Barack Obama Announces Presidential Bid
February 10, 2007 9:26 AM   Subscribe

Barack Obama is running for president. [Previously: 1, 2]
posted by patr1ck (192 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
Sorry, couldn't help myself with the ytmnd link. The song is just too great.
posted by patr1ck at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2007


Holy shit, really?
posted by EarBucket at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2007


Neat. I guess.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:32 AM on February 10, 2007


Biraq?
posted by phaedon at 9:32 AM on February 10, 2007


GO BARACK!! [/enthusiasticOutsider]
posted by zenzizi at 9:33 AM on February 10, 2007


I had no idea!
posted by clevershark at 9:36 AM on February 10, 2007


Ytmnd for President.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:39 AM on February 10, 2007


Great. The more good candidates, the better. I'm not sure he's my final choice at this point, but Obama seems like he'd make a fine President.
posted by chasing at 9:44 AM on February 10, 2007


His speech started slowly but boy, once he got going he got going.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:50 AM on February 10, 2007


OBAMA08 kind of looks like a palindrome and his logo looks like he borrowed it from Bank of America.
posted by Frank Grimes at 9:50 AM on February 10, 2007


I have to admit that when I read the title my first thought was that this had happened already, weeks ago, but that was just an announcement regarding his exploratory committee.

I hope Gore enters the fray. (Rolling Stone article about the chances of Gore entering the fray)

2008 is looking much more promising than 2004. In 2004 I begrudgingly supported the Kerry campaign- I had been hoping for Howard Dean, who fell out of the running for reasons I still don't understand. This time there are actual choices. I could be happy with Clinton as president, or very happy with Obama. If Gore enters I will be ecstatic.
posted by JamesToast at 10:00 AM on February 10, 2007


He makes everybody else look small, doesn't he?

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

People are going to knock Obama for not having any concrete proposals. But people don't give a shit about plans. As long as he can keep making speeches like that one, he's going to walk away with this thing.

I really want to believe in this guy. I don't know why, but I do.
posted by empath at 10:03 AM on February 10, 2007


Is anyone else having problems using his website? I can't sign up for anything, view video's, or load the "my" pages.

...

methinks the webmaster didn't make his deadlines...?
posted by WetherMan at 10:03 AM on February 10, 2007


I am a progressive, but if its between McCain and Hillary, I will vote for John McCain.

If it's between Obama and McCain, it's Obama.

I have a feeling Howard Dean wants Obama, too.
posted by four panels at 10:04 AM on February 10, 2007


I think Gore will end up backing Obama, too. The only thing that will get Gore into the campaign would be if Obama's campaign implodes.
posted by empath at 10:06 AM on February 10, 2007


"Sorry, 'Obama' sounds like 'Osama', so I won't vote for him."

Yes, this is what many Americans are thinking/saying.

What a country.
posted by wfc123 at 10:11 AM on February 10, 2007


I'm still voting for Hodgman and his Reptiloid masters.
posted by homunculus at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2007 [4 favorites]


Charismatic leaders are not a good thing.
posted by srboisvert at 10:13 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yes, this is what many Americans are thinking/saying.

Which ones?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:14 AM on February 10, 2007


Obama's resume may be thick with personality and promise, but it's mighty thin on real-world experience. Why do Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — insist upon interviewing (and ultimately hiring) people to be the country's CEO who have no real qualifications or backgound for the job?

As the last seven years have shown, the presidency of the United States is no place for on-the-job training.
posted by cenoxo at 10:16 AM on February 10, 2007


Obama should win. Hillary will win. :(
posted by banished at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2007


hoverboards don't work on water... the ones that live in the South.
posted by banished at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2007


So the Democrats are probably going to put up either a black man or a woman. Four more years Republican.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:22 AM on February 10, 2007


Because our country is bruised and bleeding and someone who inspires hope and who represents the complete opposite of every miserable thing America has come to mean in the past seven years is exactly what we need right now?
posted by nathancaswell at 10:22 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bear? Ack!

Wait, wrong thread.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2007


Man, that song is awesome.
posted by graventy at 10:28 AM on February 10, 2007


Come on banished, maybe you could get away with saying Southerners will hate him for being black, but hating him for the spelling of his name? Do you really think that is the case? It seems to me that sweeping prejudiced generalizations against Southerners are not what this guy is about.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2007


cenoxo, you're right. But as you know, politics these days isn't about how good you'll be as president, it's if you can win. And it appears that the less experience you have, the more likely it is to happen.
posted by fungible at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2007


I am a progressive, but if its between McCain and Hillary, I will vote for John McCain.
Curious. Care to explain further?
posted by etaoin at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2007


As a graphic designer, I look at Obama's logo and am very disappointed. Who talked him into that wimpy serif face and bland Web 2.0-influenced design? Have we learned nothing from the debacle that was the Kerry Edwards 04 logo? (It looks like John Edwards has.)
posted by MegoSteve at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]




If he keeps comparing himself to lincoln, he's setting himself up for a big loss in the south, I'd think.
posted by empath at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2007


I am a progressive, but if its between McCain and Hillary, I will vote for John McCain.


How exactly does that make you progressive then? If you are willing to vote for a right wing nutcase like McCain just because you don't like Hillary, then your progressive ideals must be pretty darn superficial.
posted by octothorpe at 10:42 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


If he keeps comparing himself to lincoln, he's setting himself up for a big loss in the south, I'd think.

Not to mention the "Lincoln was a Republican" play.
posted by obvious at 10:43 AM on February 10, 2007


... the ones that live in the South.

As a southerner, I have to disagree. Politely, of course, since that's just how all of us are.
posted by gordie at 10:43 AM on February 10, 2007 [4 favorites]


I am a progressive, but if its between McCain and Hillary, I will vote for John McCain. --four panels

Are you fucking retarded? Or do you just not pay attention to politics much or what? Or do you just hate Iraqis and love war or what? I can't imagine any reasonable, non-neocon supporting McCain. Supporting Obama over Hillary, and McCain over Hillary is the most confused, nonsensical position one could take.

McCain is the one who came up with the "surge" idea. If that's what you support then he's your guy. He's also been doing everything he can to mend fences with the craziest theocratic bible thumpers out there, like James Dobbson, etc.
posted by delmoi at 10:44 AM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know.. It would be great if he was electable - and probably will be good for the campaign and motivating young and black voters ... but is he really ready? Out of the current crop I like Edwards and Richardson - but still think Schweitzer should run for prez - it would be a lock.
posted by specialk420 at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2007


Obama's resume may be thick with personality and promise, but it's mighty thin on real-world experience. Why do Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — insist upon interviewing (and ultimately hiring) people to be the country's CEO who have no real qualifications or backgound for the job?

Because one of the primary functions of president is that of salesman. Not to create policy, but to vend it, to put a brand and a shine to it, and to build consensus around it. Bush is a terrible CEO, but he could sell a broken Cadillac to at least half the country.

This is why we demand presidents who are tall, or handsome, or otherwise physically and personally likable.
posted by kid ichorous at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2007 [6 favorites]


Barack running isn't the most interesting thing.

What will really be interesting is who the final Democratic winner is and who that person selects as the VP.

Oddly enough, I'm rooting for Hillary, simply because she's spent some time in the Senate, building relationships and learning from past mistakes. Barack really should finish out his Senate term. Edwards creeps me out because he wants it so bad.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:47 AM on February 10, 2007


I think Obama's logo is so good. It doesn't suffer from the same problems that Kerry's really bad logo did, it doesn't try and just copy Bush's logo either. I would have went with a san serif, but the logo smacks of purity suggests sunlight and optimism rather than power aggression. It is a good logo for a candidate like Obama since it wordlessly reinforces many of his themes.
posted by I Foody at 10:48 AM on February 10, 2007


Also I don't think the lesson of the Bush Presidency is about the danger of an inexperienced chief executive, but rather about an inexperienced chief executive who pridefully holds learning in contempt. Obama is the opposite of this in a couple important ways.
posted by I Foody at 10:52 AM on February 10, 2007


This just in from Pretty Fucking Obvious News: Sun still comes up in the east.
posted by Cyrano at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2007


Obama's resume may be thick with personality and promise, but it's mighty thin on real-world experience. Why do Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — insist upon interviewing (and ultimately hiring) people to be the country's CEO who have no real qualifications or backgound for the job?

Who else are we (democrats) going to pick? Chris Dodd? Joe Bidden? The top three democratic challengers senators with at most one and a quarter terms in office. Bill Richardson might make a good choice, but he's a minor candidate, (and he was supposedly involved in the Wen Ho Lee thing, which would make it difficult for me, personally, to support him).
posted by delmoi at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2007


people to be the country's CEO who have no real qualifications or backgound for the job?

And that's where you totally miss the point. The position of president is not at all one of CEO.

I'm in Kentucky right now for college (I'm from DC). I'm surrounded by red-staters. Hillary is the antichrist to almost everyone here. Barack is untainted, and I think he has a chance here.

I'm willing to suspend my cynicism, and I hope I'm not alone.
posted by phrontist at 10:56 AM on February 10, 2007


Since the Republicans prefer to run against Hillary, I expect to see some major attempts at "swift-boating" of Obama very quickly.
Locally, I'm already seeing the really low-level, sub-grass-roots crap starting. People talking about how Obama is really a muslim. And, yes, the coincidental similarity between his name and Osama. Sadly, there are groups of people who respond to this stuff and, in an electorate that is pretty-much split 50/50, every little group can count.

We are in for some very ugly stuff over the next year.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:57 AM on February 10, 2007


When I mentioned Obama to a friend, she said "Nobody will ever vote for him in the midwest or the south, he has no chance. Bush got elected because of that same divide, the south & the midwest aren't possibly ready to elect a progressive man of color to the Presidency."

Do you guys think that's true? I have lived in California for so long I don't really know what to believe regarding what goes on in other states. Here I know he could get elected. He's the perfect anti-Bush... it's sad to say, but just the fact that he can run an intelligent sentence almost makes him worthy. And I do like him, so that makes me hopeful.
My friend calls me naive.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2007


As the last seven years have shown, the presidency of the United States is no place for on-the-job training.

What, exactly, is appropriate training to be president of the United States? I don't think one can have training to do a job of that magnitude--only preparation, and that involves learning, character, etc.. It's a fallacious analogy to think of a president as a CEO, and I think the last eight years have proven how abysmally bad businessmen are at running the country.

hoverboards don't work on water... the ones that live in the South.

Pot, kettle; kettle, pot. That's an ignorant statement--all of my family is from the south, and still live there, and most are pretty excited about Obama's presidential bid. Several fundamentalist Christians I know here in central California are also very interested in him as a candidate, and very open to voting for him (and these are people who, until about two years ago, were huge Bush supporters).
posted by LooseFilter at 11:00 AM on February 10, 2007


I hope Gore enters the fray.

Fuck that noise. Let's not forget who was Gore's running mate: Joe "Bomb Iraq - Bomb Iran" Liberman. The only Democrat more pro-war than Dick Cheney. Gore is bruised fruit.

Obama's resume may be thick with personality and promise, but it's mighty thin on real-world experience.

That, in my opinion, is a bonus. He's not corrupted by the Libermans of the "Democrat" party and won't be carrying water for them.
posted by three blind mice at 11:02 AM on February 10, 2007


Charismatic leaders are not a good thing.
posted by srboisvert


Agreed. Being overwhelmed by the force of someone else's personality means that you have little if any real internal anchors and any sweet talker can get your pants off.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:05 AM on February 10, 2007


Do you guys think that's true? I have lived in California for so long I don't really know what to believe regarding what goes on in other states.

I'll say it again. I'm in kentucky. I've got some pretty radical christian friends, and they don't know about Barack. I'm curious to see how things play out, but I think many southerners can identify with his faith.
posted by phrontist at 11:09 AM on February 10, 2007


When I mentioned Obama to a friend, she said "Nobody will ever vote for him in the midwest or the south, he has no chance. Bush got elected because of that same divide, the south & the midwest aren't possibly ready to elect a progressive man of color to the Presidency."

I live in Iowa, and I'll actually be going to see Obama speak tomorrow. They had to move the event from a gym to Hilton Coliseum because so many people were getting tickets.

I don't know about the south, but I don't know why so many people think people in the midwest wouldn't vote for a black guy. Also, Harold Ford came close to winning the senate seat in TN.
posted by delmoi at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2007


And, yes, the coincidental similarity between his name and Osama.

I ask again, who is really saying this? It reminds me of "Bush == Chimp" - an insult, but not something that will actually swing votes. Non-Democrats have plenty of real reasons to dislike Obama, just like non-Republicans have plenty of legitimate grievances with Bush.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2007


I am a Southerner. I live in the South. And he had me captivated.
posted by geekhorde at 11:11 AM on February 10, 2007


I have to agree with Rolling Stone's analysis: if Gore waits and enters after the initial Hillary/Obama/Edwards knifefights have begun, it's a cakewalk to the WH for him.

Gore would definitely get my vote. On a bit of an aside: Edwards has actually floated a very interesting health insurance concept. It actually has some meat and shows a lot of foresight. My opinion of him has gone up greatly. If he can articulate his vision well, I wouldn't count him out just yet.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:13 AM on February 10, 2007


I ask again, who is really saying this?
It's just one of those things that get passed around in informal groups. Who knows where it started? For all I know, it started from an offhand remark by some 3rd-string talk-radio moron. The fact is, it's out there.
I mean...c'mon...when you first heard the name "Obama", are you saying your mind, somewhere down deep, didn't think "Osama"? Not in a way to connect the two but, rather, in a "hey, they rhyme!" way?
posted by Thorzdad at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2007


nathancaswell said: Because our country is bruised and bleeding and someone who inspires hope and who represents the complete opposite of every miserable thing America has come to mean in the past seven years is exactly what we need right now?

Hope is a good thing: never deprive some of it if that's all they left. However, hope will not be enough to handle the serious practical problems facing America in the coming years, including, but not limited to: fallout — let's hope not literally — from the ever-chaotic situation in the Middle East; ongoing climatological (and agricultural) effects from global warming; ever-increasing demand for oil, coal, and other energy sources; the emerging Chinese juggernaut; a resurgent Russia; employment and wages under immigration and outsourcing pressure; affordable health care and education; et al.

These will have to met and managed with something other than hopeful speeches. There are no perfect candidates or solutions, but let's have someone who has already wrestled, win or lose, with these kinds of national and international challenges. Barack Obama is not that person.

three blind mice said: He's not corrupted by the Libermans of the "Democrat" party and won't be carrying water for them.

If and when Obama — like any other fresh-faced 'Washington outsider' — makes it to the Presidency, he'll have to carry buckets of somebody's water to get there. And when you become President, baby, you're the ultimate Insider.
posted by cenoxo at 11:20 AM on February 10, 2007


I mean...c'mon...when you first heard the name "Obama", are you saying your mind, somewhere down deep, didn't think "Osama"? Not in a way to connect the two but, rather, in a "hey, they rhyme!" way?

Absolutely, especially considering his middle name's Hussein. But I don't buy that it will influence voters - even the most viciously ignorant drooling morons - any more than the haw-haw-bush-looks-like-a-monkey crap.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:26 AM on February 10, 2007


Meggo Steve, your "Have we learned nothing" link is biased interpretation of the worst kind. You'll note that the Bush logo - which is highly lauded therein - commits one of the worst sins of typographic treatment: excessive emphasis through BOLD ITALIC ALL CAPS. Furthermore, the flag's bumps ruin the strong top line of the text, and the '04 is visually unmoored from the structure of the rest of the design. Bush's logo wasn't any better than Kerry's.

And while the Kerry logo is bad, yes, the author picks on the kerning of "Kerry" and "Edwards". Especially in the "Ke" letter-spacing example, those letters are spaced together as tightly as they'll fit short of a ligature (which our Texan author would have derided as elitist and effete, no doubt). Does the designer propose Kerry should change his name to avoid the awkward letter-spacing required to spell it?

I don't much like the Obama logo, but that's nothing surprising. Political logos are a miserable lot across the board. I'd love to see Scott Dadich's sketches for political logos, but he's obviously campaigning for a job in some political party's graphic design house.
posted by Richard Daly at 11:27 AM on February 10, 2007



People are going to knock Obama for not having any concrete proposals. But people don't give a shit about plans. As long as he can keep making speeches like that one, he's going to walk away with this thing.


Not primary voters. He has to get specific, and concrete fast, or he'll be left behind. He has to show courage and spine and actually stick his neck out even a little and show he's not afraid (See Edwards and the swiftboating of his bloggers for just one small example).
posted by amberglow at 11:29 AM on February 10, 2007


Inexperience isn't the problem; as president, you can hire all the experience you want in the form of your cabinet. How can you claim "inexperience" led us to the current mess when the Bush admin has a ton of people who have been in & out of the white house since the Nixon era, and by all accounts simply feed Bush his instructions?

The real problem is corruption, compromising one's own values, overconfidence in one's self. The lies seem like truth if you repeat them enough.

Because Obama hasn't been playing the game as long as these other jokers there's a chance he won't be as swayed by greed and corporate influence as the other candidates so clearly are. A slim chance, but we are running out of time to have someone bring integrity back to government.

Experience is plentiful and can be easily hired out. A fresh perspective untainted by corruption is what has been missing these past few decades.
posted by Operation Afterglow at 11:30 AM on February 10, 2007


McCain is about as far to the right as one can get and at the same time pretending not to be there...
Obama has but two years in congress...no experience. So too this guy
http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/early.htm
and became the greatest president we have ever had (unless you believe FDR better). Name? Abe Lincoln.
posted by Postroad at 11:30 AM on February 10, 2007


He's just as guilty of not doing anything about these challenges (which is why a sitting senator rarely wins)--

All of us know what those challenges are today - a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

posted by amberglow at 11:32 AM on February 10, 2007


great assessment cenoxo - I do wish he had more experience to handle the list of issues you've mentioned.

I'm torn about this - I really want a progressive person in there, but maybe this is the best we can do. I don't have the blinding hatred that people have for Hillary, but really hope the Democratic establishment will get behind someone who can win. Of course, maybe we could get Obama pres, Edwards vice pres, and Hillary, Gore and Dean in the cabinet As an aside, why did Gore pick Lieberman? I never got a definitive answer.

MegoSteve, I respectfully disagree regarding the logo - don't let the dislike of serifs get in the way of the design. I also think the site's got great potential and verzy smartly put together.
posted by rmm at 11:33 AM on February 10, 2007


And when you become President, baby, you're the ultimate Insider.

Yeah, just like Jimmy Carter was.
posted by three blind mice at 11:34 AM on February 10, 2007


As an aside, why did Gore pick Lieberman? I never got a definitive answer.

Because the Democrats are as beholden to the Bush ME policy as the Republicans are.

Obama and maybe Edwards are the only candidates who seems likely to change this.
posted by three blind mice at 11:36 AM on February 10, 2007


He himself is saving all his "meeting these challenges" for his campaign literature, instead of doing anything while in Congress about these problems--he was not on board for even a single one of the proposed binding and concrete Iraq resolution, for instance--not Feingold, not any of them--his simple attachment to them would have helped enormously.
posted by amberglow at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2007


As an aside, why did Gore pick Lieberman? I never got a definitive answer.
Because of Clinton's Monica problems. Gore was running away from Clinton the whole time, and Lieberman was religious and spoke out in moral terms against him.
posted by amberglow at 11:41 AM on February 10, 2007


I, for one, like Obama and I think that given the chance he could do a good job. But I'm not going to sit back and fling poo at whomever gets the nom because 4 more years of Republicans is too dismal to contemplate.

And I'm from the South. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
posted by Medieval Maven at 11:42 AM on February 10, 2007


Didn't he introduce his own withdrawal resolution?
posted by empath at 11:44 AM on February 10, 2007


I think we have a problem here. What is the demographics of MetaFilter? Who are the Mefites that say he can or cannot get elected. Who are the mefites who are 'speaking for the southeners'? Sorry to say, but the average Mefite is probably a lot smarter and a lot more involved than your average voter. So stating 'truths' like Hilary or Obama are un-electable or that Gor is the Man is really just a waste of bandwith. Polls may be a bit hard to swallow, but as it stands Hilary is at 56% in some polls. Beating everyone. Oddly enough they haven't polled Hilary Vs. Barack yet.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
posted by Gungho at 11:50 AM on February 10, 2007


commits one of the worst sins of typographic treatment: excessive emphasis through BOLD ITALIC ALL CAPS.

This is not a sin. It's some shit they teach at art school to make students feel important, educated and most imporatnly, "in the know".

Every goddamed design "rule" can be broken. Having white text on a dark background does NOTHING to limit Metafilter's popularity, not a damn thing. It's the CONTENT that matters.

The Kerry logo is crap, for the main reason that he ran a crappy campaign and lost. Had Bush lost, his logo would be regarded as arrogant and cold, because he lost.

Logos don't make the man. The man makes the logo. Barack's looks a little weak, but as someone else mentioned upthread, it actually looks more uplifting, bright and promising. This isn't a man who throws down a hammer, expecting you to follow, no matter what. It's a man who is saying "I got great ideas that are going to make the world a better place. Come join us."

Time will tell if he lives up that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2007


Didn't he introduce his own withdrawal resolution?

Yes. On January 30, he introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.
This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.
posted by grabbingsand at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2007


I am a progressive, but if its between McCain and Hillary, I will vote for John McCain.
In what way are you a progressive? And are you aware that John McCain's policies are not remotely progressive?

He is more progressive than, say, Rick Santorum or James Inhofe. But that's not saying much, and it's the best that can be said.

If you truly are progressive, please rethink this position.
posted by Flunkie at 12:00 PM on February 10, 2007


cenoxo said: And when you become President, baby, you're the ultimate Insider.

three blind mice: Yeah, just like Jimmy Carter was.

Some intelligent, capable people may gain a wider audience, earn more respect, and accomplish more by not becoming President. Barack is relatively young: let him get some worthwhile experience to credibly back his opinions, then run.

And for the sake of sore knees, let's not choose Obama because he appears to be the opposite of Bush. You can hit a lot more unseen obstacles going in reverse.
posted by cenoxo at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2007


Let's look at his voting record:

Obama voted for illegal search, surveillance and random interrogations of American citizens.

Obama voted to install a bureaucrat who has a history of enabling and encouraging depotism and torture around the world that benefits American corporate interests.

Obama voted for the promotion of incompetent federal employees who allowed 9/11 on their watch by ignoring intelligence.

Obama voted to waste tax dollars on a Christian fundamentalist agenda of sexual abstinence, a policy which has been shown to be useless1 in preventing pregancies and STDs. Further, this policy ignores the requirements of separation of church and state in our Constitution.

In short, Obama's voting record betrays is a despot-in-waiting and a religious kook, whose election would further exacerbate the massive economic, social, civil rights and foreign policy problems brought about by two terms of George W. Bush's ineptitude.

1: Abstinence education, independent of HIV infection rates, fails miserably. This is confirmed with numerous statistical studies. Education about birth control has been statistically demonstrated to work successfully to reduce HIV and other STD rates in Africa and SE Asia.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:06 PM on February 10, 2007 [7 favorites]


..."sore knees" as in the sense of kneejerk reactions, that is.
posted by cenoxo at 12:06 PM on February 10, 2007


what they just said.

And i'd really like to know how Obama plans on fighting and countering all this shit (as well as the shit that's already been flung--and stuck)
posted by amberglow at 12:07 PM on February 10, 2007


So I'm watching the video of his announcement.

Somehow, when I think of Barack Obama, I do not think of U2.
posted by Target Practice at 12:16 PM on February 10, 2007


Iraq plans divide Democratic hopefuls--The candidates shift attention from attacking Bush's strategy to defining their own, and criticizing each others'. -- ... Obama's announcement set him at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has declined to specify a date for the removal of all troops from Iraq. Last week, Clinton proposed placing a cap on the number of U.S. troops and threatening Iraq's government with a withdrawal of support. ...
Also coming in for Biden's scorn was former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who six months ago offered a plan for withdrawal and became the favorite of many antiwar activists. Edwards called for an immediate reduction of 40,000 troops, with all forces to leave the country — though not the region — within 18 months. ...

posted by amberglow at 12:17 PM on February 10, 2007


Well, speaking for myself, I repeated that a friend said she didn't think Obama could get elected in the South, and that I don't know if I agree. So I asked people's opinions here, because I wanted to hear what they sense. Yes, MeFites are definitely a lot more savvy & intellectual than the average American. But in this case I figured people would answer the question based upon what they sense in the communities around them since I posed it that way.

So yeah, there's a demographic issue if we're only talking about the opinion of individuals on MetaFilter... but since people are on here from all over, I think it's a great place to hear the observed reactions/opinions of their neighbors & communities.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2007


Who cares who's running for POTUS? Americans can't fix the U.S. system simply by electing a President who's clean and articulate (not even Gore Vidal, my favorite "what-if"); any U.S. President is mostly a figurehead and most are merely some "special interest's" puppets. A more thorough regime change is in order, and has been for decades. But hey, if most of my fellow Americans didn't like what they get you'd've fixed this long ago, so...
posted by davy at 12:31 PM on February 10, 2007


In short, Obama's voting record betrays is a despot-in-waiting and a religious kook, whose election would further exacerbate the massive economic, social, civil rights and foreign policy problems brought about by two terms of George W. Bush's ineptitude.

Did you produce these campaign ads? I'm sure Edwards' voting record would look just as bad, if not worse. That doesn't mean Edwards is a less progressive candidate.
posted by delmoi at 12:34 PM on February 10, 2007


Well, speaking for myself, I repeated that a friend said she didn't think Obama could get elected in the South, and that I don't know if I agree.

We don't need to win the south to win the presidency.
posted by delmoi at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2007


Great thread. Thanks all.
posted by nickyskye at 12:39 PM on February 10, 2007


I think it's because it's more about who they surround themselves with and listen to, that it's even more important, davy. I think we have to look at leadership, and judgments and reasoning, and teams, and whether they cast a wide net or not, and whether they have any driving visions or passions or ideals that can even partly be implemented. Are we seeing cowardice or don't-stick-your-neck out safety, or are we seeing bold forward-thinking drive? Are we seeing calculated, focus-grouped statements or plain truths? Are we seeing Sistah Souljah acts meant to disparage and separate, or a gathering-in and activation of the immense diversity of the Democratic party? ...

(i've been watching Obama very closely since the last thread on him here--i still don't see enough leadership, courage, or tangible accomplishments)
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on February 10, 2007


We don't need to win the south to win the presidency.

We don't. What we do need is women--most importantly single women.
posted by amberglow at 12:44 PM on February 10, 2007


amberglow, funny you should say that:

Then, running preliminary polls, his advisers noticed something remarkable: Women responded more intensely and warmly to Obama than did men. In a seven-candidate field, you don't need to win every vote. His advisers, assuming they would pick up a healthy chunk of black votes, honed in on a different target: Every focus group they ran was composed exclusively of women, nearly all of them white.

There is an amazingly candid moment in Obama's autobiography when he writes of his childhood discomfort at the way his mother would sexualize African-American men. "More than once," he recalls, "my mother would point out: 'Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man on the planet.' " What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama's political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man. "I remember when we realized something magical was happening," says Obama's pollster on the campaign, an earnest Iowan named Paul Harstad. "We were doing a focus group in suburban Chicago, and this woman, seventy years old, looks seventy-five, hears Obama's life story, and she clasps her hand to her chest and says, 'Be still, my heart.' Be still, my heart -- I've been doing this for a quarter century and I've never seen that." The most remarkable thing, for Harstad, was that the woman hadn't even seen the videos he had brought along of Obama speaking, had no idea what the young politician looked like. "All we'd done," he says, "is tell them the Story."

posted by empath at 12:48 PM on February 10, 2007


Okay, so here's what my original post said, it wasn't just about the South.
I'm a single woman though! So I can help with that! :)
posted by miss lynnster at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2007


Did you produce these campaign ads?

Yes, delmoi, in my spare time I create attack ads for the GOP. You've outed me.

Did you bother to read the links at all? I really think people supporting Obama need to look past the color of his skin and actually look at what he has voted for and against.

The reason this country is in such a shithole is because people are too lazy to look past a candidate's superficialities and can't be bothered to do any research or demonstrate critical thinking skills.

I don't care that Obama is black and that voting for him would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I care that he voted for the Iraq war, that he voted for the PATRIOT Act, and that he has demonstrated through his legislative activities that he has just about as much disrespect for human rights and the US Constitution as George W. Bush.

I'm sure Edwards' voting record would look just as bad, if not worse. That doesn't mean Edwards is a less progressive candidate.

I didn't bring up Edwards. Since this thread isn't about Edwards, I have no links about his voting record. Feel free to start a thread about it, if you like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2007


Barack Obama didn't vote for the war and was outspoken in his opposition to it before it started.

Edwards voted for the war.
posted by empath at 12:53 PM on February 10, 2007


I'm holding out for a president who didn't attend Harvard or Yale. Fuck that Ivy Leaguer.

I know that's shallow of me, but no more shallow than all you people singing your hallelujahs how great and smart and charismatic he is and how wonderful a president he will be, despite expressing no views that aren't platitudes, refusing to speak up for obvious, no-brainer liberal positions, supporting a bunch of pernicious legislation, and apparently seeing the good in every side of every argument.
posted by jayder at 12:59 PM on February 10, 2007


He abstained from voting, which to me has the same effect as standing aside and humming from the ivory tower, while innocent people get slaughtered left and right.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 PM on February 10, 2007


OBAMA!!1!
Enough already. I'll probably vote for the fucker and who cares?
posted by nj_subgenius at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2007


It's not as if inexperienced outsider automatically equates to ABRAHAM LINCOLN! A great number of people are behaving as if it does.

It's like counting on a million-to-one chance because you read Guards! Guards!.

I would prefer not to vote for Senator Obama because of that, and also because he seems perfectly happy to throw secular Americans under the bus. I won't forget that scolding speech he gave in which he blamed secular Democrats for the plight of the country. In part, the speech talked about how secular Democrats should just shut up and tolerate the ever-increasing rate of religious demagoguery in our country because the people need hope. When Barack Obama talks about 'hope' substitute the word 'religion'.
posted by winna at 1:06 PM on February 10, 2007


Unscientific personal observation:

Obama, as the "charismatic" Democratic candidate will win if he attracts the huge uniformed voting base.

Here's what I mean: For the last six years I have met countless idiots (for lack of a better word) who identified themselves as "Republicans" and "conservatives" simply because that was the fashion of the day. They didn't know politics from a hole in the ground, but they knew they were conservatives.

That viewpoint has taken such a public beating that even the dim-witted among those have woken up to some degree. I think this large group is most likely to vote for the "rock star" Democrat. Beats thinking.

Personal opinion only, YMMV.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:15 PM on February 10, 2007


Yeah, but he's a Unitarian. Don't paint him as a fundy.
posted by maryh at 1:16 PM on February 10, 2007


What's really sad -- and shows a remarkable regression in our nation, in my opinion -- is that Abraham Lincoln, when he was running for office, refused to state what his religious faith was, and was roundly attacked for it. If I recall my reading about Lincoln correctly, Lincoln never would come out and say what his faith was. That shows a force of character that would be truly stunning even today, and makes me ponder what has led our nation into such a decline. This Obama nitwit certainly doesn't have that kind of character --- instead, he delivers shameful, pandering speeches like the one linked by winna. This attempt of Obama's to link himself to Lincoln is just more shameful pandering, because for the reason of his lack of courage on the religion issue alone, he is not worthy of being mentioned alongside Lincoln.
posted by jayder at 1:16 PM on February 10, 2007


Yeah, but he's a Unitarian. Don't paint him as a fundy.

No, Obama is a Baptist.
posted by jayder at 1:18 PM on February 10, 2007


Did you bother to read the links at all? I really think people supporting Obama need to look past the color of his skin and actually look at what he has voted for and against.

And my point is that that's not a good way to decide who to vote for for president. A voting record tells you nothing about what a candidate believes and what their priorities will be as president.

I care that he voted for the Iraq war

I didn't know the Illinois state legislature went to war with Iraq! Crazy!

I won't forget that scolding speech he gave in which he blamed secular Democrats for the plight of the country.

That was the old Barak! The new Barak is running in the post-2006 democratic primaries.

Anyway, I'm annoyed that the guy is treated like the second coming of Jesus because he gave some speeches that they liked wherein he criticized other politicians for being not as awesome as him.
posted by delmoi at 1:21 PM on February 10, 2007


Yeah, but he's a Unitarian. Don't paint him as a fundy.

The unitarian church isn't even spesifically Christian as far as I know, right?
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on February 10, 2007


"This is not a sin. It's some shit they teach at art school to make students feel important, educated and most imporatnly, "in the know".

Uh, what? Design has rules the same way English has rules. Are our English teachers teaching grammar to induct us into the prescriptivist cool clique? In design, as in English, there are no laws, but there are guidelines, and there are solid reasons for the better ones. Of course you can do well by breaking them, but it requires care and consideration for the underlying reasons for the rule.

To put it another way, the rules don't exist ex nihilo, but your audience may well expect you to abide by them, and if you violate your audience's expectations you risk undermining your own communication. In this case, George Bush wanted to be president (again) and he was running with a logo that would have been more appropriate on a flight suited action figure with an articulated codpiece. Hell, maybe it was intentional!

Every goddamed design "rule" can be broken. Having white text on a dark background does NOTHING to limit Metafilter's popularity, not a damn thing. It's the CONTENT that matters."

It's the content of the logo that matters? All possible Bush logos would have the same content: Bush. It's the presentation of that content (Full name, running mate, font, etc) that's going to separate a good logo from a bad one.

To put this another way, while white text isn't a death blow to The Blue, MeFi would be at a disadvantage if it suffered from early nineties web design.
posted by Richard Daly at 1:22 PM on February 10, 2007


A voting record tells you nothing about what a candidate believes and what their priorities will be as president.

I couldn't disagree more. In fact, on what other reasonable basis can you expect that a candidate will follow through on his or her campaign promises, in exchange for your vote? Their word?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on February 10, 2007


That viewpoint has taken such a public beating that even the dim-witted among those have woken up to some degree. I think this large group is most likely to vote for the "rock star" Democrat. Beats thinking.

I think you're right. And so, I think Obama will get the nod and probably head to the white house. I think, realistically he has a much better shot at beating Hilliary then Edwards does outside of the initial states.
posted by delmoi at 1:24 PM on February 10, 2007


Blazecock, your link is to a procedural bill regarding the inclusion of Iraq funding in the budget. It has no relevence to the topic at hand, as should be obvious to anyone. Obama was not even in the Senate at the time of the vote to authorize the war in Iraq. He has been on the record in opposition to it from the start.

I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about the coming election. Even if my dream candidate, Gore, does not enter the fray, I've got the feeling that, in spite of idealogical differences, all of the front runners, even McCain are basically good people and will try to do right by the American people and the world. Something I do not believe is true for the cabal currently in power.
posted by Manjusri at 1:24 PM on February 10, 2007


Yeah, but he's a Unitarian. Don't paint him as a fundy.

No, Obama is a Baptist.


We're both wrong. He belongs to the United Church of Christ.
posted by maryh at 1:26 PM on February 10, 2007


About the Obama/UCC smear.
posted by maryh at 1:29 PM on February 10, 2007


Blazecock, your link is to a procedural bill regarding the inclusion of Iraq funding in the budget

Funding a war is support for the war. Anyway, it doesn't detract from legitimate criticisms of his horrible record as a Senator.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:33 PM on February 10, 2007


I couldn't disagree more. In fact, on what other reasonable basis can you expect that a candidate will follow through on his or her campaign promises, in exchange for your vote? Their word?

Basically, but more spesifically their words over a long period of time. Without knowing why they voted a certain way on a particular bill you can't really know if the bill represents their actual views. Sometimes times votes may be bargaining chips used to make legislation less onerous. A lot of times, passage of the bill depends on a core group of supporters, and it doesn't matter if a true opponent votes for it or not. If you look at Lieberman's voting record, he comes out very pro choice, and pro-gay. Is he?

Unless you look closely at the history of each bill, as well as the text you can't really use it to determine where a candidate stands. Simplifying the PATRIOT act to "Illegal searching" is far to simplistic. That doesn't mean Obama will go hog-wild illegally searching people as president. It doesn't mean he won't pull troops from Iraq, or invade Iran.

You have to look at his statements, which fights he takes up, who he surrounds himself with and so on. Trying to "Objectively" measure a person is absurd.
posted by delmoi at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2007


For some reason Eddie Murphy's SNL portrayal of the first black President comes to mind. BO has the same (National) experience as Lincoln did when he became President. He was also from Illinois, well sorta, just like BO. You remember Lincoln; he was the first guy that destroyed the constitution to preserve the union. Lincoln is being tried this week for racism, based on his speeches. I think BO is a pretty cool cat, (can I say that?) and with his background and Islamic schooling when he was younger, I think he has a much broader perspective to understand some of the problems we are facing.
posted by MapGuy at 1:44 PM on February 10, 2007


Design has rules the same way English has rules.

There's a bit of difference between graphic design and english.

In this case, George Bush wanted to be president (again) and he was running with a logo that would have been more appropriate on a flight suited action figure with an articulated codpiece.

That's exactly right and yes intentional.

It's the content of the logo that matters?

No, it's the content of the candidate that matters, or the content of Metafilter that matters. They make the logo.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:46 PM on February 10, 2007


I think BO is a pretty cool cat, (can I say that?) and with his background and Islamic schooling when he was younger

*blink*
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on February 10, 2007


He is more progressive than, say, Rick Santorum or James Inhofe.

Anyone is more progressive than Jim Inhofe. Inhofe makes the John Birch Society look like Communist sympathizers.

When Tom Coburn is the sane, decent, intelligent, and least demagogue-like of the two senators from Oklahoma, something is wrong with this world.

(Coburn and Obama are friends, BTW. Their wives hit it off at the US Senate orientation.)
posted by dw at 1:51 PM on February 10, 2007


If you look at Lieberman's voting record, he comes out very pro choice, and pro-gay. Is he?

Being opportunistic, he has voted the will of his constituents. While he may personally object to abortions and gay sex, his responsibility is to represent his voters.

A voter in Connecticut can expect that, while Joe may be an asshole in person, on the issues he will consistently listen to and act upon the wishes of those who vote for him — as he should. And being elected repeatedly is usually a sign that the majority of voters accept him as their representative (or perhaps the voting machines are broken).

Prior actions have always been a better indicator of future behavior than campaign promises.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:53 PM on February 10, 2007


Well, I made it to Springfield today and was in the crowd. It was cold, but worth it.

I hope we can put this man in office.
posted by washburn at 1:55 PM on February 10, 2007


delmoi *blink*
Google it. Hillary's team has, insight magazine has an article. Too lazy to find and link, sorry.
posted by MapGuy at 1:59 PM on February 10, 2007


Being opportunistic, he [lieberman] has voted the will of his constituents. While he may personally object to abortions and gay sex, his responsibility is to represent his voters.

So his constituents support the war? So are you saying that Obama is voting the "will of his constituents" or he, unlike Lieberman, not an opportunist and so all his votes are votes of conscious?

Anyway, the actual answer is that Lieberman does not support gay rights or the right to chose, but manipulates his voting to score higher on various "objective" rankings.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on February 10, 2007


Google it. Hillary's team has, insight magazine has an article. Too lazy to find and link, sorry.

I'm guessing you were trying to be sarcastic, but a lot of people take off hand comments as being true, or literal.
posted by delmoi at 2:01 PM on February 10, 2007


I think BO is a pretty cool cat, (can I say that?) and with his background and Islamic schooling when he was younger

*blink*


Grrr... Mapguy, you're playing into some nasty talking points from the right. From wikipedia:
His mother married an Indonesian foreign student, Lolo Soetoro, with whom she had one daughter. The family moved to Jakarta where Obama attended local schools from ages 6 to 10.[

The school he attended there was Christian. This whole 'Obama is a tool of Islamofascists" is already getting play with the wingnuts. Can we not give it space here, too?
posted by maryh at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2007


Hey at 10:12 in the tape was that Chelsea Clinton in the crowd? Oh, no she didn't....
posted by MapGuy at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2007


Yeah, but he's a Unitarian. Don't paint him as a fundy.

No, Obama is a Baptist.

We're both wrong. He belongs to the United Church of Christ.


Let's be clear about something: Obama is not a fundamentalist. He is openly religious, which apparently is giving a bunch of lefties the heebie-jeebies about theocratic rule for no good reason. But the UCC is about as liberal a mainline church as you can get. They've been ordaining open homosexuals since what, the early 1970s? They're congregationalist in structure, meaning that they're more a confederacy in structure and aren't some monolithic hivemind. Personally, I think they can be mealy-mouthed about stating their beliefs (but I'm in the PC(USA) which is notorious for punting on taking action), but they're a long, long, long way from the oligarchy currently running the Southern Baptist Convention.

A theocracy run by the UCC would be open, affirming, and gridlocked. Just make sure you bring what you were assigned to the government-mandated potlucks lest you spend time in Gitmo being silently scorned.
posted by dw at 2:04 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think it's a safe guess that he's got Illinois' electoral votes.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 2:05 PM on February 10, 2007


...because he seems perfectly happy to throw secular Americans under the bus. I won't forget that scolding speech he gave in which he blamed secular Democrats for the plight of the country. ...
Me neither--especially at a time with the Religious Right so entwined in everything--from the Pentagon and administration to Congress and Courts and School Boards, etc. I think that's what i need to hear strongly and clearly from him--stuff that will not a)knock his own party to distinguish himself, and b) respect those of us with different faiths and no faiths, and understand that morals are not dependent on faith and that priorities and needs and doing stuff for others isn't either.

We don't need another man in the White House who wears his faith on his sleeve--we need someone who will do good, repair damage, and help Americans in need, regardless of the reasons.
posted by amberglow at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2007


Mapguy: see also.
posted by maryh at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2007


Telegraph: Obama rejects claim of Islamic schooling

The Telegraph is very conservative. Actually, Insight's claim that it came from "anonymous sources in the Clinton campaign" suggests a little misdirected mud to me.

Insight appears to be the only source for this story and they are in no way a credible journal.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:09 PM on February 10, 2007



There's a bit of difference between graphic design and english.


Well, sure. But they're both symbolic communication forms dependant on cultural interpretation through psychology and aesthetics.

I think my overall point (and it's one I suspect we agree on) is that the commentary offered by the linked editorial is not a design crit of the logo, but is instead a political opinion, delivered by proxy, offered by a Texan who sees nothing wrong with the enormous phallus of the BUSH logo. A different author could have just as easily criticized that logo for being juvenile and un-serious, but this one instead chose to laud Bush for reasons outside the scope of the design.
posted by Richard Daly at 2:11 PM on February 10, 2007


maryh
Yeah read the whole thing, then read what I said. I think it's cool that he has had exposure to, as I said "and with his background and Islamic schooling when he was younger". Why is everyone afraid of words?
posted by MapGuy at 2:13 PM on February 10, 2007


Blazecock, did you ever read about the bill your talking about, the one Obama declined a vote on? From the site you linked to:

"Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a non-binding, amendment that expresses the Senate's will that future military operation funds be included in the regular budget proposal and not in an emergency supplemental appropriation bill.

Highlights:

- Requests all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas especially in Afghanistan and Iraq be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal

- Calls for the President to submit to Congress by Sept 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas

- Asks that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included"

Are you saying that he should've voted 'No' and join such luminaries as Orrin Hatch and Jim Inhofe? I don't think you even read what the bill was about, and decided, based on the name alone, that Obama abstaining meant that he dosen't care about "innocent people being slaughtered left and right," and that his non-vote was the same as "funding the war," when, in fact, it was about a bill to compel the President to include Iraq expenditures in the Federal Budgt, and not to ask for emergency funding. I'm pretty neutral on the man so far, I have no idea why you see the need to smear him with falsehoods and obsfucation.
posted by Snyder at 2:15 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think a lot of people are underestimating the instinctive revulsion that a lot of the middle of the country (political middle) feels for the 'Democrat' party -- for what it's worth, I think Obama comes off as a mediator between the two parties. He's above the fray, somehow -- sort of in his own party. I think that will count a lot for people who are uncomfortable with the Kerrys and the Howards Deans of the world, and perhaps more importantly for those who feel betrayed by the Republican party and are looking for a way out.

Anyone who thinks that Obama won't find a ton of purchase in the more libertarian-conservative parts of the Midwest is in a for a huge, huge surprise. I'm skeptical about some large parts of the South, but I'm not too confident that Hillary would take any of those states, anyway.
posted by spiderwire at 2:15 PM on February 10, 2007


And I suppose someone would get twisted if I said his dad was a goat hurder. Well.... bring it on ;P
posted by MapGuy at 2:16 PM on February 10, 2007


Or, better yet, let's focus the debate on these two questions:
(1) What states would Hillary have a better chance of taking in the Electoral College than Obama?
(2) What states would Obama have a better chance of taking than Hillary?

It seems to me that they've got an equally good shot at most of the states that went Blue in the last couple elections, but Obama gets the nod in the all-important Ohio, as well as in some of the states that have been on the fence in the Midwest and Southwest.

Ohio deserves some special focus -- Obama is from Illinois and he built his campaign there on reaching out to people who'd lost manufacturing jobs. He's practically designed to take Ohio, and for me that makes him the perfect candidate. Aside from the fact that I like him in pretty much every other imaginable way.
posted by spiderwire at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think that's what i need to hear strongly and clearly from him--stuff that will not a)knock his own party to distinguish himself,

I could do with him knocking the Dems some more. They're a pathetic excuse for an opposition party.
posted by Snyder at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2007


Don't miss "Hillary's" reaction: THE SECRET DIARY OF HILLARY CLINTON. Comedy gold.
posted by spock at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2007


Amen to that, Snyder.
posted by Medieval Maven at 2:29 PM on February 10, 2007


"I really want to believe in this guy. I don't know why, but I do."
I used to be more of a "show me" guy who didn't think pretty speeches were worth spit, but in light of our recent history and looking back on better times I think there is a lot to be said for someone who gets the "vision thing".
Hell, if only because it would make us look good on the world stage because we had a leader who was articulate and didn't make up cute nicknames for everybody.
posted by 2sheets at 2:31 PM on February 10, 2007


We don't need another man in the White House who wears his faith on his sleeve

It almost seems to me that what you're saying is that (a) an open profession of religious faith should disqualify one for public office and (b) because both Bush and Obama do that, the consequences of electing Obama would be similar.

The problem I have with accepting that interpretation of your remarks is that it's bigoted and stupid. Maybe you should clarify.
posted by namespan at 2:32 PM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


It's pretty sad that we've become so inured by the vapidity of the Bush Presidency that now when a candidate speaks with any hint of conviction or inspiration, we immediately dismiss him for lack of substance.
posted by spiderwire at 2:36 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Good graphic design involves an understanding of psychology & sociology. Certain colors and shapes and typefaces that bring out certain emotions in people that they aren't even aware of. It's really more of a science than a lot of people realize. When it comes to branding, it's often a lot more important what is on a product's package than in the product itself... after all, there could be 30 different dishwashing detergents on the shelf that are often almost the same thing, and good design often puts one into the purchaser's basket over another. Companies pay big for design that will tap those instincts.

I think Barack's logo is good. Definitely. It says a lot. It's well thought out. The O could've just been a plain, boring "O", but instead they faded the inside edge to imply a little more of a 3D circle... which in turn can represent the world. It's got the red, white & blue of all politicians logos, but it's far more unique, designed, and subtle than that old overdone flag motif or flying star.

It's a unique approach for an American election logo, because instead of focusing on the flag, Obama's logo subliminally focuses on the world. Then the red stripes of the flag were then added to represent a horizon. Okay, here's where the design gets even trickier: the curve of that horizon is very deliberate. If it was just straight across, it would have a different message. Inside of that globe, the curved horizon ALSO represents the world and the new tomorrow that they want you to believe Obama can bring. (Curves often represent promise... that's why there are no straight streets in the City of Beverly Hills, you can't see the end of the street anywhere there. The city map was designed that way so that people would always feel like there's something wonderful around the corner.) As it's executed, the red stripes could represent roads to some people (which is good) and I could also see that to some people they could represent fields, which could appeal to people in more rural areas.

So in a sense, Obama's logo shows our flag wrapping around the world... in a soft, pleasant, happier tomorrows kind of way. And that? Is EXACTLY the perfect image for his campaign. Now, if he lives up to the promises of his logo is a whole 'nother thing.

YES... this, my friends is what art school and a 15 year design career can do to you. It makes you get this anal retentive about how you see EVERYTHING. Jesus, my head hurts.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:58 PM on February 10, 2007 [3 favorites]


Oh yeah, and the whole blue sky thing in the logo... that's yet another promise made by that logo. The color of it matches the color of '08. Which kind of tells you that if you act in '08 by voting for him, you will receive blue skies.
Wow, do I have the most manipulative job in the world, or what?
posted by miss lynnster at 3:02 PM on February 10, 2007


in other news: OBAMA REFUSES TO GIVE SPECIFIC DATE WHEN HE STOPPED BEATING HIS WIFE.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2007



I could do with him knocking the Dems some more. They're a pathetic excuse for an opposition party.

Then why is running as a Democrat, and why is he a Democratic Senator? Let him go be a Lieberman or an Independent.

It almost seems to me that what you're saying is that (a) an open profession of religious faith should disqualify one for public office and (b) because both Bush and Obama do that, the consequences of electing Obama would be similar.

The problem I have with accepting that interpretation of your remarks is that it's bigoted and stupid. Maybe you should clarify.

It's not just an open profession---it's the uses it's put to, and the reasonings stated, and the dog whistle politics, and the separating of Americans into those good people with faith, and everyone else. It's the ascribing of morality to one faith alone, and it's the pandering. It's the enabling of bigotry and stupidity that such actions contain. It's the "i'm not like those Godless Democrats; i'm like you" that is immensely offensive and bigoted and stupid.

I also want to know more about Obama and the DLC
posted by amberglow at 3:04 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


blazecock, your links to obama's voting record would be marginally informative if you weren't spinning the ever-loving fuck out of them and completely distorting their meanings.

s. con res. 18 was about as laughably far from a 'christian fundamentalist agenda of sexual abstinence'; i don't know what you think "prescription coverage for contraceptives" means but it sure isn't abstinence. nor was the agenda christian fundamentalist: the voting record was basically party line and almost every democrat in the senate voted yes on that bill.

what gives, blazecock karlrove?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 3:15 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Then why is running as a Democrat, and why is he a Democratic Senator? Let him go be a Lieberman or an Independent.

Because while the Dems have many problems, including"Shut the fuck up and vote for us, progressives, because we're the only choice you got," they are not the Repubs and it can help to have the backing of a large state/national party to help you win office.

It's not just an open profession---it's the uses it's put to, and the reasonings stated, and the dog whistle politics, and the separating of Americans into those good people with faith, and everyone else. It's the ascribing of morality to one faith alone, and it's the pandering. It's the enabling of bigotry and stupidity that such actions contain. It's the "i'm not like those Godless Democrats; i'm like you" that is immensely offensive and bigoted and stupid.

You want to show me where he does all that? As oppossed to showing he takes his faith seriously, and not just the typical Dem, "Yeah, I'm a person of faith, whatever hurf durf," mealey-mouthed pandering?
posted by Snyder at 3:18 PM on February 10, 2007


YES... this, my friends is what art school and a 15 year design career can do to you. It makes you get this anal retentive about how you see EVERYTHING.

I noticed the fields and sunrise motif. I think it's brilliant, a total departure from the boring political logos we've been plagued with, although a little "web2.0" Web2.0 style isn't cliche in the real world.

Anyway it just reinforces his image: Getting all the surface details right.
posted by delmoi at 3:20 PM on February 10, 2007


I also want to know more about Obama and the DLC

"I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."

- Barack Obama, June 26 2003
posted by edverb at 3:28 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


blazecock, your links to obama's voting record would be marginally informative if you weren't spinning the ever-loving fuck out of them and completely distorting their meanings.

That's the other thing, you're not even Blazecock is presenting his votes on various bills as if they were votes on his one-line hyper-hyperbolic and innacurate descriptions of them.

Also, who do you support BCP?
posted by delmoi at 3:31 PM on February 10, 2007


The Iowa Market only trades the parties. Intrade carries all the candidates. Clinton is bidding 47.6 and asking at 48.50. She fell off her 52 high about two months ago. Obama would've been a nice trade. Six months ago he was trading for single digits; today the bid is 19.5 and the ask is 19.6 (low spread, boys, and buyers are really positioned at 17...)). No other Dem trades higher. Going long Obama is pretty speculative, and shorting Clinton could be hazardous to your wallet. Technically, Clinton has nice support at 40; Obama is a .com bubble hockey-stick formation, with little support or base below him. A conservative investor would stay long Clinton. Unfortunately, these are really event-driven trades; there are very few fundamental assets or value in place with either stock. They are a lot like biotech stocks--all story and FDA approval, with moonshots made of slim news. And any negative news, you get evaporated in a second. Neither trades as value, and there is little besides office furniture you could get in a fire sale.

If I was speculating, I would stay out of the Dem trades and go long Giuliani (trading 20.4), and short McCain (trading 37+).
posted by wallstreet1929 at 3:37 PM on February 10, 2007


Wow, I'm glad I'm not the only progressive whose reservations about Obama stem from his religious pandering.

I feel disenfranchised by all sides when it comes to religion and the often-unsubtle implication that morality is the product and sole property of faith. I also pragmatically allow that if I would like to exit an egregious war and possibly reorient the big ship of resources we all sail, that I may have to elect a person who professes as much.

This vexes me because either they believe what they say and effectively find me a lesser citizen for my lack of faith or they don't believe what they say and are the less trustworthy for it. Either way, I lose.
posted by abulafa at 3:45 PM on February 10, 2007


As oppossed to showing he takes his faith seriously, and not just the typical Dem, "Yeah, I'm a person of faith, whatever hurf durf," mealey-mouthed pandering?

HURF DURF BIBLE-BEATER
posted by joe lisboa at 4:01 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thorzdad:I mean...c'mon...when you first heard the name "Obama", are you saying your mind, somewhere down deep, didn't think "Osama"? Not in a way to connect the two but, rather, in a "hey, they rhyme!" way?

hoverboards: Absolutely, especially considering his middle name's Hussein. But I don't buy that it will influence voters - even the most viciously ignorant drooling morons - any more than the haw-haw-bush-looks-like-a-monkey crap.
Don't underestimate the power of the Republicans to prey on voters' subconscious fears. Should he win the nomination, I'll bet dollars to donuts that every Republican ad that mentions him will use his full name slowly in a deep, foreboding voice. They're keenly aware that you don't necessarily win by making cogent points that educate the audience about your candidate's positions. Rather, it's a cumulative process of convincing the audience that the other man is the wrong person for the job.

Most of those efforts will fail for most voters, but nearly all will succeed for at least some voters. With elections being won at the very margins, the Republicans understand well that every little bit helps, and that very few tactics will result in any kind of discernible backlash from undecided voters.

It's easy to argue that nobody's going to hear "Barack Hussein Obama" and vote against him because of his name, but the Republicans are far more subtle than that. His name will be used as a weapon against him; if you think that the Republicans are above neutralizing name recognition by encouraging potential voters to subconsciously associate his name with "bad things" (cue the announcer's deep voice), you're deluding yourself.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2007


"every Republican ad that mentions him will use his full name slowly in a deep, foreboding voice"

Oh that's nothing. You'll see footage edited so that the smoking twin towers appear just as his name is said, and other not so subtle smears. Fox and CNN have already started it.
posted by 2sheets at 4:26 PM on February 10, 2007


I agree somewhat with abulafa, but I think there's something very interesting going on with Obama's religious stance. I don't doubt that he takes his Christianity seriously, but I think he also made a very provocative (and good) strategic move when he joined the UCC. As dw mentioned above, the UCC is one of the most inclusive, tolerant and left-leaning of the major denominations. The fundies on the right are already in a lather about how to deal with this (see my link above). This may finally force the issue of who "owns" religion in this country, because the religious right, if they choose to attack him on his UCC membership, are going to have to argue outright that they are the true Christians and all others are fakes. They haven't had to take that position, because mainstream voices have been drowned out for some years now.
As a non-theist, the god talk wearies me. But I'm positive that a progressive Christian can shoot an arrow into the heart of the culture-warrin' gay-hatin' fundy right way more effectively than a purely secular canidate ever could.
posted by maryh at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think some of you guys need to read up on the church Obama belongs to.

Here's an example of one of his their sermons:

"Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"

That's the man that convinced Obama to 'get religion'

Now, tell me that's right-wing pandering again?
posted by empath at 4:34 PM on February 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!
posted by joe lisboa at 4:36 PM on February 10, 2007


Here is the Video.
posted by delmoi at 4:50 PM on February 10, 2007


So wait. Lemme get this straight.

Barack Obama is running for president.

Did I read that right?

I'd hate to think this was another false alarm or something. He's not just putting a commission together to consider the possibility? Maybe he's testing the waters. Putting the rumor out there that he definitely IS going to run for president, just to see how people respond to the idea, but he'll back out if the polls are unfavorable. Or the nielsen ratings or whatever.

Y'know. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you, fool me three or four times it's shame on John Travolta.

Didn't anyone tell Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton is also running for president, provided she can't find a way to have one of her official spokespeople claim later that she was just contemplating it. Putting together a committee. Maybe Hillary and Barack are running for the committee of people who will actually figure out who's really running for president. Of course everyone who is in the know knows that Robert Anton Wilson had been secretly running the country for decades as a gag. Now that he's dead (or so we have been led to believe) I guess Luther Blissett's gonna get the job.

Oh. You guys thought YOU get to choose? Oh that's rich. I had a good laugh at that one. I'm gonna have to lie down now.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:57 PM on February 10, 2007


(The video of obama's speech, not the "gawd has got to be sick of this shit" bit, which I think would be pretty interesting to see for a sermon)
posted by delmoi at 4:59 PM on February 10, 2007


I don't doubt that he takes his Christianity seriously, but I think he also made a very provocative (and good) strategic move when he joined the UCC.

OK, let's be clear about something: Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ first, the UCC second. And this is a very important distinction, because again, the UCC is congregational in structure.

TUCC has 8,000 members and is very Afro-centric. Jeremiah Wright is one of the greatest preachers in this country today, combining the cadence and pentecostal fervor of the historic black church with the social justice of the UCC.

Here's TUCC's About Us page. Does this sound like an agenda Dobson is going to embrace?

The fundies on the right are already in a lather about how to deal with this.... This may finally force the issue of who "owns" religion in this country, because the religious right, if they choose to attack him on his UCC membership, are going to have to argue outright that they are the true Christians and all others are fakes.

But then again, do they have to? Every conservative Christian with a computer or a copy of Handbook of Denominations knows where the UCC lies. The case doesn't have to be made to the True Believers, and everyone else wouldn't be able to understand the theological issues and reams of Bible references. Thus, I don't think the UCC will be the issue; it's just easier to do the Obama-Osama thing (complete with burning towers).

But like I've said before on countless other threads, the American Christian church is at a crossroads. Dobson and Robertson and Falwell and the SBC are past their zenith. You have new leadership rising from Gen X and Gen Y that is less politically focused, more concerned about social justice, and more idealistic. With society fracturing, so is the church, in this case into non-denominational warehouse worship centers with hip names or huge megachurches. The church is in severe flux. Katrina was the moment when the church woke up and realized the guy they were in bed with looked a lot better the previous November.

Obama is one of the new breed. He's just not a fundamentalist, more a liberal evangelical. But he's trapped between two worlds, between a conservative Christian power structure that demands True Belief in what They think True Belief is, and liberal areligious and anti-religious members of his own party scared that his religious speech and cadence will usher in the Great UCC Theocracy (bring covered vegetarian dish).

For that, I think he's SOL for the presidency. Too many people are scared of him for no reason other than just being scared. He's a battery-powered LED Mooninite sign hanging from the Interstate 93 overpass of American political life.
posted by dw at 5:03 PM on February 10, 2007 [3 favorites]


It's the "i'm not like those Godless Democrats; i'm like you" that is immensely offensive and bigoted and stupid.

Why do you find it offenseive or bigoted that he draws a distinction between an antitheist, faith-hostile picture many Americans have of Democrats (rightly or wrongly) and himself? It is a cold hard reality that the perception, at least, is a political liability for the Dems among many people — and hell, it's hardly debatable that there are in fact segments of the left who exude antipathy towards faith and people who hold it. And that means I'm not even going to ask you to confirm on "stupid," because that's right out. If he genuinely has a religious faith, not only is he probably impelled by that to profess it, but he'd be stupid *not* to.

Also, I'm unfamiliar with any of his statements where he's said that people without any religious faith whatsoever are second-class citizens or otherwise unable to participate in or contribute to progressive society. If you've got 'em, feel free to share.


I feel disenfranchised by all sides when it comes to religion and the often-unsubtle implication that morality is the product and sole property of faith.

Morality may not be the product of theology, but it is arguably the product of some kind of faith, whether it's in karma or conscience or human capacity or some other good.

Taking that aside, tho', I'm interested to know what Obama's said that makes you think he thinks there's no other source of morality than religious faith. I'm aware there are people who think that way, and it puts me off too, but I don't think that's reason enough to develop a general allergy to the language of faith.
posted by namespan at 5:14 PM on February 10, 2007


Should he win the nomination, I'll bet dollars to donuts that every Republican ad that mentions him will use his full name slowly in a deep, foreboding voice.

That's probably true--but I think that, should that all of that come to pass, Obama's response to such tactics could be critical. Much more of the country is aware of how cynically manipulated we've seen than even a couple of years ago, in my experience and conversations, and a direct response to the tactic rather than the message might be quite effective now. If I were Obama, and that happened, I'd be really tempted to respond with satire:
Fade in, dawn over smoldering war ruins. Deep-voiced narrator: Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III has a mighty funny sounding name...I'm going to read it again, and show it to you over images of death and destruction so that it makes you scared.....RUDOLPH...WILLIAM....LOUIS...GIULIANI...THE...THIRD (cue ominous orchestral hit)...randomly associating his name with bad things will make you afraid....
..and so forth. Also:

But I'm positive that a progressive Christian can shoot an arrow into the heart of the culture-warrin' gay-hatin' fundy right way more effectively than a purely secular canidate ever could.

maryh, I think you are absolutely right, and just wanted to repeat that.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:17 PM on February 10, 2007


emapth: (and on preview, namespun) I'm not talking about his church, I'm talking about his speech.

I dismissed that speech when it first came out, but on a re-read, I have a new insight:

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not.

Great! Awesome! I'd love to serve on his cabinet...

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

Fine. Right up until her religion and his religion and my religion disagree on something fundamental and diametrically opposed. This "faith fills a god-sized hole" premise works just ducky until the public square cannot accomodate equally ardent and incompatible gods in holes.

Keeping those ideologies out of the public square but only admitting their behaviors ("do good works for they benefit all involved", for instance) means you get the morality in your law without the establishment of religion, no matter what compromise is made in the public square.

That's why a strategy for success (and I do believe he is quite electable) may not be worth my flexibility on the one crucial revision this democracy required to flourish as it has.

So, on preview: he says all the right stuff. Awesome. He is just willing to compromise on a part of my democracy which I'm not, and I'm afraid he doesn't even see it as compromise.
posted by abulafa at 5:19 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


namespun = namespan, sorry
posted by abulafa at 5:21 PM on February 10, 2007


I like his invoking the torch to a new generation schtick. As if being born in 1961 exculpates him from boomerdom.

Still, power to him if he can pull it off.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:51 PM on February 10, 2007


I started a group on his site. Obama geeks join here.
posted by maryh at 5:57 PM on February 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Joined.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:08 PM on February 10, 2007


abulafa: IMO, you'd be well-served to rethink your position. There is a lot more to Christianity than poking into peoples bedrooms. Some of those firmly held religious beliefs have to do with social and economic justice. If we (and I am an atheist, as I said in another thread today) cannot learn to work with Christians on things where we agree, then we're ALWAYS going to be pushed to the sidelines.

You need to stand with Christians when their faith leads them to fight for the same things that you believe them, and argue against them when their faith leads in the other directions. But you can't just dismiss all of their beliefs on the basis of their origin. Everybody believes things for irrational, personal reasons, even you.
posted by empath at 7:54 PM on February 10, 2007 [3 favorites]


(joined, even though i'm still waiting for Gore)
posted by empath at 7:55 PM on February 10, 2007


Barack Obama is running for president.

No. Fucking. Shit.
posted by chillmost at 9:34 PM on February 10, 2007


I love that MetaFites can have an articulate side conversation on they relatve merits of the canidate's logos.

LooseFilter writes "It's a fallacious analogy to think of a president as a CEO, and I think the last eight years have proven how abysmally bad businessmen are at running the country."

At least bad business men, it's not like Bush is Warren Buffet or Donald Trump.
posted by Mitheral at 2:51 AM on February 11, 2007


In a shocking display of senility, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has today said that Al Queda will be praying for Barack Obama to win.

The mind fucking boggles.
posted by Jimbob at 3:09 AM on February 11, 2007


what abulafa said--it's a democracy-sized hole, and it's not just secularists who believe so--it's the millions and millions of us aren't part of the majority religion (Something our government specifically wasn't supposed to be ruled by, nor was it supposed to be endorsing any majority view on rights). Our rights, our liberties, our benefits--none are to be determined by majority rule nor by what a religion practiced by a majority wants.
posted by amberglow at 8:06 AM on February 11, 2007


...Obama has not only helped close the triangle on the notion that Democrats are hostile to religion, he has closed the triangle on who Democrats should appeal to in order to win elections. This danger of this is that in a nation where the only voters who matter to both parties are conservative evangelicals, then the only legislation we will ever get will be of the sort that appeals to conservative evangelicals. This will be the case no matter which party is in charge of Congress. Thus, closing the triangle on electoral strategy in this manner completely obliterates progressivism itself.
This is how the "all powerful conservative base" narrative after the 2004 election was not a success for Democrats. Whatever impact it had on making Republicans seem extreme (which I am sure has helped to drop their support among Independents below 30%), when this narrative is reified by Democrats it helps create a permanent conservative governing structure in America no matter which party is in charge. All of the recent media about the rise of the progressive movement, specifically in relation to the Connecticut Senate primary and the netroots, had gone a long way toward convincing Democrats and the media that in order to govern, it is necessary to pay attention to progressives. This is the sort of narrative that will help produce progressive legislation. However, when Democrats start wallowing in post-2004 Republican talking points like Obama did today, we wipe all of that good work away. We will never get progressive legislation in this country unless politicians think they have to be responsive to the progressive movement. ...

posted by amberglow at 8:21 AM on February 11, 2007


Speaking of typography, I guess that old canard about blocks of italic text being hard to read isn't actually a canard. It really is harder to read.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:24 AM on February 11, 2007


I'm not sure what it means to "close a triangle", but I find it ridiculous to blame Obama, who is nothing if not a newcomer, for the message that Republicans have been embellishing for decades -- that Democrats are hostile to religion. If anything, Obama is taking the first serious steps since Carter's presidency to deconstruct that politically disastrous constellation.

If you're earnest about the importance of "progressives", read Thomas Franks' account of how Republicans co-opted the progressive movement through their handling of religion.

Obama is not appealing to the conservative base: He is attacking the identification of evangelism and political conservatism which has proven so useful to the Republican party. If anybody is "closing that triangle", it's secularist snobs on the left.

I'm proud to support a candidate who espouses the gospel. It doesn't mean I'm going to give up my gay-loving, planned parenthood-funding, sleeping-in-on-sunday ways. But it might mean that the future of this country is decided on something other than the fundraising and poll-packing power of cultural wedge issues. To which I can only say "Amen".
posted by shunpiker at 9:29 AM on February 11, 2007


He's already being attacked on tv over his faith--Tucker Carlson on Obama's church: "[I]t's hard to call that Christianity"


I'm proud to support a candidate who espouses the gospel.

Good for you and for you alone--not all of us. How about a candidate who espouses the Constitution and Declaration and the rule of law and not men (or Gods)? Why an explicitly Christian religious text in a very very diverse society that is supposed to value freedom and liberty? WTF?
posted by amberglow at 9:38 AM on February 11, 2007


By repeating and affirming it, he's not at all deconstructing it, shunpiker. By giving it credence, he does nothing to deconstruct it, but in fact further perpetuates it as valid. He picked up their rhetoric and used it against his own--and he knows that millions and millions of Democrats have faith and faiths and no faith.
posted by amberglow at 9:43 AM on February 11, 2007


Who?
posted by Football Bat at 9:48 AM on February 11, 2007


The assumption that Constitution and the rule of law -- and faith are incompatible. That owned religion is somehow the enemy of diversity. "Their rhetoric".

Isn't that the very model of hostility to religion that is at question?
posted by shunpiker at 9:52 AM on February 11, 2007


In a shocking display of senility, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has today said that Al Queda will be praying for Barack Obama to win.

Obama replies: "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
posted by octothorpe at 11:23 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


That's a ballsy response. I like it. I think it will backfire, but I like it.
posted by empath at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2007


^This is how it's done. It's about goddmned time.
posted by 2sheets at 12:03 PM on February 11, 2007


I love it myself. Get the response out fast, keep it to the point and make sure to call a wanker a wanker if he deserves it.
posted by octothorpe at 12:32 PM on February 11, 2007


amberglow, that Tucker Carlson piece you linked to is disgusting:

ANDREWS: Well, let's look at what those values actually are. We're talking about hard work, self-reliance, belief in God, and if you have made it to the middle class, you have an obligation to those who have not. Now, those sound like pretty good values to me, black, white, or whatever, and I think that Barack Obama should not be ashamed of having those values and being part of a church.

CARLSON: Again, those are great values, that I, you know, that I hope I embody.

ANDREWS: Good.

CARLSON: However, it's the word before them, black. It's making them racially specific. Again, Christianity -- this is something that I am actually qualified to discuss -- is, it seems to me, almost explicitly anti-racial. The idea is that we are all equal in the eyes of God. And when you espouse a theology that is racially exclusive, as this appears to be, it's hard to call that Christianity. I think it's pretty easy to call it wrong.


So Obama's church isn't really Christian, because it's members are primarily black, and the pastor chooses to direct his message to his own congregation? So this is how it starts: the religious right, whose function is purely political now, targets left-leaning churches as "not Christian" and in this case, as "seperatist." Great- way to blend a fear of African Americans with religious bigotry.
posted by maryh at 12:36 PM on February 11, 2007


Carlson is and always has been disgusting.


The assumption that Constitution and the rule of law -- and faith are incompatible. That owned religion is somehow the enemy of diversity. "Their rhetoric".

Isn't that the very model of hostility to religion that is at question?


Do you ever ask yourself which faith it is that is trying to mix them? And which faiths aren't? And which branches of which faiths? Try it sometime. Do you ever notice which people are actually interjecting their specific faith into all of our laws and state constitutions? People of which faith opened Congress in the middle of the night and got Bush out of bed to make law about Terri Schiavo? Try looking, and asking--it's not hostility to religion---i have religion. It's hostility to the interjection of certain kinds of Christianity alone into our laws and politics and society where it should not be. Period. I don't want Christians to ever tell me about faith in public and in politics--they should shut up and render unto Caesar like their saviour said.

By calling it "the very model of hostility to religion" you ignore that many if not most of the rest of us have our own religions--It's just not yours. There are no gospels in my religion, and even if there were, they should not be the basis for a president doing his or her job, just like the 10 commandments shouldn't be. They should not ever be the basis for our laws or rules or rights. EVER. It's a simple thing--separation of YOUR church from OUR state. It's not us, nor Hindus, nor Muslims, nor Buddhists, nor Pagans, nor Druids nor Voodooists nor...
posted by amberglow at 1:57 PM on February 11, 2007


amberglow--I hear you, and think you're right. But where the problem lies, I think, is the practical reality. A candidate for president in 2007 America simply can't not talk about religion (as Lincoln chose), and hope to get elected. So, if one wishes to get elected and affect positive change, how would you propose Obama (or anyone else) deal with that reality?
posted by LooseFilter at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2007


I speak as a God fearin' Christian weirdo... backslid as all get out but I still have to admit I'm a Christian cuz ..well i am. I just... Takes all my faith to believe in the Trinity so I ain't got none left for anything else, least of all humanity.

Speaking as one of them there Christian types though... -- I WANT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN ANYTHING THAT AIN'T CONCRETE, BOLTED TO TERRA FIRMA, AND SCIENTIFICALLY QUANTIFIABLE AND PROVEABLE AND ALL THAT SHIT TO JUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND QUIT TRYING TO SERIOUSLY LEAD ANYTHING CUZ YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF WHACKO CREEPAZOIDS WHO SHOULD BE LOCKED UP AND DAILY FED YOUR OWN BODY WEIGHT IN SEDATIVES!

...

So wait. Lemme get this straight.

Barack Obama is running for president.

Did I read that right?

Oh thank the lord jesus we're all saved.

*rimshot*
posted by ZachsMind at 7:18 PM on February 11, 2007


what abulafa said--it's a democracy-sized hole, and it's not just secularists who believe so--it's the millions and millions of us aren't part of the majority religion

amberglow, as agnostic Jew, you don't speak for me with your bigotry.
posted by Snyder at 9:08 PM on February 11, 2007


You know who else ran for president?

Well, at least he's got something going for him other than the fact he's not dickless (like Hil).
posted by Smedleyman at 11:59 PM on February 11, 2007


Amberglow, you assume too much. I have nowhere made any claims about my own religious beliefs, which may well be the same as yours. Where we certainly differ is in how comfortable we each are with the public expression of faith, and how serious or unserious a political problem we judge that to be.
posted by shunpiker at 12:00 AM on February 12, 2007


Obama's actual stance on the Iraq War is expressed eloquently in this speech delivered Oct 2002.
posted by Manjusri at 2:47 AM on February 12, 2007


omfg: Salon goes with "uppity" ????!!!
posted by amberglow at 4:26 PM on February 12, 2007


That does seem like a horribly misguided choice, amberglow, but Salon does say they were aware of the word's connotation and meant it ironically.
posted by EarBucket at 5:02 PM on February 12, 2007


this shit is just wrong: My Conversation With Barack's Fundraisers
...
ME: No, Barack Obama doesn't respect the separation of Church and State the way I believe he should.

FUNDRAISER: But but ... we're a Christian nation ... that's what we are. Weren't the Founders Christians?
...

posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on February 18, 2007


« Older The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on   |   Great White Sharks feeding on a whale carcass Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments