« Lights . . . camera . . . . |
Main
| You're on your own »
Alea iacta est
28 Aug 2008 10:14 pm
So, all the stumping, the endless debates, the pointless primaries, the handshaking and baby kissing and donor stroking have come to this moment. Barack Obama stands before a crowd of nearly 100,000 and accepts his party's nomination with humility and pride. And you know what? I'm moved. I have a low opinion of politicians, and I do not expect Obama to change the world. But he's nonetheless inspiring. The least of it is that America has nominated a black man--the son of immigrants--to be the likely next president of the United States. Even forgetting that, Obama makes you want to believe in him. That's why the conservatives hate him really hate him--the way that many liberals still say the name "Reagan" the way my grandmother said "Satan". Obama will not change the world. But he makes his ideas appealing by sheer force of personality.
The reality is that EVERY modern American president changes the world. That's why McCain, who has never met a war he didn't like, is a terrible choice at this time. There are many other reasons for that, but that's the main one.
The phrase "substance-free narcissistic con man" comes to mind.
I'll bet he knew how to get the gals "want to believe in him" with his "sheer force of personality" in college, too...
Sorry, but a pet peeve. Obama's father was not an immigrant. He was a student who came here to study with no intention of staying -- and he abandoned his first family on the way in, and his second family on the way out.
I'm conservative, and I don't hate him.
I'm just not voting for him.
Eddy Elfenbien writes: "Sorry, but a pet peeve. Obama's father was not an immigrant. He was a student who came here to study with no intention of staying -- and he abandoned his first family on the way in, and his second family on the way out."
It's amazing how conservatives can read minds - even the minds of long-dead people. How the hell does Eddy know what the intentions of Obama's father were? This is like Steve Sailer's mindreading of Michelle Obama, and just as stupid.
The phrase "substance-free narcissistic con man" comes to mind.
I'll bet he knew how to get the gals "want to believe in him" with his "sheer force of personality" in college, too...
What genetic deficiency led Bill Nelson to post the same drivel a half-hour later?
Repiglicans really aren't very bright.
His mother wasn't an immigrant either.
The program that brought Obama's father to study in the U.S. was designed to educate a new African elite. The students came here to study then go back to Kenya, and that's exactly what Obama Sr. did. He was in no way an immigrant.
I am conservative, and there are NO circumstances under which I would vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with whether he's inspiring. It has to do with the fact that his policies, as shown by his (scant) voting record, will drive us the country into ruin and put countless American lives through needless misery as he tries to kill the economy through overregulation and redistributionism.
The fact that people find him inspiring doesn't inspire hatred of Obama; it inspires contempt for those so willing to be led by him.
D-Day says: "I am conservative, and there are NO circumstances under which I would vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with whether he's inspiring. It has to do with the fact that his policies, as shown by his (scant) voting record, will drive us the country into ruin and put countless American lives through needless misery as he tries to kill the economy through overregulation and redistributionism."
That's exactly what every Repiglican said about Bill Clinton.
That this country is in EVERY WAY worse off than it was in 2001 puts the lie to that line of bullshit. That Wall Street is donating to Obama at a higher rate than it is to McBush is another good indicator.
The wingnuts can't argue from the record of the Bushpigs, so they're reverting to the same old crap. They're betting that the country is as stupid as they are.
What difference does it make whether Obama's father was technically an immigrant or not. The man grew up without a father just fine, and for those who feel contempt for people inspired by Obama... it's like pissing against the wind. I guess they are right in their own way - it is much better for them to follow a boring chap whose only line is that his opponent is not as old as he.
Interestingly enough, judging by Billy Nelson's post, some of anti-Obama bias is now based on the fact that he might have been popular with girls in college. That's a crime! As much as I would hate to agree with dirty-mouth MLandJ, Billy Nelson is not too bright. (I just wonder what Billy's line is to get the girls to believe in him. Apparently the sheer force of personality does not apply there.)
Ideas? Really? Like what? Socialized health care, military defeat, tax increases, government paid bonuses for aborted fetuses? Not sure I see the appeal.
"That's why the conservatives hate him really hate him" (sic)
Hm. Who and where are these mythic Obama-hating conservatives? I'm a conservative, I know a lot of conservatives--there's not one whom I would describe as an Obama-hater.
OTOH, I have met some real Obama-haters among the Hillaryite crowd.
I did believe in Obama as a post-racial candidate--early on, I said to some people that, regardless of the rest, Obama would put a line under the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton style of race-hustling politics. I still stand by that.
But like others who have commented here, that doesn't change the fact that the ideas Obama stands for are the same old and tired ones the Democrats have been flogging for over three-quarters of a century.
That's why the conservatives hate him really hate him
Um, no. That's the racist Democrats.
Do I think Obama is an "idiot" (shallow, thoughtless, more or less doctrinair lefty, not because he believes it, but because he hasn't thought about it, but that's what the people around him believe)? Hell yes.
If the guy has said anything thoughtful at any point during this campaign, the press has done a good job of hding that fact. So, before I'll buy the "But he makes his ideas appealing by sheer force of personality" claim, I'd have to know what ideas you're talking about.
Hope?
Change?
Those aren't "ideas", they're cop-outs that smooth talking slick politicians throw out when they don't have anything useful to say, or when they know that, if they tell you what they're really thinking, you won't vote for them
Which is it w/ Obama?
The least of it is that America has nominated a black man ... to be the likely next president of the United States.
Actually, what he is is the likely next Democrat to lose a Presidential Election.
There are lots of reasons not to like McCain. But, say what you will about him, he's not a pathetic joke of a candidate. Obama is.
Clinton won because George "Read My Lips" Bush was fundamentally disbarred from complaining about his opponent being dishonest, and because it was "the end of history", and we could afford having a "wet behind the ears" slickster as President.
McCain can attack Obama's weaknesses, and Americans once again understand that the world is a dangerous place. So Obama, despite his racial appeal, is going to have a much harder time.
[rant]
Sorry, but if you (or anyone else) are moved by a political speech you should lose the right to vote. There were people in tears at the ascension, er. . .I mean rally, last night, and that is pathetic independent of your party politics.
If we want better elections, then all speeches should be banned. All candidates would have to issue a 100 page document identifying their positions on the issues. Potential voters should then have to answer factual questions about where each candidate stands on such and such an issue. If voters get less than 80 percent correct then they cannot vote. Seriously, these grandstanding speeches epitomize the baseness of human politics; there has to be a better way.
Can the American Economic Association please stage a coup, so that we can forget about these silly elections?
[/rant]
I used to admire you, Megan. No longer. Not only are you gullible, you attract leftards like MoeLarryandJebus, who put on display the typical liberal asshattery that you have come to propound.
ML&J: You are an execrable, bitter dumbass. While you fling your feces in a smug tantrum, you engage in the same behavior that you are projecting onto others. Like so many of the mentally retarded, you are too stupid to recognize your ignorance, you leftist jackass.
Good indicators:
Some political ideas will always find existance, and will always turn out, the reason for continuance is the eductional goals that keeps us to a rememberance that it was part of our history.Therefore it will alaways win and if not good bad. Obama comes from african history and political science. Is it wrong to decentralize inside political originality? I dont think so.
Please send in you thought
Wow... I listened to his speech and it was full of the same kind of misleading statements that all politicians make. He's charming, I guess, and apparently manages to get support from people without actually having to convince them that his ideas are good (as Megan demonstrates). But he's just another politician and a fairly hard left-leaning one.
Most conservatives don't hate him, they just see that he's a hard lefty and an inexperienced one at that. He gives every indication of being weak on the international stage in dealing our enemies.
For the record, conservatives hate McCain... but they'll vote for him because he's less likely to screw the country up than Obama.
Megan, Megan, Megan....(sigh).
What HAPPENED to you? How does someone who claimed to be a libertarian, who even used to use "Jane Galt" as a byline, get sucked into Obama's hype and nanny-government ideas? Did you ditch your integrity to please your new corporate masters? Or has it been so long since you had to work for a living that you've allowed your mind to become flabby? Either way, I'm disappointed.
Comparing Reagan to Obama is an example of either flabby thinking or jettisoned integrity...Reagan supported Republicans starting in 1952. By the time he was elected, he had spent almost 30 years articulating a specific set of principles: The Soviet Union must be resisted, Big Government is ineffective, society is best served by maximizing the amount of decisions ordinary citizens can make. By contrast, Obama has 2 1/2 years in the Senate, where his most widely articulated principles are "hope" and "change."
MLandJ, don't forget that the Bill Clinton everyone remembers is the chastised one...who finally admitted that "The era of big government is over" only after the Republican landslide of 1994.