to me its ignorant to expect someone from these schools to be a certain way, talk a certain way, whatever, the only thing I would expect someone from harvard to be is smart.
What do you mean by unpolished? Every time I've heard her speak on CSPAN, she seems to have an ample vocabulary which she pronounces and uses correctly. She speaks in complete sentences, dresses well, and engages the audience.
I don't know many Harvard lawyers, buy I know plenty of lawyers who aren't particularly smooth. She speaks her mind and doesn't always seem to consider consequences, but I don't think that really reflects on her education or intelligence.
Ha! This is hilarious. I quote myself from the McCain thread: ...now just replace "McCain" with "Obama," and you have my opinion on this thread as well. It's pitiful how much both sides will reach to try to make the opposition look bad.
My god. Google "Obama policies", I'm too busy and lazy to write up another list about Obama's platform. And yes, contrary to what many of you naysayers believe, Obama does have a prescise platform. He isin't just a pretty face. If that's all it took, half of us could run for president.
Wow!!! You must have gone back and read each weekly sermon Jeremiah Wright made over the last so many years to be able to make such an informed statement!!!! I thank you for your due diligence and the great service you are providing this BBS. /sarcasm
that was going to be my response, the 9-11 stuff was from, well, 2001. obviously this dude supports obama as a candidate. no telling when that was from since he referenced rudy. and lastly, white people do attend his church.
Anyone would come back after the rev said God damn America is a moron or spineless. I read enough comments to know the rev was an idiot with an audience of people without the backbone to tell him to tone down the ignorant content of his sermons.
The problem is that Obama hasn't really run on his platform but has run on the idea of change and being a new kind of politician. I agree we should look at this platform, for instance I would like to see a more thorough debate on the differences between his health care plan vs. Hillary Clinton's and a greater discussion on where they differ on trade policies, but the Obama campaign and what his supporters most often bring up is how he is going to create change and unite people rather than what that change is exactly or how he is going to unite. How exactly is he going to carry out real change while also being the uniter that people also expect him to be? Rhester's thread on why he won't vote for Obama points out exactly why Obama's rhetoric might not add up. The truth is there are huge policy differences between where Obama stands and where many Republican and conservatives stand. Change towards Obama's platform might not be possible if you are also seeking to create the unity he talks about.
This is essentially the same message we got from Pat Roberts & Jerry Falwell after 9/11 and after Katrina. What was your point?
like I said earlier in the thread, unfortunately alot of people felt that way. was it inappropriate, at the time, yes.
They along with Wright are idiots. Anyone that went to their church and didn't call them out on it are spinelss too. What's your point?
I'm very hesitant to condemn Obama because of what his pastor says but politically I don't think this can be completely dismissed and to a certain point the company a candidate keeps is political fodder. Consider for instance the Ferraro situation where many Obama supporters used her comments to tar Hillary Clinton even though Clinton had said she didn't agree with them. Further they tarred Clinton even more when Clinton didn't quickly move to fire Ferraro from the campaign. Is it fair to criticize Clinton for not quickly firing a campaigner who she has long been friends with for comments that she, Clinton, doesn't agree with yet dismiss Obama's pastor of 20 years? I take Obama at his word that he doesn't agree with the more extreme opinions of Wright but it is in the nature of a campaign that one does get judged for the company they keep.
But as has been pointed out, real change never happens from just policy alone. Civil rights legislation happened from inspiration, people talking about and acting on Change. We went to the moon because a candidate who talked about change, and inspired people to focus on that change happened. Positive change has never happened based on politicians purely discussing policy differences. Character, inspiration, leadership, and bringing more and new people into the system is what brought about change from the very beginning of this nation. It's fine to say that Obama won't make that change, but dismiss the idea of talking about it, and inspiring people as not being important ignores the history and processes that have lead to progress in this nation. There is little doubt that Obama is already fulfilling one of the characteristics of change by bringing in loads of new voters and people into the system. Furthermore his time in the senate shows that he can work with members of both parties to get things done. To get caught up in just one policy difference of another doesn't effect great change and it never has. If we want real progress we need something more. That's why Obama talks bout it so much.
it will be an issue, and I really won't have a problem if it is. obama should have know rightly or wrongly this guy's words were going to come back to haunt him, especially if you claim him as your spiritual advisor. I hope he just gets through it.
Followers did not abandon any of these idiots. More to the point, Politicians still curry favor with Roberts and Falwell even though they have said crazy sh**. You say Obama is to be damned for associating with Wright. Well, McCain should likewise be damned for associating with Roberts and Falwell. And that would leave you voting for the Green or Libertarian Presidential candidate, no?
Obama runs on change just like how Bush ran on Mission Accomplished. There's a difference between campaign mottos and the platform itself; maybe Obama supporters have focused on the "change" speeches but mainly because there is some meat in it. The guy has a platform, one that can be attacked. He isin't just a speechwriter. You bring up valid points though. I doubt Obama will be able to "unite America". I'm just hoping he does a better job then the incumbent and gives the American political system a breath of fresh air.
