Obama Sinks as He's Vetted

[JOUPER]

Yes Obama is ahead in votes but I wonder,how many white voters would like to take their votes back after viewing Rev.Wrights rantings 1%,5% or 10% maybe more.Just something to think about!

 

[NickCole]

Media Matters, 11/15/2007, debunks this request--- http://mediamatters.org/items/200711150016

I said Obama has failed to release any records from his years in the State Senate.

The Media Matters site you link to doesn't debunk that at all.


Obama says:

"I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."

And that's ridiculous.

as ABC News reported last November:

Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse — he left in 2004 — stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.

"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded."

Even if he didn't come up with hundreds of cartons of records, even if he came up with ten cartons or five or even one ... but nothing? Please.

 

[NickCole]

Gosh Nick you mean it doesn't matter to you?

You drone on and on about Mrs. Clinton's "experience" yet are not interested in the details of that experience.

How very odd.

Sure it matters to me.

I said, "Yes and that's great."

Which word in that sentence is too hard for you?

 

[NickCole]

A. I would hardly call those figures a "nosedive." They look about neck 'n neck to me.

They've been neck and neck for a long time while Obama supporters have claimed he's winning and she should drop out of the race.

Now he's clearly falling and she's rising. Don't know if it'll continue of course but the momentum has left Senator Obama and got behind Senator Clinton.

They are transitory and, if you took the time, you would have heard Obama's response to those attacks. He actually had the nerve to talk to the country as if he were addressing adults.

I heard it. Nice speech. Overall, not spectacular.

Since it was calculated to deal with the exact situation I started this thread to look at, the weeks ahead will show whether or not the speech and subsequent Obama efforts work.

But my point is made. Now that information about Obama is getting out, the people who aren't Obama cultists are rethinking his electability.

B. It's nice to hear from Bertie Ahearn (Republic of Ireland) speak on his feelings on Ms. Clinton's role in Irish peace. However, I'd be more impressed if I heard similar words from members of either of the formerly warring factions in the North.

Well give them a call, maybe they'll make a public comment.

Bertie Ahern is one of the people who've spoken publicly and he's in a position to know.

 

[NickCole]

And if I looked up "dripping with condescension" I'd find you.

Thanks.

I'm also listed under arrogant.

 

[NickCole]

First off Nick according to you and sidekick iman Obama wanted to make this election all about race so why would he not want to give a speech on race?

I never said Obama wanted to make this election all about race.

You seem to have an overly active imagination.

Obama would love to never have to talk about race. He wants to use it to his advantage with coded language when "necessary," but he doesn't want any voter who might be turned off by the subject to associate race with him. And he was getting away with it ... until the tapes of his Preacher showed up.

Oops.

Second, even if he had already cinched the nomination he still would have needed to give that speech for the general election.

Don't you agree?

No. He never needed to give that speech -- he only did it now because he had to save his ass from sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

He'd only need to give that speech (or a better one) if he were genuinely interested in unifying the nation. But he's done nothing during his time as State Senator or US Senator or candidate that shows that's his intent. It's all been just words. He hasn't inspired his supporters to unify with anybody -- he's inspired his supporters to be nasty to fellow Democrats who support Hillary Clinton, and of course to be nasty about Hillary herself. That's not what a unifying leader inspires.

 

[NickCole]

And I think if we looked up Feminist in the Dictionary, we would find a nice, big picture of you there smiling, Mr. Cole.

No you really wouldn't.

I haven't earned it.

But if it were there I would be pleased to see it there beside some of the most courageous hard working Americans in our history.

 

[NickCole]

And failing to release implies that he has them but just won't, that they do exist, when he clearly said he doesn't. ...

If he doesn't have any --which I doubt, considering his ego and narcissism-- then he could have an aide put some effort into discovering where they are. Chances are they're not hard to find. He says he's been out of the State Senate "for quite some time" but he only left in 2004, and he was a rising political star so it's unlikely all his records were thrown away.

The point is, he's been hounding Clinton for her records, which I have no problem with and in fact support, and claiming he's all for transparency but he's made no apparent effort to be transparent about his own history. We're finding out stuff about his connection to Rezko just this week that's new, and of course there's Wright. His actions have proven he's secretive and deceitful, which is all the more reason to believe he doesn't want us to see his records.

 

[gaybot9000]

I see Rush Limbaugh has succeeded in giving the word 'feminist' a thoroughly negative connotation. His years of hard work have finally paid off and he can die a fulfilled man thanks to you buffoons. Well I suppose he still has a good decade or two ahead of him. Next, maybe he'll re-popularize the term 'nigger lover'.

 

[NickCole]

I see Rush Limbaugh has succeeded in giving the word 'feminist' a thoroughly negative connotation. His years of hard work have finally paid off and he can die a fulfilled man thanks to you buffoons. Well I suppose he still has a good decade or two ahead of him. Next, maybe he'll re-popularize the term 'nigger lover'.

Well that last sentence is uncomfortable to read. But at least it's an honest articulation about race in this country.

But about Limbaugh ... certainly made "liberal" a naughty word.

And that raises something else.

It's interesting everybody's been so focused on the racism that Wright's rants revealed about Obama, but nobody's said anything about how it reveals Obama's liberalism. I've said all along (as have others) that Obama is much more liberal than Hillary but that's been mostly ignored. Truth is, Democrats only took back Congress in 2006 because so many blue dog Democrats ran and won. The Liberal label still makes a lot of Americans queasy and that's certainly another thing Republicans would roll out against Obama if he gets the nomination.

 

[naked gent]

I never said Obama wanted to make this election all about race.

You seem to have an overly active imagination.

Ah I must have you confused with iman. You Clinton devotees all meld together after awhile.

No. He never needed to give that speech -- he only did it now because he had to save his ass from sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

My point was that the need to give the speech rises from his pastor's comments and his need to win. Had the nomination been his he still would have needed to give it. You suggested in your post that he needed to give it to obtain the nomination.

His actions have proven he's secretive and deceitful,

Secretive and deceitful.......kinda like a certain husband who sends his wife on national t.v. to lie for him (unknown to her) about an illicit affair.

As a Clinton acolyte I defer to your knowledge of that which is secretive and deceitful.

 

[NickCole]

Ah I must have you confused with iman. You Clinton devotees all meld together after awhile.

That sounds like the old, "all blacks look alike." Interesting.

My point was that the need to give the speech rises from his pastor's comments and his need to win. Had the nomination been his he still would have needed to give it. You suggested in your post that he needed to give it to obtain the nomination.

I see. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, whenever Wright's tapes came out Obama would have to finally deal with race.

Secretive and deceitful.......kinda like a certain husband who sends his wife on national t.v. to lie for him (unknown to her) about an illicit affair.

As a Clinton acolyte I defer to your knowledge of that which is secretive and deceitful.

I thought Bill Clinton's behavior on that score was shameful. I also thought it was mostly only his and Miss Lewinsky's and Mrs. Clinton's business. His deceit about a private concensual affair didn't have anything to do with what we elected him to do. Obama has lied about passing legislation, he's been deceitful about his connection to Rezko and, as a candidate promising reconcilation and unity, he was deceitful in keeping Wright's agenda secret. The successes and failures within the Obama marriage don't interest me any more than those within the Clinton marriage; that's their joy and their sorrow. I'm concerned with everything that relates to their performance, their presentation, their promises, their behavior, their acts and inaction as elected officials and as spouses who influence them as elected officials.

 

[Sammie13]

The media simply did not do their job on Obama. We should have learned about his character earlier on, but they have failed the public in which they serve and I am livid with them. People had a right to know that a presidential candidate spent 20 years mentoring with a minister who preached such hatred. That he sat in the church every week with this now 6- and 9- year old daughters allowing them to learn and absorb this kind of hatred. It makes sense now,in context, that Michelle Obama had never been proud of her country. We listen as a candidate easily throws his grandmother from the train by quoting her private around-the-kitchen-table conversation about being scared of groups of black men, and has the audacity to compare her to a preacher who is publicly trying to influence a large congregation to hate. These clips are some of the most disturbing things I've ever heard ...because I know a U.S. presidential candidate passively sat and listened and nodded for two decades, and did nothing about it. And then he lied to us and claimed he never personally heard anything offensive echo from his preacher's mouth, only to backtrack days later. And I wonder how Obama would have reacted if this were McCain's preacher and he was talking white power and anti-American rhetoric....

Obama gave a tremendous speech. I loved it! Of course, he was backed into a corner, and had to throw a hail mary if he wants to win an election. So, now, we will add the race issue to the war and economy issues.

I've voted Democrat in every general election since Mondale in 1984. I had already decided that Hillary and/or Obama would get my support in '08. Hillary is still a go...but very unlikely to be on the ballot in November. So, it's up to Obama to carry the Democratic torch.

For me, not now...not this time...no way, no how. I will vote McCain or Nader or stay home, but this is a huge embarrassment for the Democrats....and this Independent leaning Democrat will not be associated with Rev Wright/Obama fiasco.

Thanks, media....!

 

[charmant69]

I support Sen. Obama, but I much rather he go through this now than when November comes around. I don't have a problem with Sen. Clinton attacking him, I certainly don't want an untested candidate goin against the republican spin machine in November. If he's to be tested, better do it now against the best that we Democrats have to offer. He needs to show that he can take the heat, otherwise he isn't fit to take on the Republicans, I think he will get through this and get the nomination but hating on Sen. Clinton for fighting for this nomination is ridiculous. What is she supposed to do, roll out the red carpet? Tell Hillary to bring it, the neo-cons are not going to pull their punches when the time comes and she shouldn't either as long as she has a shot to win (which she does). Either one of them would be a HUGE improvement over Bush and definately better than Sen. McCain.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good. Let's get all this stuff out and deal with it now rather than in October when Sen. Clinton's fraud case comes to trial. By the way, I noticed that most of Sen. Clinton's schedules for her stay in the White House have been released today. Let the vetting begin!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton-Papers.html?scp=1&sq=clinton+schedule&st=nyt

According to ABC just now, a quick look through those papers shows she did little except the traditional First Lady "tourist things". So now we have talking heads giving their blah-blah that Hillary has real experience, and it isn't in her records.
Isn't this fun?

I said Obama has failed to release any records from his years in the State Senate.

The Media Matters site you link to doesn't debunk that at all.

It gives credence to the claim that he had very little in the first place. I'm wondering why I haven't heard anything about any enterprising reporter visiting state senate offices, especially Obama's old one, to see just how much storage space was available.

Even if he didn't come up with hundreds of cartons of records, even if he came up with ten cartons or five or even one ... but nothing? Please.

I'd at least expect a shoe box kept at hand with critical items. Maybe he turned that over to his successor, but I can't believe any human wouldn't save some files and documents just out of sentimental reasons -- I sure would! And in Obama's case, I'd be copying, blacking out anything personal, and saying, "Folks, I've got these I kept for the memories."

They've been neck and neck for a long time while Obama supporters have claimed he's winning and she should drop out of the race.

Now he's clearly falling and she's rising. Don't know if it'll continue of course but the momentum has left Senator Obama and got behind Senator Clinton.

"Falling"... "rising"... looks like wiggles, to me. Is it a big enough wiggle to close the gap the way Hillary needs? Hardly.

But my point is made. Now that information about Obama is getting out, the people who aren't Obama cultists are rethinking his electability.

Not many, apparently.
The big thing will be how he handles it -- or more correctly, perceptions of how he handles it. From his "More Perfect Union" speech, I judge he handled it pretty well. A lot of church folk are going to think so, too, and I give good odds than a large chunk of them are going to be explaining to their neighbors how this all fits into church and community.
Plus, that speech had enough tinkling echoes of Kennedy (JFK & Bobby) vintages that given time to simmer, he might actually pick up support.
He'll also pick up some who haven't taken him seriously, with his "These guys had some dreams. We've been sitting on our asses -- let's get up and start moving again."

You seem to have an overly active imagination.

Obama would love to never have to talk about race. He wants to use it to his advantage with coded language when "necessary," but he doesn't want any voter who might be turned off by the subject to associate race with him. And he was getting away with it ... until the tapes of his Preacher showed up.

No. He never needed to give that speech -- he only did it now because he had to save his ass from sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

He'd only need to give that speech (or a better one) if he were genuinely interested in unifying the nation. But he's done nothing during his time as State Senator or US Senator or candidate that shows that's his intent. It's all been just words. He hasn't inspired his supporters to unify with anybody -- he's inspired his supporters to be nasty to fellow Democrats who support Hillary Clinton, and of course to be nasty about Hillary herself. That's not what a unifying leader inspires.

That speech sounded like one he'd planned to give at some point anyway. The Wright situation made him give it before the planned time, is all, with adjustments to fit the context. Eventually he was going to have to talk about race; only an idiot wouldn't have planned for it. Remembering what else his church was about, behind a "crazy uncle" preacher, that he would give it was inevitable: it's part of who he is.

As for reactions of his followers -- I'd say a lot of the behavior you don't like is because the Clintons have inspired it by their condescending, insulting attitude.


At any rate: I wouldn't say the plot has thickened, but the heat has definitely been turned up.

 

[Kulindahr]

I see Rush Limbaugh has succeeded in giving the word 'feminist' a thoroughly negative connotation. His years of hard work have finally paid off and he can die a fulfilled man thanks to you buffoons. Well I suppose he still has a good decade or two ahead of him. Next, maybe he'll re-popularize the term 'nigger lover'.

No, feminists gave the word a bad connotation, by calling all men rapists, condemning everything male, saying the world would be so much better off if women could reproduce without men and get rid of us. When I was in college, feminists went around calling men "penises with legs" and making such proposals as eliminating the word "bitch" from the language, even for dog breeders. Many of them seriously believed that the penis caused wars, generated disease, and its mere existence caused the degradation of women.

Rush is mild on the topic of feminists compared to what the feminists have been on the topic of men.


And in many parts of the country, "nigger-lover" has never stopped being popular. Just recently my best buddy, back in Indiana, reported an argument over which was worse, a fag-lover or a nigger-lover.

 

[iman]

feminists went around calling men "penises with legs"

Well.........?

 

[Sammie13]

Sammie, could you please point me to exactly what words Wright used that has offended you so much?

The entire rant is so disgusting, after I cringe, I just want to take a shower. The entire tone coming out of Wright's mouth was pure trash and filth. And Obama called him "a great leader." What kind of judgement can Obama have if this is his idea of a great leader...a man who hates America. Obama's shallow condemnation of Wright was way too late and forced upon him to lack credibility.

Wright's consistent diatribe condemning the USA was simply an assault of my senses. I can't envision a potential U.S. President tolerated this for 20 years. I can't trust him now, and I can't imagine an America lead by this kind of person who existed in such a "cult-like" state-of-mind. If Wright is Obama's inspiration, then in what direction could Obama possibly be taking our country.

Obama is supposed to be about "hope" not hate and divisiveness. He almost sold me on this.

To answer your question on what was offensive about his sermon, Wright screamed and ranted about:

* In reference to 9/11: "America's chickens are coming home to roost"; "we bombed Japan...and never batted an eye." He spoke with glee as if we deserved the WTC to come down. He spoke as if our actions in bombing Japan was a contradiction to our reaction of the 9/11 events. WE were attacked by Japan and responded in kind...not related to Muslim extremists and 9/11 (where we were also attacked).

*He says we "treat our citizens less than human" and "kill innocent people". The U.S has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We spend billions on our own poor to try to lift them up....there reaches a limit when you're giving your poor a free education, housing, food stamps, and free healthcare. What more can you do? Why doesn't he lecture about some personal accountability. What innocents are we killing...is he referencing the war where Sadam killed far more than we've ever killed?

*He asks blacks to condemn America and bemoans "drugs, bigger prisons and the 3 strikes laws" as anti-black legislation and rather than sing "God Bless America" but instead "God Damn America" . Can't wait to see Obama's crime platform...and, again, accountability....don't do the crime and you won't do the time. And, yes, I want more prisons until the prison population decreases.

*Bill Clinton was "riding dirty with America just like he did with Monica". Gee, if this pleasant minister speaks so well of the first "black" president, I can't imagine what he said about the Republican leaders.

*The U.S. government released "HIV as genocide for people of color".

*Bashes rich white people and says we're under the influence of the KKK. Wright is still living in 1968, I can't tell you the last time I've seen the KKK or heard a non-TV discussion about the KKK. And if it's the "U.S KKK of A", then how the hell is one of his own black members on the verge of the presidency of said country.

*Ridiculing Powell/Rice/Thomas. I'm not crazy about these folks but Wright, as a black leader, should be pointing out the progress of black Americans...telling the children that one day you, too, can be in these positions of power and perhaps do a better job.

Simply wicked, hateful theological sewage.

And Wright points out the influential writings of Jim Cone (and I'm certanly no expert here) on TV several nights ago. Cone is the founder of black theology and this black liberation movement. They have some scary ideas....

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.​

This dangerous, perversion of the Gospel is the foundation of Trinity United Church of Christ. Cone said in a quote that "Trinity is where his theology is most institutionally embodied".

Now, I simply ask myself, "Since Obama clearly has subscribed to this for 20 years, do I trust in his judgement to lead this country for the next 4-8 years?" NO WAY!!

I respect people's right to worship this way. I respect people's right to vote for a leader who holds these principles. But it's not for me. This is all I've got to say on the matter.

 

[JackFTwist]

Originally Posted by Sammie13 View Post
The media simply did not do their job on Obama.

For me, not now...not this time...no way, no how. I will vote McCain or Nader or stay home, but this is a huge embarrassment for the Democrats....and this Independent leaning Democrat will not be associated with Rev Wright/Obama fiasco.

I wouldn't go THAT far....yet.

The simple fact is that Obama could have walked away from that racist minister....but didn't. He needs to take responsibility.

I have a sneaking suspicion that neither one of you has read the entire Obama speech or listened to it in its entirety. There are valid criticisms to be made - but neither of you are making comments that reflect knowledge of what he said.

 

[JackFTwist]

Sammie, you disappoint me more and more, not that that matters to you.

Let me just cull this from your rant above:

And Wright points out the influential writings of Jim Cone (and I'm certanly no expert here) on TV several nights ago. Cone is the founder of black theology and this black liberation movement. They have some scary ideas....

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

This dangerous, perversion of the Gospel is the foundation of Trinity United Church of Christ. Cone said in a quote that "Trinity is where his theology is most institutionally embodied".

That is a fucking bastardized and wrong headed view of black theology as taught by Dr Cone or others. Black theology is akin to liberation theology. However one values them, your description of black theology and Dr James Cone is swill, utter bullshit, and I use those terms in the scholastic sense.

Trinity UCC is founded on Christ, as taught in Scripture, on the historic creeds of the Church and the particular insights of the Reformers. Check out UCC teaching at ucc.org - read the constitution, articles 1-3.

It isn;t that we disagree that you disappoint me - it is the utter falsehoods you put out as if they were valid and claim a stand on your foundation of sand.

Your judgment is as inreliable as any I have come across,

Sorry friend but you lay that shit out there, I'll call you on it.