t dream of voting for someone like Obama.

baldilocks on December 1, 2006 at 10:47 PM

Obama…elected to the Illinois state senate ten years ago…bumped to the US Senate…what…*TWO* years ago….

Now, he’s the “anti-Hillary”.

I can see why. He’s half black and half white. Something for eveyone to like. It’s novel.

He has solidly Leftist credentials. He doesn’t have to pander to the Leftist base of the party. He’s slick. Everybody says that he’s slick. He’s photo- and telegenic.

What is more, enough people would line up behind him *JUST* to be *RID* of the Clintons, I’d bet. They’ve been strangling their little Lefty clam-bake for 14 years now. They didn’t even have the courtesy to follow tradition and give the party reins over to Gore in 2000…when, as the party’s candidate, he effectively was the party’s leader. He was kept as a cadet candidate. The Clintons managed to put their oar in in the 2002 mid-term, in Kerry’s 2004 run, and even in 2006. Will Bill, the eternally campaigner, be tolerated during the 2008 run?

…and Hillary can’t be that well liked. She’s too well known.

No…Obama, or some other cipher. They’re manufacturing their candidates now. Hope that they do a better job than they did with Hastings and Murtha…just to be sporting.

…then, again, we can count on *THIS* Republican Party to give the farm away…so it may be interesting after all….

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2006 at 10:48 PM

I’m not getting worked up over Obama. The DEMS won’t run him for POTUS, he can’t win. It’s going to be Edwards and someone else but not Obama. All this smoke over Obama is either a diversion for the stupidest mistake the DEMS have made since Kerry, or Gore before him. OK, they might actually nominate Obama, which would mean the GOP might have a chance without any conservative support whatsoever. This is from a newly reregistered INDEPENDANT.

Buzzy on December 1, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Eh. Not sure what to think. Everyone says he’s a rock star, but they haven’t seen THE CHEETAH GIRLS IN CONCERT!!! Now THAT’S one helluva group…

just kidding.

pullingmyhairout on December 1, 2006 at 11:09 PM

Let’s talk about Republican front runners.

what republican frontrunners? you mean, there actually ARE some republican frontrunners? I like Newt, but if that’s all we’ve got, then we’re doomed.

pullingmyhairout on December 1, 2006 at 11:12 PM

Obama v Newt. The know nothing verses the know-it-all.

Don’t count out Hitlary yet. The Clinton’s are a nasty piece of work, and no one who runs against her is safe from their machinations.

DannoJyd on December 1, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Danno, how are you? I was wondering how come I hadn’t seen you post lately.

I agree with you on the Clintons’ ambitions. On the other hand, I’m so sick of this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle thing – we need to get away from it, lest we design a kingdom.

Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 11:59 PM

baldilocks on December 1, 2006 at 10:47 PM

Thank you for all you wrote. It needed to be said and you have more credibility on the subject than the rest of us here. Regards,

Entelechy on December 2, 2006 at 12:01 AM

He is smooth, good looking, and has an interesting life story.

Well, that settles it. Election over. In fact, why even have an election at this point. Just give the guy whatever he wants because…well, he’s smooth, good looking, and has an interesting life story gosh darnit!

Frankly, I don’t see where they get the good looking from. With those jug ears and toothy grin, he could pass for a black Prince Charley…or at least a black Sheriff Andy Taylor (if he grew his hair out, that is).

I think we’re in a heap of trouble if, in the middle of a war for our survival, we’re electing anyone because they’re “smooth, good looking, and have an interesting life story.”

jaleach on December 2, 2006 at 12:02 AM

I will be jumping with joy if they stay behind this paper tiger and run him in ’08. A very positive outcome for the Repubs. Think positive all… ’08 will be a Republican sweep after the next congressional majority shows the peeps their arse for the next two years.

Griz on December 2, 2006 at 12:17 AM

jaleach wrote:

I think we’re in a heap of trouble if, in the middle of a war for our survival, we’re electing anyone because they’re “smooth, good looking, and have an interesting life story.”

But American voters do that all the time! That’s what’s so scary. In 1992, one of the groups that helped push Clinton over the top were the so-called “soccer moms.” Many of these women usually voted for Republicans but said they chose Clinton because they thought he was good-looking. Aaaargh! I never saw anyone go back and interview any of these bubble-heads post-impeachment to find out if they were mortified for having voted for that (alleged) rapist and adulterer.

aero on December 2, 2006 at 12:20 AM

CaCa, aero, Bradky, ELF:

You guys should get this Obama – Islam thing out of your minds; your making this blog look stupid. Either read the comments or do a search, but get it right.

Obama is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian, married to the mother of his children. He’s not boinking interns, as far as anyone knows. Throwing out uninformed crap only makes you look stupid, as I have learned the hard way…

Jaibones on December 2, 2006 at 12:29 AM

My God, what an ignoramus.
First of all, there’s no evidence that Obama or his family are pagans.
Second, Obama was not raised by his biological father nor was he raised in Kenya.
Third, an Arabic name does not equal Muslim. Ask the family of Pierre Gemayel.
Fourth, most black Kenyans are Christian.
How do I know? My father is also Kenyan and from the same tribe as Obama (Luo). And Pops has only had two wives, married in the same serial monogamy manner which a good portion of us presumably non-pagan Americans have been. (For the record, Pops is an atheist.)

So spare us your so-called expertise in things from around Lake Victoria way.
BTW, tribal chauvinism aside, this conservative Republican wouldn’t dream of voting for someone like Obama.
baldilocks on December 1, 2006 at 10:47 PM

Dear baldilocks,
Why don’t you refer to the previous posts? Honora’s snarky comments about cheeses and extra wives, trying to go off topic about political issues. Sorry I didn’t put the /sarc tag on the comments about Obama, but I had thought it was obvious. The point was, if Honora was going to make absurd digs about Rudy Guliani and Newt having lots of wives, a subject that wasn’t even being discussed or revelent, then the same kind of stupid logic can be applied to Obama, with more unexpected results. Reread the posts – all of them, if you don’t mind before you start frothing.
BTW this conservative Republican who used to live in the Lake Victoria greater area, (Luyahland) wouldn’t dream of voting for someone like Obama, either. Based on no experience and a Liberal Dem to boot, nothing else.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 12:33 AM

The only thing for sure is that it will be a very interesting time between now and then, seeing the claws come out between the potential candidates.

I only hope that a few of them have enough sense to realize that the American people are tired of all of the negativity that seems to be soooooooooooo inherent in modern politics and offer positivity instead of despair.

Parties to a certain degree aren’t as important as the quality of the candidate.

The American people deserve more than “business as usual” from our elected leaders. I don’t know if the nation can stand much more of that and remain what it is.

I’m fairly sure the people can’t.

What do you think?

Emmett J. on December 2, 2006 at 1:20 AM

But American voters do that all the time! That’s what’s so scary. In 1992, one of the groups that helped push Clinton over the top were the so-called “soccer moms.” Many of these women usually voted for Republicans but said they chose Clinton because they thought he was good-looking. Aaaargh! I never saw anyone go back and interview any of these bubble-heads post-impeachment to find out if they were mortified for having voted for that (alleged) rapist and adulterer.

Well, true, but 1992 was a far different world than 2002 (or now). The whole Cold War thing dying down gave us the perception that all was right with the world. It wasn’t, of course, but perception means a lot for good or bad.

jaleach on December 2, 2006 at 2:01 AM

CaCa, aero, Bradky, ELF:

You guys should get this Obama – Islam thing out of your minds; your making this blog look stupid. Either read the comments or do a search, but get it right.

Obama is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian, married to the mother of his children. He’s not boinking interns, as far as anyone knows. Throwing out uninformed crap only makes you look stupid, as I have learned the hard way…

Jaibones on December 2, 2006 at 12:29 AM

Jaibones,
Check the posts at 3:39 p.m. and 3:49 p.m. and then come back and tell me just what uninformed crap you are referring to. Then come back and tell me about looking stupid.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 2:09 AM

Jaibones said:

Obama is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian

Read the whole thread before you start lobbing grenades. I’ve acknowledged that Obama’s apparently not a Muslim since my first post. Then I went and did a search and confirmed that he’s Christian, and we started talking about that. I was originally speculating about the influence his father’s faith may have on his willingness to prosecute the War on Terror effectively and/or any sympathies he might have for Islam and jihad due to his own heritage. I simply wondered if (even though his father didn’t raise him and Obama’s not a Muslim), with Islam being a part of his heritage, he may be more strongly influenced by it and perhaps less willing to fight its extremists than other candidates would be. That’s all. He is anti-war, after all. It’s worth asking if his heritage might be part of the reason why. If we were at war with Japan and a guy named Fujimoto were running for president, I’d want to ask him if his heritage might influence his ability or willingness to prosecute the war. Valid question.

Anyway, I also apologized to Allahpundit in case I did in fact embarrass him or this blog with my comments. He hasn’t responded, so I’ll assume I’m okay (or that he’s no longer paying attention to this thread).

aero on December 2, 2006 at 2:53 AM

I think the more interesting issue surrounding Obama is how the black community at large will receive him. His parents and upbringing were not like most black Americans. IMHO the real question will be is he received as the “Great Black Hope” or does a significant portion of the black community think “Is this the best the Democrats could do for our community after the almost undivided loyalty we have shown?” If black turnout is low at the polls the democrats have a bad election night.

Bradky on December 1, 2006 at 3:49 PM

I’m sorry, but that’s such an ignorant speculation. You honestly think that he won’t be recieved well by blacks because he was lucky enough to get a good education? I can guarantee that the only people thinking “Is this the best the Democrats could do for our community?” are going to be whites specualting about what blacks are thinking.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:02 AM

Another note for Jaibones:

I do admit that I’m still getting up to speed on Barack Obama. Until very recently, he wasn’t even on my radar since he was just a freshman senator who hadn’t done anything worth noticing. Still hasn’t done anything worth noticing that I know of, but he’s the new MSM “It-Boy,” so now I’ll have to give myself a crash-course on the guy. They’re trying to crown him king, so I want to know who he is in case they succeed.

Yes, I am writing here as I learn. I don’t think that makes this blog look dumb–on the contrary. It shows that commenters here continue learning and speculating and thinking and talking about important people and issues constantly.

aero on December 2, 2006 at 3:20 AM

…and, by the way, before anyone who isn’t familiar with the terms “It-Boy” or “It-Girl” accuses me of being a raaaaaacist:

The term “It-Boy,” which I used in my last comment, is not a racial slur. It is a variation of the term “It-Girl,” which was applied to actress Clara Bow in 1927 and has come to apply to any attractive young star who becomes a darling of the media and/or public. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_girl)

aero on December 2, 2006 at 3:26 AM

Hillbama?

Clintama?

Oblinton?

Barillary?

Barakalinton?

SouthernGent on December 2, 2006 at 3:26 AM

Hmmmm. My last comment disappeared into the ether. Sorry if this appears twice.

I just wanted to make sure that anyone not familiar with the term “It-Boy,” which I used in my comment above, knows it is not a racial slur. It’s a variation of the term “It-Girl,” which was applied to actress Clara Bow during the 1920s and now refers to any attractive young star who becomes a darling of the media and/or public.

aero on December 2, 2006 at 3:43 AM

Hmmmm. My last comment disappeared into the ether. Sorry if this appears twice.

I just wanted to make sure that anyone not familiar with the term “It-Boy,” which I used in my comment above, knows it is not a racial slur. It’s a variation of the term “It-Girl,” which was applied to actress Clara Bow during the 1920s and now refers to any attractive young star who becomes a darling of the media and/or public.

aero on December 2, 2006 at 3:43 AM

Not to mention that variations were popular during the ’60′s as well. As you have mentioned, it has progressed.

I’m with you – I have to get more up to speed on him (he was sort of under the radar) – we all learn as we go on, I would like to believe (I’m kind of new to this, too). Good dialogue is important.

Try to have a nice day and keep on keeping on.

Emmett J. on December 2, 2006 at 7:37 AM

I’m sorry, but that’s such an ignorant speculation. You honestly think that he won’t be recieved well by blacks because he was lucky enough to get a good education? I can guarantee that the only people thinking “Is this the best the Democrats could do for our community?” are going to be whites specualting about what blacks are thinking.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:02 AM

a. He has a white mother, black biological father, and Muslim Stepfather. He was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and spent much of his early years being raised by his white grandparents. This is in wikipedia if you care to look it up. I think it is safe to make the observation that his upbringing was not that of most black Americans – say for example Condoleezza Rice, Jesse Jackson, or Michael Steele.
b. The speculation was on how he would be received not how I think he will be.
c. Contrary to popular belief the black community is not a herd of sheep with the same opinion. Implying that they are implies a bit of patronization on your part.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 8:00 AM

I’m delighted to see the Dems recognize that all their old faces are unacceptable to the American public. Once Obama is vetted he’ll prove just as unacceptable I’m sure. The voters have a type of wisdom that, despite the unmanagableness of Democracy (the best system btw), eventually meanders to the truth of things.

Mojave Mark on December 2, 2006 at 11:43 AM

I’m sorry, but that’s such an ignorant speculation. You honestly think that he won’t be recieved well by blacks because he was lucky enough to get a good education? I can guarantee that the only people thinking “Is this the best the Democrats could do for our community?” are going to be whites specualting about what blacks are thinking.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:02 AM

Nonfactor,

a. His mother is white, biological father black, step-father Indonesian. He spent much of his childhood in Indonesian, then was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii. Compare this to the childhoods of Condoleezza Rice, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Michael Steel and you can see why I ask the question.
b. I posed a question of one of two possibilities – that is not speculation, it is raising a subject for debate/discussion.
c. You make assumptions as to what my ethnicity is, why does it matter?
d. The black community is not a bunch of sheep and some members of that community will ask the second question. To presume to know as well as guarantee what blacks will do is to patronize an entire ethnic group.
e. Your apology is accepted.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 11:54 AM

Oops looks like my first post to NonFactor finally appeared. Feel free to cut second post same subject, thought it died in the ethernet swamps of Louisiana.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Dear baldilocks,
Why don’t you refer to the previous posts? Honora’s snarky comments about cheeses and extra wives, trying to go off topic about political issues. Sorry I didn’t put the /sarc tag on the comments about Obama, but I had thought it was obvious. The point was, if Honora was going to make absurd digs about Rudy Guliani and Newt having lots of wives, a subject that wasn’t even being discussed or revelent, then the same kind of stupid logic can be applied to Obama, with more unexpected results. Reread the posts – all of them, if you don’t mind before you start frothing.
BTW this conservative Republican who used to live in the Lake Victoria greater area, (Luyahland) wouldn’t dream of voting for someone like Obama, either. Based on no experience and a Liberal Dem to boot, nothing else.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 12:33 AM

Speaking of referring to previous posts, you are the one who brought up Dean et al. As for going off topic, you will learn that there are 2 types of people on this blog: those who can walk and chew gum at the same time–conversation about Obama morphs into something else, imagine that; and those who insist on picking the scab of a narrow issue and never, ever actually read what others write. The internet is perfect for the latter, don’t you think? You don’t waste time listening to other people, you can spend all your time furiously typing out your seminal thoughts for the enlightenment of others. Mercy.

BTW, if you have to use the sarc tag, you’re not very good at sarcasm.

honora on December 2, 2006 at 12:45 PM

Anyway, I also apologized to Allahpundit in case I did in fact embarrass him or this blog with my comments. He hasn’t responded, so I’ll assume I’m okay (or that he’s no longer paying attention to this thread).

aero on December 2, 2006 at 2:53 AM

I apologize for calling you an idiot; I have to say I think the comment was idiotic but that’s another thing entirely. Friday afternoons often find me a bit, well rhymes with witchy….

honora on December 2, 2006 at 12:52 PM

One thing I have learned is that whatever the conventional wisdom is this early in the game, is almost always wrong. That said, I think there a couple interesting Dem candidates–Richardson has a solid background and a very likeable style; Gore’s stock has gone up immensely. (I know that it’s fashionable to knock Gore, but history tells us that despite Fitzgerald’s famous words, there are second acts in American lives–Nixon, Reagan to name just two. Also but careful who you mock–Howard Dean is just too pathetic, right? Well turns out he was right about Iraq and he also cleaned the Republicans’ clock last month.)

Gore was against the war, warned of the dangers of raiding SS and pissing away the surplus, has been visionary in terms of the need for energy independence. Not saying he’s perfect by any stretch, but American voters tend to look for in a president what was lacking the previous one. A little policy wonkery might be a nice change.

honora on December 2, 2006 at 12:59 PM

honora, spare us the boring 4-8 years. Just the thought of Gore puts me to sleep. And the electorate too. And to your point on the other thread, so unsexy, not that this matters at all.

Dean, forget about him. Agree on Richardson.

Entelechy on December 2, 2006 at 2:05 PM

I guess no one wants to mention that Obama is a hard core socialists, or that his father was and mother actively worshipped Islam, or that as a child his mother ran off with another Islamist to Jakarta and spent age 6-12 in Islamic schools. Incidently ages 6-12 are the most impressionable years of a child. Non of this information seems important to the MSM’s as they hype up their propaganda engines for their new Presidential hopeful.

Egfrow on December 2, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Contrary to popular belief the black community is not a herd of sheep with the same opinion. Implying that they are implies a bit of patronization on your part.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 8:00 AM

This is the first part of your post I need to address. Popular belief? Are you projecting or do you really think most people in politics think blacks are “herds of sheep”? And don’t even try to accuse me of saying blacks have no indivuality, it’s pathetic and rude.

a. He has a white mother, black biological father, and Muslim Stepfather. He was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and spent much of his early years being raised by his white grandparents. This is in wikipedia if you care to look it up. I think it is safe to make the observation that his upbringing was not that of most black Americans – say for example Condoleezza Rice, Jesse Jackson, or Michael Steele.

Yes, he’s different. But you think because he didn’t have a “typical” upbringing (for blacks or whites) he won’t be “recieved” well? And you’re basing this off of what?

b. The speculation was on how he would be received not how I think he will be.

No, it’s based off what you think, unless you already know how blacks feel about him and why. If you can see the future then I apologize.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM

This is the first part of your post I need to address. Popular belief? Are you projecting or do you really think most people in politics think blacks are “herds of sheep”? And don’t even try to accuse me of saying blacks have no indivuality, it’s pathetic and rude.

You are the one who guaranteed how he would be accepted, not me. I offered two possibilities for consideration (1) he would be accepted by one and all as “The Great Black Hope” or (2) Some would not agree with his politics.
Two different outcomes, two debating points.

Statistics show that the black community votes 80% or more on average for Democratic candidates. Peel off 10-15% of that vote and the Democrats will get wiped out in a general election. To be fair, the Republicans have been lousy in their PR efforts to show their policies may benefit the interests of black communities more than the proposed Democrat policies AND to establish more trust in what they say.
Name three people the Democrats have put in real positions of power when they held office. My point is that eventually the 80% I mentioned will begin to fall off because of promises not delivered.

If you can see the future then I apologize.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Accepted. Knew you would come around.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 2:50 PM

You are the one who guaranteed how he would be accepted, not me. I offered two possibilities for consideration (1) he would be accepted by one and all as “The Great Black Hope” or (2) Some would not agree with his politics.

That’s an either-or fallacy, and I didn’t say that he would be accepted by all, I just rejected your assumption that blacks wouldn’t like him because he was different.

Statistics show that the black community votes 80% or more on average for Democratic candidates. Peel off 10-15% of that vote and the Democrats will get wiped out in a general election.

I don’t understand these types of statements, or what this one has anything to do with the subject. Peel off 10-15% of a group from any side and they’ll get beaten. Your point is?

To be fair, the Republicans have been lousy in their PR efforts to show their policies may benefit the interests of black communities more than the proposed Democrat policies AND to establish more trust in what they say.

I think the reasons they can’t demonstrate it is because they aren’t there. Unless you can name me a few, but I do recall House Republicans recently trying to stop the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act because it showed that the South has a racist history.

Name three people the Democrats have put in real positions of power when they held office. My point is that eventually the 80% I mentioned will begin to fall off because of promises not delivered.

If you think blacks will flock to the Republican side because they’re put into high positions of office you’re sadly mistaken. Once Republicans start adopting the policies of the Democrats and manage to erase the policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s from the voter’s minds then you might see blacks trending Republican.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Well, a few things have come out:
1) no one knows who this guy really is, nor where he stands, yet the MSM is flogging him for presidential material in 24 months time. What’s the basis? He looks good? That’s it? It’s right to ask and demand more info.
2) No one seems to care that Obama made a very public, very MSM media hyped trip to the “ancestral” hom in Kenya in August. The MSM was absolutely swooning over him, and fluffed up all his ties to his father’s hometown. WHY? For political image points. That’s all.
3) Obama inadvertently showed his inexperience in dealing with other countries by making statements that antagonised his Kenyan hosts. The media shut up, he left a lot more quietly than he arrived, and nothing has been said since. So much for statesmanship. One could argue that the comment that got him into trouble was actually on the money, and the reason the Kenyan government was so ticked was that it hit a bit too close to home. However, a politician dealing with foreign nations has to know when to say what. Obama might learn that as time goes by, it comes with experience, but he doesn’t have enough this year.
What gaffe did Obama make that rolled up the red carpet? Perhaps baldilocks or Entelechy can explain.
4) Obama also had a public HIV/AIDS test done in Kenya to raise awareness. Okay, fine. A little late on the scene, because HIV/AIDS was devastating Ugandan communities since 1980. They called it “Slim.” Now he’s going to get poked again in the US? Okaay. A feel good measure, well, feel ouch measure that doesn’t do much. But the media likes it.
The debate is about fitness for presidential office. Obama is being pushed heavily by the media, on evidently not much more than basis of his ethnicity. That’s nice, but it ain’t gonna count for much when standing up to America’s enemies. The number One job of the President is to protect the nation. No one has been able to articulate what experience/strengths/insights this guy might bring to the table. It’s all fluffy nothing. If there’s more, let’s get it out so the people can make an informed decision!

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM

I don’t understand these types of statements, or what this one has anything to do with the subject. Peel off 10-15% of a group from any side and they’ll get beaten. Your point is?

This applies particularly to the Democrats. The republicans don’t have an 80% lock on any voting group. Black voters are the only group that identifies with one party in percentages that high.

If you think blacks will flock to the Republican side because they’re put into high positions of office you’re sadly mistaken. Once Republicans start adopting the policies of the Democrats and manage to erase the policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s from the voter’s minds then you might see blacks trending Republican.

Powell, Rice, Steel are three prominent blacks appointed by Republican administrations/voters. I note that you didn’t name three that were appointed under Clinton or Carter. At some point the question of “Just when do you think we deserve the chance to be front runner of the party?” is going to be asked.
You are correct about flocking to the Republicans and I don’t expect that to happen. Trust is earned not given as I mentioned. But as more people from the Black community enter the middle class economic brackets, I think the more they will be enamored of conservative policies. This is where the 10-15% begins to come into play.

As for your second sentence – we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that is the direction the Republicans should go.

Oh wait… just had a vision of the future… yes a nap is in my future within minutes. :)

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 3:23 PM

I guess no one wants to mention that Obama is a hard core socialists, or that his father was and mother actively worshipped Islam, or that as a child his mother ran off with another Islamist to Jakarta and spent age 6-12 in Islamic schools. Incidently ages 6-12 are the most impressionable years of a child. Non of this information seems important to the MSM’s as they hype up their propaganda engines for their new Presidential hopeful.

Egfrow on December 2, 2006 at 2:16 PM

I believe he also has some culpability re global warming. Bastard MSM.

honora on December 2, 2006 at 3:24 PM

This applies particularly to the Democrats. The republicans don’t have an 80% lock on any voting group. Black voters are the only group that identifies with one party in percentages that high.

For a reason.

Powell, Rice, Steel are three prominent blacks appointed by Republican administrations/voters. I note that you didn’t name three that were appointed under Clinton or Carter.

The fact that you’re treating black appointees like a commodity to be used to win blacks to the Republican side might be a microcosm for why blacks vote more than 85% with the Democrats in general elections. The truth is, is that Republicans can appoint however many black people they want to, they won’t win over the population until they change their position on issues and make people forget about the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

The debate is about fitness for presidential office. Obama is being pushed heavily by the media, on evidently not much more than basis of his ethnicity.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM

That of course makes him unique, but that’s like saying that Hillary is only considered a frontrunner because she’s a woman. I see criticisms of Obama for “not having enough experience,” by the same people who prop up Mick Romney, and the same people who propped up George Bush in 2000.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:58 PM

Obama has some ties to the indicted Tony Reczko, Chicago insider — they owned properties next door to one another and Obama bought a sliver of land from Reczko. The news articles in the Chicago Sun-Times were poorly written, insinuating that there was something fishy about the purchases without clearly spelling out their concerns.

He is hard-core Leftist, even supports partial birth abortion — not one of the good guys.

The only thing he has going for him is being mixed race and attending Harvard — he is a media creature pure and simple. The blogosphere needs to start looking at and publishing his Illinois State legislative record and where he gets his funding.

Margaret McC on December 2, 2006 at 4:42 PM

What gaffe did Obama make that rolled up the red carpet? Perhaps baldilocks or Entelechy can explain.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Sorry naliaka, I don’t understand your request abd don’t follow his comings/goings.

I agreed with baldilocks on not harping on Mr. Obama’s heritage too much. I agree with you entirely on the lack of experience and all other you wrote.

Entelechy on December 2, 2006 at 5:42 PM

The only thing he has going for him is being mixed race and attending Harvard — he is a media creature pure and simple. The blogosphere needs to start looking at and publishing his Illinois State legislative record and where he gets his funding.

Margaret McC on December 2, 2006 at 4:42 PM

On a purely personal level I am interested in how he handles the mixed race issue. Pride in one’s heritage and upbringing is great but a balancing act since his Mom is white. Tough minefield to maneuver without putting off some group of people.

As for his voting record and positions the primaries and debates will bring those to the forefront. His competition will address them and it won’t be pretty.

From a purely academic analysis, this election will be a fun one to watch because there are no incumbents (pres/vice).

The fact that you’re treating black appointees like a commodity to be used to win blacks to the Republican side might be a microcosm for why blacks vote more than 85% with the Democrats in general elections.

– nonfactor

A counter argument could be “why bother if it only earns 15% of the vote? Could it be that the Republicans are sincere about trying to be inclusive? Loyal Democrats may not like the appointees but shouldn’t be surprised Republicans are appointing people with similar political philosophy, just as the Democrats could/would.”
Even if your view is correct and mine is not I think it is fair to wonder when the question “Okay we’ve been loyal for a generation, when do we get the payback and trust to lead?” starts to become a demand.
BTW I’m still waiting for those names.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Entelechy
Sorry, I got testy being called an ignoramous, by a poster who should ask his/her relatives a few pointed questions for verification purposes before jumping to that conclusion. Just like that poster skimming my post, I misunderstood what you wrote, too. Sorry.
I also get testy about Kenya, a nation of people who have been very kind to me in my life, which is a front-line state in the war on terror, and has been since the Norfolk Hotel bombing on New Year’s Eve 1980, an act of terror carried out to punish Kenya for allowing the Israelis to use Kenyan airbases to rescue hijacked Israeli passengers being held by Idi Amin at Entebbe, and recently, the Mombasa Beach Hotel bombing and the US Embassy and Kenyan Cooperative building bombing. When it comes to US politicians apparently using the country as only a backdrop to their political ambitions, I look at it rather cynically. I get no less fried to see Hollywood celebrities swishing in and out of Darfur, looking oh-so concerned, hefting a couple of maize bags for the cameras and flitting away, leaving the hard slog of real aid and comfort to lessor beings.
Obama’s heritage matters more to the MSM than me, which is why they went through all the trouble to hype his visit. Just have been trying to point out to a wider audience what is really going on.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 6:59 PM

A counter argument could be “why bother if it only earns 15% of the vote? Could it be that the Republicans are sincere about trying to be inclusive?

Being inclusive in my mind doesn’t mean “appointing people who don’t look like us.” It’s a nice gesture to play for the media, but I don’t think it makes a certain party more popular.

Loyal Democrats may not like the appointees but shouldn’t be surprised Republicans are appointing people with similar political philosophy, just as the Democrats could/would.

Agreed.

Even if your view is correct and mine is not I think it is fair to wonder when the question “Okay we’ve been loyal for a generation, when do we get the payback and trust to lead?” starts to become a demand.

The primaries are where the next Democratic Presidential nomination comes from. I don’t think you’ll see minority Democrats (or Republicans) demanding that the public vote for them because their race helped elect some people in their party.

BTW I’m still waiting for those names.

I’m not going to look back 6 to 28 years to find out what minorities Democrats appointed to positions of power for the reason I already mentioned: to do so would be to treat them as a commodity to be paraded in front of the public.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 8:57 PM

Is it just me, or does Obama’s facial coloration look, well, weird? He kinda freaks me out in certain lights. He’s too skinny for my tastes, too.

spmat on December 2, 2006 at 9:17 PM

Bradky, aero:

Sorry for the bomb toss, but we’ve all been laughing at the rats from the Fever Swamps of the left for years for talking smack and getting it all wrong.

My point was simple: the guy’s name is Barack Hussein Obama (I guess), but this does not make him a Muslim, or an Islamist, or a terrorist, and suggesting any of that without getting slapped for it makes us all look ignorant, if not racist.

Broad brush, Bradky? Deal with it. aero’s out there making stuff up, and you’re defending it. Let’s at least get the facts straight before attacking the House Troll.

Jaibones on December 2, 2006 at 11:09 PM

naliaka, thanks for the note. You’re very informed and you seem to have great experiences. Thanks for sharing them here. Regards,

Entelechy on December 3, 2006 at 12:44 AM

Jaibones,

Thanks for the pseudo-apology, but you just lobbed a couple more grenades without reading what we actually wrote! Bradky actually gave me a spanking for “embarrassing” this blog a loooooong time ago–he never defended what I said.

And I didn’t make anything up. I told you already that I knew he wasn’t a Muslim. Again, I was saying that it’s worth asking if his father’s religion has influenced him at all. I just want to know if having Muslim heritage might make him less willing to prosecute the War on Terror. I never said he was Muslim, just that he has Muslim heritage.

So please at least get your facts straight before attacking the non-trolls. ;-)

aero on December 3, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Jaibones, I agree with you. Questioning the youth and inexperience is completely legitimate. The heritage, name, middle name, etc. are futile and unnecessary fodder, aside from being offensive and on par with the sliming from the ‘esteemed’ Left.

Entelechy on December 3, 2006 at 12:47 AM

Republican strategist Ed Rogers is a skeptic too because he thinks Obama is little more than a blank canvas onto which voters can project their hopes.

Dude… the first time I read that, I though you called him a “black canvas.” I was about to ask to see your “absolute moral authority” card. ;-)

Mark Jaquith on December 3, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Ugh. I give up. It’s clear that Obama is going to have special protection from certain kinds of questions. Anyone who asks them will be shouted down as a paranoid bigot. I guarantee none of the other candidates will have similar protection. For example, I’m certain we’re going to hear all about Newt’s and Rudy’s infidelity for the next two years (even though libs said a politician’s sex life is his own business when they didn’t want us asking about Clinton’s)–but heaven forbid that we might ask questions about Obama’s unusual heritage and how it might influence him. I just don’t get why it’s offensive to ask and to wonder. His heritage and upbringing are outside my experience and understanding, and the only way I’m going to learn is if someone asks and he answers. I really resent that Obama gets these sacred cows that no-one else gets.

aero on December 3, 2006 at 1:20 AM

aero, he won’t be protected, no worries. So much will happen btw. now and then and he’ll then still be as young and inexperienced. By then he will have learned that dreams alone a president don’t make. He’ll be attacked from the Left and the Right. The media is not as powerful as they assume to be.

This is that time after the elections and ahead of the winter holidays, lots of bla, bla, bla. It will pass and much more serious matters will be on the radar, aside from some novice dreaming and smart-allecking on night-shows, and the media thinking/wishing this is/will be the first Black Kennedy.

Entelechy on December 3, 2006 at 1:41 AM

Thanks, Entelechy. I just feel like I’m getting it from both sides on this Obama thread. I’ve been deferential and apologetic, but I’m done with that. I refuse to be ashamed for asking any kind of question I want about Obama or anyone else who wants to be my president. The guy wants to be the defender of my country, my family, my culture and way of life against enemies who want to kill us all. I will ask anything I want to ask, and anyone who’s offended can stick it where the sun don’t shine. The stakes are too high to take chances with our next POTUS. If Obama’s going to run and has the slightest chance of winning, I want to know who this guy is and what makes him tick. Questions about his heritage and his attitude toward Islam should not be off-limits, and we should not be embarrassed to ask them!

I hope you’re right that he’s just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation who won’t make it past first base. But if he’s not, I want to know more about who he is and what he believes.

aero on December 3, 2006 at 2:12 AM

Hillary is going to stomp Obama. He may be “smooth, good looking”, and “interesting”, but she’s devious. Devious will beat smooth every time.

Obama is smooth and devious, as those of us from Illinois are well aware.

John on December 3, 2006 at 9:49 AM

Obama is smooth and devious, as those of us from Illinois are well aware.

John on December 3, 2006 at 9:49 AM

Words that have been proven over and over. Along with feckless and dishonorable.

ProfShadow on May 20, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2