Obama Sweeps Caucuses - Page 4

gunnut · 02-13-2008, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullTank

Not really....asians have a problem only with other asians. blacks and whites are quite fine.

If you say so.

**Parihaka** · 02-24-2008, 20:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Obama's major strength is also his weakness: he's messianic. Wherever a messiah turns up, some pretty major bloodletting usually follows.

HA

Quote:

Barack Obama crowd looks like 'cult' or 'craze,' pundits say as backlash begins
by Jonathan Tilove | Newhouse News Service
Saturday February 23, 2008, 10:18 PM
AP File PhotoThey believe: Supporters wear Obama masks and wave signs after his speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond, Va.

WASHINGTON -- Day after day, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attracts huge crowds of adoring supporters who cheer his message of hope, chanting "Yes We Can."

But amid a run of 11 primary and caucus victories over Hillary Clinton, a new storyline has emerged, portraying his campaign as a kind of unsettling craze or messianic cult.

"I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to a cult of personality," the New York Times' Paul Krugman recently wrote.

**Parihaka** · 02-24-2008, 20:59 PM

Now about that surrealist 'bob the builder' campaign...

FibrillatorD · 02-24-2008, 22:58 PM

Bloodletting? As evidenced in the article?

Pari you've gone off the deep end.

**Parihaka** · 02-25-2008, 00:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

Bloodletting? As evidenced in the article?

Pari you've gone off the deep end.

Really? Twice now he's threatened to use the military to hunt down terrorists in Pakistan's territory.

But no, my comments were in response to Jad's query as to what are his weaknesses.
I was referring to political bloodletting because he is messianic in nature. Many of his supporters, as the article alludes to, verge on cultists in their behaviour, and they're not going to take any slight willingly.

I expect a thorough 'cleansing' of the democratic party if he becomes the nominee, and I don't imagine he'd hold back on revenge on behalf of his supporters should he become POTUS, because
'you know, he's the good news guy bringing hope and the vision thing'.

He'd be too scared to not take some form of revenge against the conservatives.

As I alluded to originally, his messianic qualities are his greatest weakness at this time because he will attract the support of nut-jobs everywhere, and this can be used by his opponents to scare off more rational voters, something which is now happening, as evinced by the article above and many others.

**Parihaka** · 02-25-2008, 00:41 AM

I'll just add that as someone who has seen many 'leaders' come and go, someone so light on policy who inspires such fervour in his followers sure scares the bejesus out of me.

FibrillatorD · 02-25-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Really? Twice now he's threatened to use the military to hunt down terrorists in Pakistan's territory.

You mean like this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

no, my comments were in response to Jad's query as to what are his weaknesses.
I was referring to political bloodletting because he is messianic in nature. Many of his supporters, as the article alludes to, verge on cultists in their behaviour, and they're not going to take any slight willingly.

I don't see in that article or any other any cause for alarm. What is it, the chanting? The soft on policy accusation comes from people with selective hearing, and the Hillary campaign, and also foreigners who I guess because they don't have any dogs in this fight are prone to snack on bite-sized media narratives that have nothing to do with anything. I mean, we still got another 9 months to go here.

Americans are fired up about a politician and its not Ronald Reagan, so some conservative columnists don't like it. Big whoop

**Parihaka** · 02-25-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

You mean like this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197

What, a headline without a news story?
What I mean is this

Quote:

Obama rattles saber at Pakistan —again
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 04:11.

Oops, he did it again. While it has gone largely unnoticed in US media coverage, press outlets on the subcontinent are noting (with trepidation or glee) alarmingly bellicose comments by Barack Obama at the Austin Democratic presidential debate Feb. 21 broaching military intervention in Pakistan—an idea being viewed with growing seriousness in elite circles. Here's a selection of quotes from the supposedly dovish candidate assembled (with trepidation) by Pakistan's Daily Times Feb. 23, and (with barely disguised glee) by the India's The Hindu Feb. 22:

"On the question of Pakistan, we just had an election there. But I have said very clearly that we have put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. That was a mistake. We should be going after al-Qaeda and making sure that Pakistan is serious about hunting down terrorists, as well as expanding democracy."

"My number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. I will do whatever is required to accomplish that. I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm."

Here's how the official trancript from the International Herald Tribune rendered the quote (in response to a question on whether he is ready to be commander-in-chief):

[M]y number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm.

Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth... But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation -- whether or not to go to war in Iraq -- I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)

Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001...

On the question of Pakistan, which Senator Clinton just raised, we just had an election there, but I've said very clearly that we have put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. That was a mistake. We should be going after al Qaeda and making sure that Pakistan is serious about hunting down terrorists as well as expanding democracy, and I was right about that.

On the issues that have come up, that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

So, while (legitimately) calling out Clinton over her support of the illegal unilateral aggression in Iraq, Obama calls instead for illegal unilateral aggression in Pakistan. OK, this could be Zbigniew Brzezinski talking (not that that lets Obama off the hook), and there is just enough wiggle room for ambiguity here. But it's pretty clear what he means in light of his speech last summer at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in DC, in which he said (Chicago Tribune, Aug. 2, 2007):

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.

The timing of Obama's comments is also ominous. The New York Times reported Feb. 22 that last month the Bush administration reached a "quiet understanding" with the Musharraf regime that "allowed an increase in the number and scope of patrols and strikes by armed Predator surveillance aircraft launched from a secret base in Pakistan—a far more aggressive strategy to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban than had existed before. But since opposition parties emerged victorious from the parliamentary election early this week, American officials are worried that the new, more permissive arrangement could be choked off in its infancy."

If a US break with Musharraf and/or a real democratic opening in Pakistan merely pave the way for unilateral US or NATO aggression, we could be going very quickly from the frying pan to the fire. It would be a bitter irony if it happens under a new president so many are now supporting because of his ostensible anti-war creds...

Quote:

Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning

Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning
ISLAMABAD, Aug 2 (AFP) - Pakistan accused Democratic presidential
candidate Barack Obama of “sheer ignorance” on Thursday for threatening
to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil. “Such
statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan's Minister
of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully
apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by
Pakistan.”“We have said before that we will not allow anyone to
infringe our sovereignty,” Azeem said. “If there is any actionable
intelligence they should tell us and only our forces will take action
on it and they are quite capable of it.” “This seems to be a reaction
to their own failure in Afghanistan to control the US casualties and
instead of addressing the situation there, they are finding scapegoats
and damaging their own cause,” Azeem added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

I don't see in that article or any other any cause for alarm. What is it, the chanting? The soft on policy accusation comes from people with selective hearing, and the Hillary campaign, and also foreigners who I guess because they don't have any dogs in this fight are prone to snack on bite-sized media narratives that have nothing to do with anything. I mean, we still got another 9 months to go here.

Americans are fired up about a politician and its not Ronald Reagan, so some conservative columnists don't like it. Big whoop

Well, as one of those foreigners, I'm here to tell you that as an American you have a vote that not only elects the President of the United States, but also elects the President of the world.
You spend more on your armies than all the rest of the world combined, and use them.
Whatever your president decides affects me, and every other foreigner directly, probably more so than electing our own governments. So every utterance and decision by a candidate has a direct impact on us. We just don't get to vote.

As regards 'there's nine months to go', I'm not sure what you mean? Are you suggesting he doesn't really mean it? That he wouldn't start a war with Pakistan and he's just joshing us?

lwarmonger · 02-25-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Whatever your president decides affects me, and every other foreigner directly, probably more so than electing our own governments. So every utterance and decision by a candidate has a direct impact on us. We just don't get to vote.

If governments of wealthy nations were formed of people who decided the military was important enough to spend money on, this would not necessarily be the case. It is the world that gives us this power. The world may not like it, but the wealthier nations choose not to spend the money to alter the situation.

For that we should not be blamed.

JAD_333 · 02-25-2008, 13:27 PM

Cult or fan club? I like fan club. Cult sounds too nefarious, and I don't see that.

The reason Obama is getting rock star adoration from so many young people is the same reason rock stars get it: they make music young people like. I think he deliberately minimizes substance in his speeches in favor of "music" and popular lyrics to attract the politically deaf, which is how I characterize many young people. "We can do it", "time for a change", blah blah...works for them better than addressing issues in detail. Lines like "We need to fix social security; we need a medical coverage plan that covers everyone" etc. delivered in statesman-like tones don't work as well for them. Not that they don't agree; but it takes style to get their mojo going--the backbeat in the voice; the rising inflection; the rumble of ominous low notes and so forth.

Having said that and to stay out of trouble with the serious dems here, not all dems supporters of Obama are behind him for his musicality. He doesn't talk to the issues as much as Clinton does, but he does have positions and a record (mostly comprised what he HASN'T done, e.g. voted for Iraq) to attract more sophisticated dems.

Obama is definiately on top, but not because of style over substance alone. The temper of the times seems to call out for a wholly new spiritual (non religious) approach and he understands it.

The way to take some of the shine off him is to force him to spend more time talking issues and less on soaring rhetoric. "Yes, Senator, that was a mighty fine inspirational speech, but what about military spending, immigration, Israel-Palestine, Iran...etc?

**Parihaka** · 02-25-2008, 13:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

For that we should not be blamed.

I'm not blaming you at all, and I agree with your analysis, it's simply an assessment of the world.

JAD_333 · 02-25-2008, 13:45 PM

Obama on Pakistan and going after OBL unilaterally with or without Pakistan's ok, plays well with truck drivers, vets, good ole boys and young people with little grasp of geopolitics. It's the offset to his consistent opposition to Iraq.
It's to say "I can be tough when the cause is right."

But it could backfire on him at home if the case can be made that unilaterally going into Pakistan is really no different than unilaterally going into Iraq. To do that, both actions have to be reduced to basic principles. If it's ok to bull our way into Pakistan to go after OBL why is it not ok to bull our way into Iraq to establish a beachhead against terrorism. And mistakes made in Iraq don't mitigate the principle. What if no mistakes had been made? And what is to say that mistakes won't be made if we go into Pakistan? "Senator, how can you be sure that no mistakes will be made?" "What if Pakistani forces move to oppose us?" etc.

JAD_333 · 02-25-2008, 13:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I'm not blaming you at all, and I agree with your analysis, it's simply an assessment of the world.

Pragmatism is often mistaken for argument.

02-25-2008, 13:27 PM	#55 (permalink)
JAD_333 *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-15-07 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,681 Country:	Cult or fan club? I like fan club. Cult sounds too nefarious, and I don't see that. The reason Obama is getting rock star adoration from so many young people is the same reason rock stars get it: they make music young people like. I think he deliberately minimizes substance in his speeches in favor of "music" and popular lyrics to attract the politically deaf, which is how I characterize many young people. "We can do it", "time for a change", blah blah...works for them better than addressing issues in detail. Lines like "We need to fix social security; we need a medical coverage plan that covers everyone" etc. delivered in statesman-like tones don't work as well for them. Not that they don't agree; but it takes style to get their mojo going--the backbeat in the voice; the rising inflection; the rumble of ominous low notes and so forth. Having said that and to stay out of trouble with the serious dems here, not all dems supporters of Obama are behind him for his musicality. He doesn't talk to the issues as much as Clinton does, but he does have positions and a record (mostly comprised what he HASN'T done, e.g. voted for Iraq) to attract more sophisticated dems. Obama is definiately on top, but not because of style over substance alone. The temper of the times seems to call out for a wholly new spiritual (non religious) approach and he understands it. The way to take some of the shine off him is to force him to spend more time talking issues and less on soaring rhetoric. "Yes, Senator, that was a mighty fine inspirational speech, but what about military spending, immigration, Israel-Palestine, Iran...etc? __________________ To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Well-informed, patriotic, registered Democrat.	Bluesman	Political Discussions	116	02-11-2008 23:18 PM
Rivals slam Obama over Reagan praise	troung	2008 US Presidential Election	3	01-21-2008 03:06 AM
Was Obama a Muslim?	Ironduke	2008 US Presidential Election	28	01-02-2008 20:23 PM
Is Mullah Osama.. errrr... Barack Obama done	troung	2008 US Presidential Election	242	02-16-2007 17:34 PM

02-24-2008, 20:59 PM	#48 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,453 Country:	Now about that surrealist 'bob the builder' campaign...

02-24-2008, 22:58 PM	#49 (permalink)
FibrillatorD *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-11-07 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 800 Country:	Bloodletting? As evidenced in the article? Pari you've gone off the deep end.

02-25-2008, 00:41 AM	#51 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,453 Country:	I'll just add that as someone who has seen many 'leaders' come and go, someone so light on policy who inspires such fervour in his followers sure scares the bejesus out of me.

02-25-2008, 13:45 PM	#57 (permalink)
JAD_333 *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-15-07 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,681 Country:	Obama on Pakistan and going after OBL unilaterally with or without Pakistan's ok, plays well with truck drivers, vets, good ole boys and young people with little grasp of geopolitics. It's the offset to his consistent opposition to Iraq. It's to say "I can be tough when the cause is right." But it could backfire on him at home if the case can be made that unilaterally going into Pakistan is really no different than unilaterally going into Iraq. To do that, both actions have to be reduced to basic principles. If it's ok to bull our way into Pakistan to go after OBL why is it not ok to bull our way into Iraq to establish a beachhead against terrorism. And mistakes made in Iraq don't mitigate the principle. What if no mistakes had been made? And what is to say that mistakes won't be made if we go into Pakistan? "Senator, how can you be sure that no mistakes will be made?" "What if Pakistani forces move to oppose us?" etc.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)