"Barack Obama isn't really one of us."

[X. Benedict]

I'm pretty sure this isn't a parody.

 

Link

 

 

This man writes for a newspaper.

 

 

Bring on the evolutionary burp, baby! Woooo!!!

 

Five more months of this crap.

 

You may laugh, but your universal love energy seems pretty blocked to me. To calm your inner turmoil I am sending you a rainbow.

[Chilly]

These are the kind of results we can expect from the Lightmaker:

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...ant_moment.html

[/dev/null]

These are the kind of results we can expect from the Lightmaker:

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...ant_moment.html

 

Change we can believe in

The king is dead. Long live the king

[Kelly the Dog]

These are the kind of results we can expect from the Lightmaker:

 

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...ant_moment.html

So, apparently, you're complaining that Barack DIDN'T do political favors for a friend, remained neutral, and the guy who didn't win and didn't get favors from him said, "I don't know. I mean, look, politics is complex. People have multiple relationships and they do the things they have to do and believe in."

[Chilly]

So, apparently, you're complaining that Barack DIDN'T do political favors for a friend, remained neutral, and the guy who didn't win and didn't get favors from him said, "I don't know. I mean, look, politics is complex. People have multiple relationships and they do the things they have to do and believe in."

 

Nice spin.

 

Obama didn't support the candidate that would do a better job and that would advance the ideals that he is purporting to claim.

 

Now, you're assuming that the "and believe in" statement is referring to Obama's staying neutral due to his message of government reform. However, we don't know this to be the case. Take a look at the whole quote:

 

Forrest Claypool: I don’t know. I mean, look, politics is complex. People have multiple relationships and they do the things they have to do and believe in. Like I said, he was, like I said, neutral in my race. I thought that was a major statement, given the fact that the entire establishment was behind John Stroger and he was a three term incumbent. And, like I said, we worked closely together on other issues in that campaign, and with Jesse Jackson, Jr., as well, on the Peotone airport and on healthcare. And, I remember, at the end, it was a real tragedy—that last week when John Stroger had the stroke—and I think people, you know, I think everyone was very respectful of what [John Stroger] had done, his pioneering status as a leading African-American and had overcome discrimination and other things. The entire environment, at that time, was a difficult and sensitive one, for everybody and you know, so, I’m proud of the race we ran and I’m proud, you know, to have the things that they said positively about me in that campaign.

 

It could easily mean that Obama believes in himself and his cause, and in order to not screw it up for himself and his opportunity to run for President, he compromised on his values in order to progress further up the chain.

[Kelly the Dog]

Nice spin.

 

Obama didn't support the candidate that would do a better job and that would advance the ideals that he is purporting to claim.

 

Now, you're assuming that the "and believe in" statement is referring to Obama's staying neutral due to his message of government reform. However, we don't know this to be the case. Take a look at the whole quote:

 

 

 

It could easily mean that Obama believes in himself and his cause, and in order to not screw it up for himself and his opportunity to run for President, he compromised on his values in order to progress further up the chain.

Actually, I have zero idea why he made that choice and neither do you. There is a decent chance he saw both guys as having strengths and weaknesses and didn't feel compelled to make a stand for or against either of them. The article gave precious little information.

[Chilly]

Actually, I have zero idea why he made that choice and neither do you.

 

Correct.

 

 

There is a decent chance he saw both guys as having strengths and weaknesses and didn't feel compelled to make a stand for or against either of them. The article gave precious little information.

 

If that is actually the case, then I completely question the sincerity of Obama's message, and his judgment skills. Stroger was well known for corruption in the Chicago area:

 

http://openline.blogspot.com/2006/02/cook-...dorsements.html

http://indignantcitizen.blogspot.com/2006/...er-dilemma.html

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-...democratic.html

[Kelly the Dog]

Correct.

 

 

 

 

If that is actually the case, then I completely question the sincerity of Obama's message, and his judgment skills. Stroger was well known for corruption in the Chicago area:

 

http://openline.blogspot.com/2006/02/cook-...dorsements.html

http://indignantcitizen.blogspot.com/2006/...er-dilemma.html

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-...democratic.html

Claypool was Daley's Chief of Staff. In two different tenures. I'm sure he was squeaky clean, too.

[Chilly]

Claypool was Daley's Chief of Staff. In two different tenures. I'm sure he was squeaky clean, too.

 

Which Obama clearly didn't see as a problem, since he ended up endorsing Todd Stroger, another one who worked for Daley.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

If that is actually the case, then I completely question the sincerity of Obama's message, and his judgment skills. Stroger was well known for corruption in the Chicago area:

 

http://openline.blogspot.com/2006/02/cook-...dorsements.html

http://indignantcitizen.blogspot.com/2006/...er-dilemma.html

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-...democratic.html

Obama walks a fine line in politics... Stroger was black and a fixture in the Afro-American Community. He got a new hospital built and did lots of good things that the residents liked and supported, as well as doled out many personal favors. Claypool was white, and was Mayor Daley's chief of staff. He had the reputation as a reformer, he slashed 1,000 jobs and public assistance budget in Chicago neighborhoods. There are conflicting opinions about whether those were bloated city jobs or actually putting hungry people to work. The point is he didn't have a great reputation either and actually worked for the Daley machine.

 

He was a friend of Claypool and Stroger. In the end he (and Jesse Jackson) remained neutral, didn't support either candidate, and now Claypool works on Obama's campaign. This makes him insincere and gives him poor judgment skills?

[Kelly the Dog]

Which Obama clearly didn't see as a problem, since he ended up endorsing Todd Stroger, another one who worked for Daley.

So in other words, he's damned if he does, and damned if he don't, and damned if he sits this one out.

 

This is a weak charge from a weak article with extremely little to go on.

 

There is a lot to criticize him about legitimate stuff.

[Chilly]

So in other words, he's damned if he does, and damned if he don't, and damned if he sits this one out.

 

Nope, not at all. Claypool did all sorts of stuff to combat fraud and corruption as the head of the Cook County Board. He was the one candidate that actually had a shot at reversing corruption on the board, and Obama wouldn't endorse him. Instead, Obama ended up endorsing the candidate that would continue the legacy of corruption of his father.

 

Obama walks a fine line in politics... Stroger was black and a fixture in the Afro-American Community. He got a new hospital built and did lots of good things that the residents liked and supported, as well as doled out many personal favors. Claypool was white

 

Transcending race here, eh?

 

and was Mayor Daley's chief of staff. He had the reputation as a reformer, he slashed 1,000 jobs and public assistance budget in Chicago neighborhoods. There are conflicting opinions about whether those were bloated city jobs or actually putting hungry people to work. The point is he didn't have a great reputation either and actually worked for the Daley machine.

 

Yet, he had actually brought "change" to the Chicago government in the places that he had worked, forcing some elected officials out of jobs due to corruption and fraud. Why did Obama refuse to endorse Claypool? Further, why in the world would he endorse Stroger?

[Wacka]

Shiits who hate Al Qaida even more than you.

 

 

oh and by the way WE are fighting Al Qaida and his friends... we are currently sending more troops to Afghanistan ... but if you do not need our help just tell us...

 

So, in Iraq, we are fighting the enemies of Al Qaida , while they are calling themselves Al Qaida.

[Kelly the Dog]

Nope, not at all. Claypool did all sorts of stuff to combat fraud and corruption as the head of the Cook County Board. He was the one candidate that actually had a shot at reversing corruption on the board, and Obama wouldn't endorse him. Instead, Obama ended up endorsing the candidate that would continue the legacy of corruption of his father.

Your own link said he didn't endorse Stroger. He remained neutral, which was a tacit endorsement of Claypool.

 

Instead, Obama remained neutral in the contest, and though this was seen by political observers as a tacit endorsement of Claypool, the question remains why Obama, who claims to be not of the political machine in Chicago and above the politics of race, could not muster up the political courage to make an explicit endorsement of Claypool during the campaign.

[Chilly]

Your own link said he didn't endorse Stroger. He remained neutral, which was a tacit endorsement of Claypool.

 

He didn't endorse John Stroger. He didn't endorse Les Claypool. He did endorse Todd Stroger, who pretty much ran on his dad's platform.

[Kelly the Dog]

He didn't endorse John Stroger. He didn't endorse Les Claypool. He did endorse Todd Stroger, who pretty much ran on his dad's platform.

I wasn't talking about Todd. I didn't even know he existed until I just read up on him. I was talking about being damned if he did and damned if he didn't by you. How is it that everyone involved here is endorsing Obama now if he is so wrong about what he did or didn't do? Todd Stoger. Claypool. The guy Todd Stoger defeated Danny Davis (even though Obama endorsed him).

 

Claypool obviously doesn't hold grudges about what Obama did. He's a member of Obama's team, and strongly supports him, as a reformer. Again, I just think this is a very weak thing to attack him on. You know how crazy Chicago politics is.

[Chilly]

I wasn't talking about Todd. I didn't even know he existed until I just read up on him. I was talking about being damned if he did and damned if he didn't by you.

 

Really? Where have I said that I would have had an issue with Obama endorsing Claypool?

 

 

 

How is it that everyone involved here is endorsing Obama now if he is so wrong about what he did or didn't do? Todd Stoger. Claypool. The guy Todd Stoger defeated Danny Davis (even though Obama endorsed him).

 

Its called Politics - of course they're all going to endorse the guy from Chicago, to not do so would be suicide.

 

Claypool obviously doesn't hold grudges about what Obama did. He's a member of Obama's team, and strongly supports him, as a reformer. Again, I just think this is a very weak thing to attack him on. You know how crazy Chicago politics is.

 

Not endorsing the person that you are aligned with politically, and then in fact endorsing someone who is the exact opposite of your message is politics as usual, and is not consistent with Obama's message.

 

The idea that Obama is going to fundamentally change Washington is laughable and quite off-putting. There is a history of him acting just like any politician would, which means he isn't fundamentally changing Washington. This is one more notch in the "do as I say, not as I do" act that he has formed.

[olivier in france]

So, in Iraq, we are fighting the enemies of Al Qaida , while they are calling themselves Al Qaida.

 

 

Wacka do you speak arab and talk daily with irakian terrorists? If you stopped to consider Fox News as gospel maybe you'd understand a few things about this world around you!

[Kelly the Dog]

The idea that Obama is going to fundamentally change Washington is laughable and quite off-putting. There is a history of him acting just like any politician would, which means he isn't fundamentally changing Washington. This is one more notch in the "do as I say, not as I do" act that he has formed.

That's your definition of his position. If you asked him, or anyone, of course they are not going to say he is going to single-handedly and completely change Washington. Of course, as I said before a couple times and you just ignore, there is going to be politicking. There is going to be compromise. There is going to be changing or evolving of position. There is going to be trading votes. He is mostly talking about the constant bickering and relentless partisanship not all partisanship. That is what he talks about when he says he wants to change Washington, he says it all the time. Of course he doesn't believe he will get rid of all special interests. He wants to change the way it seems like everything is determined by special interests.

 

Of course there is a history of him acting like any politician would. And of course, he is politicking when he says stuff like that. It's implicit.

[Chilly]

That's your definition of his position. If you asked him, or anyone, of course they are not going to say he is going to single-handedly and completely change Washington.

 

His definition isn't that he is going to fundamentally change Washington?

 

"And four years later, you're right back, making the very same promises about the very same problems. I mean this isn't the first time this gas tax holiday has come up. It comes up every two years right before election time, because somebody thinks this is going to be good politic, but it doesn't solve the problem. Well, this year, you have a choice. If you want to take another chance on the same kind of politics we've come to know in Washington, other candidates to choose from. But I still believe we need to fundamentally change Washington if we want to change America." - Barack Obama.

 

Of course, as I said before a couple times and you just ignore, there is going to be politicking. There is going to be compromise. There is going to be changing or evolving of position. There is going to be trading votes. He is mostly talking about the constant bickering and relentless partisanship not all partisanship.

 

I believe he phrases it as "transcending divisive politics". Here are the definitions of the word divisive from M-W:

 

Transcending: a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)

Divisive: creating disunity or dissension <a divisive issue>

 

That is what he talks about when he says he wants to change Washington, he says it all the time. Of course he doesn't believe he will get rid of all special interests. He wants to change the way it seems like everything is determined by special interests.

 

His rhetoric isn't to remove special interests from Washington, just to scale them back?

 

"Do we continue to allow lobbyists to veto our country's progress, or do we finally put our national interests ahead of the special interests, and address the concerns people feel over their jobs, their health care and their children's future? That's why I'm running for President of the United States. Because to meet these challenges, changing parties isn't change enough. We need something new. We need to turn the page," said Senator Barack Obama.

 

"My experience tells me that real change and reform come when we're willing to put the people's interests before the special interests and partisan interests." - Barack Obama

 

"That's the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it's just the beginning," said Barack Obama.

 

 

 

Of course there is a history of him acting like any politician would. And of course, he is politicking when he says stuff like that. It's implicit.

 

Which means his campaign is complete crap. One of his main calls is for honest and open government. By definition, if his rhetoric doesn't match up with reality, then it is not honest and open.