Some hardened partisan positions are hardeneder than others.
I’d just like to remind you that Mr. Moto is the one who was continually supporting Senator Santorum on here. I’m not necessarily saying that his past support for Santorum means he’s not capable of critical thinking or that he’s not a smart guy. I’m just sayin’, ya know…
It’s too bad search is disabled right now. Many of my posts about Senator Santorum were pretty critical. And I think that little bit of criticism of people in your party might be helpful if all of you were to apply it to Obama.
Constructive criticism would serve him better than people fainting when they see him.
Come up with some criticism that’s actually constructive and I’ll take a look at it. There’s nothing constructive about trying to morph him, by proxy, into an angry, whitey hating boogeyman.
After thinking about the speech for a day, there are two things that I haven’t really seen addressed in this thread.
-
Tactically, the speech was interesting because it turned the Rove-style attack on its ear. The Rove strategy says attack the candidate’s strong point instead of his weak point. This attack was calculated to hit Obama’s weak points (he’s black! And probably a muslim!) Obama turned it into a strength. How did he do it? By being honest. Imagine that. The Rovians assume that their target will try to weasel out of everything and dig their own grave. Obama refused to do that.
-
Obama all but came out and said that race was a distraction from the real problems of class. He pointed out that poor whites have more in common with poor blacks than they do with rich whites. Both the blacks and the whites without health insurance wait in the same emergency room. Both blacks and whites are losing their homes. Politically, this has the potential to be very powerful, because it’s a truth no else has had the guts to articulate.
The constructive bit seems to be the part that’s missing, see, since all the criticism I’ve seen so far is easily debunked.
I think I’ve called him a loathsome pillock before or something, too, but you can’t PROVE it. 
I know there’s something I agreed with him on at some point, though, which makes him an intelligent and discerning individual.
What if the Enquirer had a recording of a telephone conversation where he said the word “cracker”?
What for? You’re the guy who seemed to think this was critical analysis worth presenting here as such, when in fact it was a reiteration of a bad argument that had already been dealt with repeatedly in this thread.
Well, yeah. And if your point had solely been that not all the media reaction was positive, your cite would have supported that.
The problem was that you also presented it as an instance of being “able to approach these subjects critically.” It wasn’t. That’s what you’re being hammered for.
The problem of many criticas are that thye make a living our of parsing statments, out of removing context and out of being critical on the political implications as apposed to the message. I could nitpick some points, there are things he said which I don’t agree with, but the message was birilliant in what it said and how it was expressed. As long as we keep thinking of issues of race as who is to blame, as us verus them, and conflating issues of race entirely with issues of fairness, poverty, and justice, we cannot make progress.
What i think was great about the speech was, yes it was a political speech, but it wasn’t a speech of political expediency. I heard one person on the radio complain that it sounded like they were being lectured. I agree, but I think it was exactly the kind of lecture we needed. It was a speech that tried to be honest about what we need to do to get where we need to be.
Please. That’s overstating things a bit, isn’t it?
To be fair, Obama was ordering soup.
To be unfair, it was Chili with beans in it.
Well, perhaps. The problem is that only a couple of hundred people are reading this, and Brian Ross at ABC News might have a bigger readership.
:eek:
HILLARY 2008! :mad:
The most pathetic thing was on some news blip where some magazine (not a tabloid but I don’t remember which) was offering $25,000 for a photograph of Obama smoking a cigarette. Obama admits he’s an occasional cigarette smoker (unless he gave them up recently) but it’s pretty desperate to smear somebody when the best you can do is a pic of them indulging in a (however unhealthy it may be) legal vice.
Well, in fairness, if you look at Gallup’s tracking poll info as of today, it’s moving the other way, in Clinton’s favor. Now, according to the link to Gallup from RealClearPolitics, they’re using a small sample (I think around a thousand), and I don’t know how statistically robust their polling is, nor ditto for Rasmussen (other than that I did my best to skew Rasmussen for Obama ). I think it will take more days, more news cycles, to assess the lasting effects of all this.
I saw an interview with Obama’s wife where she told us that a condition for her support on the campaign would be that he quit smoking. It’s remarkable how Obama maintains composure while he wrestles with nicotine withdrawal.
In principle, a random sample of one thousand is enough to draw robust inferences from.
Interesting, and refreshing comments fro Mike Huckabee:
I’m picturing the nicely tailored suit with nic patches all over his chest. Damn he’s calm! 
If smoking weren’t so un-PC I bet we’d see a lot of it in our presidents. I can see George Bush smoking Carlton Lights 100’s and Obama with a huge Cohiba in his hand
Again, you and everybody who argue that Obama thinks differently than Wright have missed the point. He was a 20 year supporter of Wright. He still supports him. It’s like saying he supported Reverend Phelps for 20 years but rejects his rants. It doesn’t matter if Obama holds Wright at arm’s length if he supports him.
And Obama didn’t cut Wright loose until his nose was rubbed in it. We know that Obama knew Wright was controversial. So now we’re suppose to ignore Obama’s support of Wright because he made a nice speech?