The Obama Phenomenon
The crowd of 200,000 which turned out in Berlin to hear a mere candidate for the US presidency confirms that Obama is more a phenomenon than an ordinary candidate. I struggle to see how he will lose unless he majorly stuffs up. His flip-flops on the surge in Iraq are not going to be sufficient.
The speech was Obama at his best in a presentational sense. Almost every line drew applause. Now I can look at the content and be sceptical of such puffery as ridding the world of nuclear weapons and wanting Jews and Arab to work together, but as a candidate he can get away with such stuff. I do still wonder how he will go in office (ih he wins) when he has to actually make a tough decision.
But if he wins, it is clear he will be an extraordinarily popular United States President globally. And while they don’t vote, it will be refreshing to have a President who has global popularity. It may benefit both the US and Obama’s presidency.
But the flipside is the curse of expectations. When those tough decisions do confront Obama, and he does do something which is unpopular globally – the backlash may be even worse as people could feel a sense of betrayal.
Obama is only 4% ahead of McCain, but he will well ahead in the electoral college vote, and he is receiving twice as much coverage as McCain. This is arguably the result of an uncritical gushy media, but I can’t see it changing.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Ugh. Sad. The Euro media are falling over themselves and it’s disgusting. He is all substance and little else.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“…But the flipside is the curse of expectations. When those tough decisions do confront Obama, and he does do something which is unpopular globally – the backlash may be even worse as people could feel a sense of betrayal…”
That’s the upside. If people are still so stupid as to believe there is another John or Robert Kennedy wandering around that’s going to lead them into the promised land, they deserve as much backlash as they get. There’s more chance of the Brave New World beginning under Bush, than Obama.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:47 am
He is all substance and little else.
Woah, steady there Clint.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Has anyone noticed sea levels dropping lately? That is what the Chosen One promised would start happening on the day he got the numbers to secure the nomination.
And that is just one example of his puffery. Despite all the hype and attention given Obama, McCain’s numbers are tenaciously holding on. By November the electorate will be Obamad out.
Obama is a nice idea, nothing more. In the privacy of the polling booth reality will loom large.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Can’t blame the Europeans for being excited about the possibility of an articulate and intelligent man being in the White House. They haven’t seen that for eight long years.
And no one has ever accused Heine of being Einstein or anything, but Clint, being all substance is actually a good thing. Look it up.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“Can’t blame the Europeans for being excited about the possibility of an articulate and intelligent man being in the White House.” – I guess when you get a guy as intelligent as Bush, that has to have some downsides. I guess the Europeans like their politicians more balanced.
Seriously though, both this 200,000 and the 75,000 crowd that Obama once attracted in the US were backed by free concerts by popular bands – not something that’s been widely reported. Coincidence? I think not. My guess is that most people only come for the bands.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Obama may well be a great president, but I just want to appreciate the humour of the Bloomberg report where a 73-year-old retired police officer said that Obama was “extremely charismatic” and that he’d “never seen anybody like this”.
Born in 1935/6 and living in central Europe I’d guess that he had seen another charismatic leader, but I draw no other comparisons.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aK0YPnI9IipU
July 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Apartheid ended in South Africa with Reagan’s cold war victory. At least Obama got that bit right.
“The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
Collectivists never solved anything in fact they make problems worse. Obama makes it in November the world is gonna be corpsed up again just like in the 1990s.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Look, DPF, do you not regard the Obamessiah phenomenon as frightening? Utopian rhetoric that is completely out of touch with reality? One Conservative columnist put it like this, Obama supporters expect people like Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah and Bin Laden and the Hamas leaders to be “charmed” by Obama just the same as THEY are charmed by Obama………not only are they enamoured with the Chamberlainesque idea of talking nicely to thugs, they have found the very man who cannot fail when he does it…………DUH.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“The crowd of 200,000 which turned out in Berlin to hear a mere candidate for the US presidency confirms that Obama is more a phenomenon than an ordinary candidate.”
I don’t think it does actually. That’s the impression the mainstream media would like to create of course, but Scrubone is correct. The reality is, Obama merely showed up after the concert. I posted the paragraph below on the Obama Jib Jab thread yesterday. The lying leftist media, full of partisan political activists, once again show what a threat they are to real democracy.
———————————–
See the mainstream media, firmly in the tank for Obama, are pushing the lie that 200,000 turned up to see him speak in Europe. Leaving out (of course) the quite pertinent information that directly before Obama appeared, there was a “free” concert at the very same venue from a couple of Europe’s most popular bands. This is how the left and their media plants manipulate and lie and propagandize and deny you the truth. They are partisan scum, Goebellian deceivers who have betrayed the once honourable profession of journalism.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Obama just leaves me cold for some reason. It’s nothing I can put my finger on. The media is way off trying to compare him to JFK.
I didn’t like Hillary either, though.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
“..He is all substance and little else..”
brilliant..!
(clint butt comes thru for us..again..!..)
involunary-joke-of-the-month..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Obama is running for US President so how this tour plays in rural PA, southern FL, heartland OH and Michigan is what matters not what the French and Germans might think. Obama has been the beneficiary of wall-to-wall, fawning almost sychophantic media coverage backed by a series of spectacular photo ops and yet he is going backwards in the polls. The daily tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen had him peak at the early part of his trip at +5 and now he’s in a statistical tie with the latest national head to head tracking polls that have all taken into consideration his Berlin speech. In the key battleground states, McCain is gaining – Rasmussen had him trailing in CO by 7 now McCain is up by 2, he’s up by 10 in Ohio, he’s still holding a lead in FL in most polls and he’s within the margin of error in PA (a state the Dems have won last 4 elections). Now if McCain can manage this in the most favourable media tail wind that Obama will get minus his speech in Denver, its no wonder Republican insiders I know are pleasantly surprised. So why no bounce from his great globetrotting tour? Various possibilities:
1. The MSM in the US are so obviously in the tank for Obama that people are noticing. Two recent reputable polls have 49% and 64% of voters saying the coverage is biased in Obama’s favour – and the figures amongst crucial independent voters are only slightly below GOP voters. Voters are tiring of Obama and are factoring in the skewered and worshipful coverage.
2. Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the success of the surge. When asked by CBS anchor Katie Couric whether he would support the surge knowing now how successful it has been, he said he still wouldn’t support it. That plays wells to his liberal anti-war base who are wary of his many recent flip flops – doesn’t play as well in mainstreet USA.
3. Hubris by his campaign from the now ditched special Presidential seal to the removal of the US flag on the tail of his plane in favour of his campaign logo. Even liberal media are now reporting run-ins with the massive message control of the Obama campaign.
4. Missteps that don’t get overseas or MSM coverage but are huge on Fox, talkback radio and blogs with a combined broad reach into heartland America such as Obama’s last minute decision yesterday to not visit wounded US troups in a Berlin military hospital and going shopping instead. The real reason for the cancellation emerged when his campaign was told that he couldn’t bring any media along for a photo op and so with no way to capitalise politically from the visit, the lure of the Kafurstendam shops proved brighter. Such arrogance goes down like a cup of cold sick in middle America.
Watch for McCain to announce his VP choice the day after Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Stadium in Denver thus stealing his thunder. With the GOP convention starting only a week after the Dems, the possibility of a big bounce post convention for Obama will be reduced. Obama should be caning McCain by more than 10 points after a week of wall to wall coverage on the world stage – the fact that he isn’t says alot about his real appeal on the ground as opposed to his adoring fans in the media. Remember that Kerry led Bush by more at this stage in 04 and Dukakis was up 17 on Bush Snr post Dem convention in ’88.
Finally, GOP tactics exposing Democrat (and especially Obama’s) opposition to offshore drilling is really starting to bite. Polls now show almost 70% in favour of allowing US oil companies to drill and the Dems are still blocking any and all legislative attempts to open up vast areas of known reserves to bring down oil prices.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Actually, I find it incredulous that the very people who have for eight years expressed nothing but contempt for George Bush because they perceive him as “dumb” are now falling over themselves to endorse Obama on the grounds that (to use the words of the drooling communist idiot Radar above) “an articulate and intelligent man”.
When he’s not anything like that. There is no evidence he’s intelligent, and when he isn’t speaking from prepared material, he bumbles and stutters and fouls up far worse than George Bush. His statements are full of factual errors and he clearly doesn’t know history. Its my view that he is one of the worst political charlatans to arise in some time.
One stark example of his hypocrisy is his professed sympathy for some of Israel’s positions in the speech in Europe, yet he has sat in Reverend Wright’s church for a decade or more and soaked up and applauded the most vile anti Israel hate speech.
Remember, if you’re like me and fighting against statism and collectivism and socialism and communism, and you want freedom and liberty, Obama is your enemy. He’s not the real enemy tho. He’s the frontman for a shady gang of power obsessed crooks and liars and cronyists who control the media and seek to control the US and eventually to control you. You want freedom, then Obama and his backers at the New York Times, at CNN and CBC and MSNBC are your enemies. The poisonous propagandists that today pose as journalists and objective commentators and news bringers are partisan liars who underneath the spin and deceit enthusiastically seek the same frightening political objectives as the collectivist left. Defeat them, and you defeat Obama.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:59 am
“..and he is receiving twice as much coverage as McCain. This is arguably the result of an uncritical gushy media, but I can’t see it changing..”
um..!..dpf..the mccain/media story of the moment is how the mainstream media are self-censoring..in not reported the numerous gaffes mmcain makes..
(and can i just quote a republican insider/donor..from just the other day..?..
..”we’re fucked..!’..)
i understand you righties are nervous about someone coming to power in america who will sweep away the remnants of the rightwing revolution in america..
..and that ‘your’ candidate is ‘fucked’..
face it..!..barring obama being caught fucking the pope..he’s the next president..
and he will be an architect of change..(not least in re-regulating the (wild west) financial markets..
..y’see..dpf..the penny is dropping for a lot of people..
..that the ‘aspirational’ rightwing message..was a crock…designed to steal from them…
..and as this is the same old/tired/yesterdays’ message national/key are flogging..
…(as ‘deregulated’ finance companies drop like flies..and the multi-millionaires who own them..
..just build bigger mansions..
..(in the case of watson/hotchins..the over $80 million they sucked out of hanover..in the last two years..(w.t.f..!..eh..?..)
and their mansions are built on the wrecked dreams/plans/years of work/saving of mum ‘n dad new zealanders….)
so..y’see..dpf..
the moral bankruptcy of your rightwing/’market-driven’-mantras..
..is becoming clear..
..and the perpetrators/pushers of that message..
..are revealed as being naked..
..this is part of the reason why obama will win in a landslide..
..and national/key will fail here..
..cos’..y’see..many now see..that apart from his $50 million cloak of money..
..key is buck-naked..
..as naked as the chimera he is trying to peddle..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
BTW, here’s one guy who isn’t buying the partisan mainstream media’s spin on Obama. Excerpt below. Read the whole article here after removing “removethis” from the link.
removethishttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8126
An Open Letter to Barack Obama
by David Ha’ivri
We know who you are and who your friends are.
Barack Obama, why don’t you just go home? Barack, your visit here is just a waste of time; you’re not wanted or needed here. We’ll do just fine without you and you’ll probably do better with out us, too. Don’t come around here making as if you’re looking out for the good of Israel. We know who you are and who your friends are.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I forgot to mention another classic misstep he uttered in Jerusalem. He tried to claim credit for passing the recent massive housing bailout package by stating that HIS Senate Banking Committee did all the work on the bill. The Banking Committee did all the work for sure but Obama doesn’t sit on the Banking Committee-that makes him either a dufess or a liar – neither a good look.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
and as a potent example of rightwing delusion/denial about obama..and what he will wrought..
you can’t go past rattys’ offereing..
“..Actually, I find it incredulous that the very people who have for eight years expressed nothing but contempt for George Bush because they perceive him as “dumb” are now falling over themselves to endorse Obama on the grounds that (to use the words of the drooling communist idiot Radar above) “an articulate and intelligent man”.
When he’s not anything like that. There is no evidence he’s intelligent, and when he isn’t speaking from prepared material, he bumbles and stutters and fouls up far worse than George Bush. His statements are full of factual errors and he clearly doesn’t know history. Its my view that he is one of the worst political charlatans to arise in some time..”
poor ratty..he/she’s in for a rough couple of months..eh..
um..!..is ratty michelle boag..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Wow – ‘kiwi in america’ is back for more! After extensive posts in which he confidently predicted a Mitt Romney triumph in the GOP primary and that the democrats would be reduced to a brokered convention at which Clinton would ultimately triumph you’d think he’d just keep his mouth shut and pray to be quickly forgotten. But nope, he’s still regurgitating his worthless gibberish, same as ever. Good on you little fella, thats the spirit!
July 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
i think kiwi in america is just like the hollow-men..
..they are both hoping we will ‘just forget’..what came before..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Danyl – I note you make no attempt to address my points and hide behind silly snide comments. PLenty of experienced commentators in the media in the US failed to see a McCain win. I never said Clinton would win the nomination – I merely pointed out the weakness of Obama’s eventual win and revelled in the michief that people like Rush Limbaugh made in Operation Chaos. Obama limped across the line loosing 10 out of 12 of the last primaries and could only clinch the deal with the help of the small numbers of voters in the caucuses and the super delegates. And as for Denver, well who knows what the Clintons might try. I’ve gone on the record several times stating that the GOP would rather face Obama – Clinton I believe would’ve easily beaten McCain.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
your are the gift that keeps on giving..kiwi-in-america..
..a never-ending fount of delusional bullshit..
..so now you are predicting a ‘clinton-coup’ against obama..?..at the convention in denver..?
brilliant/priceless..!
your disconnect from reality could require/demand professional/medical attention..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“..PLenty of experienced commentators in the media in the US failed to see a McCain win…”
you mean all those rightwing nutbars you were copy ‘n pasting from..?
..and then subjecting us to..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Phil – take your head out of your bong for a minute. I said “who knows what the Clintons will try?” – is that me predicting a coup? It is not a state secret that Clinton surrogates are still lobbying the super delegates. That tells us that they haven’t given up. Personally – they will fail – Obama WILL be the nominee which is fine by me. I’m touched that you would be so concerned with my health though.
The mainstream media largely predicted a Huckabee win at first and plenty who are not “right wing nutbars” saw Romney in with a chance.
In almost all your posts you indulge in bluster, sweeping generalisations written straight out of left wing central and there is hardly any attempt to deal with the facts placed in front of you. Landslides don’t come out of thin air either in NZ or the US. They become apparent many months out with polling trends gradually building in favour of the receipient of the landslide. Obama has received probably the largest amount of positive favourable media coverage of any candidate in US Presidential campaign history crammed into one week and he is slowly going backwards against McCain. His one remaining big media event is the convention and McCain will blunt that bounce with a VP announcement the day after Obama’s likely Messianic like speech that he will give to cheering throngs that all the MSM will have orgasms over. He got a 3 point bounce after his nomination, no bounce after his world tour – he needs at least 10 points out of Denver. The GOP have barely started on Obama.
There is “a never ending fount of delusional bullshit” on this blog but it aint coming from me.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Question for you philu vis a vis your rant about finance companies. What is your solution?
July 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Phil – take your head out of your bong for a minute.”
He won’t. You’re wasting your time. He swamps this blog with scores of similar posts every day, and they’re always all about the self obsessed yellow back Phil Ure. Like the psychotically disturbed narcissistic loser he’s always been, and like such dysfunctional and offensive children scream their lungs out at at their parents, attention is his only motivation.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“..His one remaining big media event is the convention and McCain will blunt that bounce with a VP announcement the day after Obama’s likely Messianic like speech that he will give to cheering throngs that all the MSM will have orgasms over..”
so..similar to how mccain ‘blunted’ obamas’ berlin speech..by going to that german-theme restuarant..?
..and why should anyone give a rats’ arse who mccain picks as his running mate..?
..they’ll never be heard of again..
(do you really think obama won’t get two terms..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
and why on earth would the m.s.m. ‘have orgasms over’ the ‘cheering throngs’..?
whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
““Phil – take your head out of your bong for a minute.”
That’s sound advice for the bludger. Whoar, also keep an eye on the oven.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Danyl – I note you make no attempt to address my points
But James, you don’t have any points: just an extensive fantasy in which you pretend the political party you happen to like is doing better than the one you don’t, despite rather overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I said on January 9:
So far it’s panning out exactly like that – (I’m not so sure now that Huckabee will be Vice but McCain will need someone young to offset his age). The media have plenty they could throw at either candidate, and they will, at the right moment. KIA mentioned Kerry and Dukakis. Everyone recalls swiftboat but how many recall the snoopy incident? It’s the media not the people who control who gets to be POTUS and it’s those who own and control the media who make the decision.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
reid..reid..
“..The media have plenty they could throw at either candidate, and they will, at the right moment..”
doncha think if there were anything to sling at obama..the clintons’ would’ve already have thrown it..?
dream on..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Duh phil, Clinton doesn’t have any say in it. It was obvious to me back in January that the owners had decided she wasn’t going to be Pres, and so it turned out.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
big ‘matrix’ fan..?..are you..?
reid..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Danyl – and your “overwhelming evidence” is?
July 26th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“But James, you don’t have any points:”
Maybe, out of the three posts (dripping with smarmy superiority and smugness) you have made so far to this thread today Danny, you could highlight your own “points”.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
that ‘point that kia is a raving delusional nutbar..who has bored us rigid..with his screeds of copied (other rightwing nutbar) ravings..?
is that the ‘point’ you mean..?
and that this idjit (and ratty) expect others to entertain their delusions enough to be bothered to reply to them..?
getouttahere..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I’m sure a poll of kiwiblog posters if asked “Is Philu a raving delusional nutbar..who has bored us rigid..with his screeds of copied (other leftwing nutbar) ravings?” the vote would be pretty conclusively in the affirmative.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
KIA.
Thanks for your excellent commentaries on this blog.
BTW, here is McCain, (via Powerline), telling it like it is on the surge (Phil, what did you think the surge would achieve?)
Before a military audience in Denver today, John McCain launched his strongest attack yet against Barack Obama. The attack was devastating because it is true. Here are some excerpts; McCain began by recalling the beginning of the surge:
Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn’t test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn’t matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. … In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
That recitation of Obama’s conduct is entirely factual. In this case, the facts are nuclear.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Shot radvad – pretty much sums both candidates up in a nutshell!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The big question is would a ‘phenomenon’ make a good President? How do they function under pressure when the stakes are high?
July 26th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
why is mccain more fun than obama..?
you can play join-the-age-spots on mccain..
..and did you know that when mccain says ‘that’s my bag!’..
..that he’s talking about his colostomy bag..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Perhaps we should support the Danyl Mclauchlan’s and Philu’s of this world and their “messiah” president.
It would prove beyond all doubt that the liberal leaders big on rhetoric and short on reality truly are the most dangerous leaders we can have.
Problem is to prove the point would likely through the world into absolute turmoil.
If Obama becomes president he’s going to make G dubya look like a genious.
People will beg for the Bush years if this fruit loop gets in, radvads post above sums it up quite nicely, people like Obama should not be running the most powerful country in the world, they are just too damned idealistic.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“..people like Obama should not be running the most powerful country in the world, they are just too damned idealistic.”
as opposed to bush/cheney/rove who were..?..
..would ‘warmongers’ be too strong a term..?
..and shunda..do you really need to have pointed out to you how in so many ways bush has brought america to its’ knees..?
..or are you planting your flag firmly in the camp of the ignorant/blind knuckle-draggers..?
..so ably represented here by kia..and ratty..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
JFK syndrome – popular, well spoken and a lightweight. Does he really think that a conflict that has been in place since man left the caves will simply be solved by nice speeches, holding hands and singing around a campfire?
July 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I wonder how Obama would have reacted to 911?
Probably would have ordered the military to drop cluster bombs full of wet bus tickets on Bin laden and his buddies.
Needless to say America wouldn’t have any buildings left over 4 stories high, Boeing would be doing ok though with all those replacement passenger jets.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
OBAMA has much in common with Winston.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I caught The Daily Show’s coverage of Obama-mania on C4 last night. I think you can view some of the video on their website:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
It was hilarious and very indiscriminate (in the sense that no one was piss-take immune!)
Really, John McCain’s publicity people ought to hang their heads in shame. Getting him photographed in a small German restaurant at the same time as Obama is speaking to a 200k crowd in Berlin?? I mean, nothing is more fickle than politics, but there’s no need to over-emphasise his current Johnny No-Mates status.
Personally, I’ve rated Obama highly since his race speech. Sure, he’s an idealist, but I’m sure he’s got a whole team of realists to keep him grounded in office. And it’s been a long time since there’s been a truly visionary politician on the world stage.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“And it’s been a long time since there’s been a truly visionary politician on the world stage.”
Words are cheap. Especially from Obama and his followers. What is that vision and how is he going to go about achieving the reality?
July 26th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“Words are cheap.”
Yes, but when you’re trying to shift direction (and inspire others to follow), then you usually do have to start with words: grand, sweeping words. And it’s only if people like what they hear, they you are able to follow up with some action.
However, high hopes can lead to unrealistic expectations (often fuelled by impatience). So, the honeymoon period starts to end. Politicians lose their way for a while. The public notice inconsistencies (ie not managing to walk the talk), This leads to recriminations, inquiries and some cynicism (the definition of a cynic is a disillusioned idealist).
But hopefully, if the vision was shared, this period will be followed by a recommitment (not necessarily by the original visionary, who may have long gone). The difference this time is that there is now experience to draw upon. The vision is more concrete and realisable; it eventually becomes the new status quo.
By the time that happens though, it’ll be time for some new cheap talk…
July 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
i’d suggest you watch that space..ratty..
.and shunda..thanks for confirming your knuckle-dragging status..
phil(whoar.co.mz)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Danyl – and your “overwhelming evidence” is?
Reality based. For example there’s this map of electoral votes based on current polling trends that predicts a pretty clear victory for Obama. Feel free to dismiss it as more brainwashed liberal media bias (its produced by the political campaign advisory firm Karl Rove & Co).
There are also dozens of metapolls out there that show Obama beating McCain by a comfortable margin – here’s one from pollster.com.
Sorry to bring such a vicious dose of reality to the debate. I know it plays hell with your allergies.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Reagan, and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, ACHIEVED something in accordance with THEIR dreams by DOING something even though it was unpopular. Unpopular with the Left, that is.
There is hardly anything the Left are in such sorrow over, as the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. They will be absolutely gutted if Iraq is a stable democracy and ally against totalitarianism in the world before long.
It is not so much that these people think that Obama’s charm will work greater wonders against dictators than wielding a big stick will, but that they LOVE the idea of a President who will grease up to anti-Western totalitarianism and endorse its existence, same as FD Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
is phil-the-inferior getting loonier as the months go by..?
and do tell..what did bush ‘achieve’..?
(we’re waiting..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’m not sure there is any piont in responding to Redbaiter’s drivell, but I will anyway.
“When he’s not anything like that. There is no evidence he’s intelligent, and when he isn’t speaking from prepared material, he bumbles and stutters and fouls up far worse than George Bush.”
No evidence he’s intelligent? You must be joking (or deranged – my bet). Graduate of Columbia University and a Harvard Law graduate. First African American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Teacher of Constitutional Law at Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Now he’s a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. If someone can get this far without being intelligent then it really doesn’t say much for the people of the United States. Why would they vote for someone when there is “no evidence he’s intelligent”?
As for being a worse speaker than George W Bush, I have never heard Obama say anything like “Is our children learning?”
At least Obama can form sentences.
McCain is dead in the water. I am going to enjoy Redbaiter and people of his ilk continue to obfuscate about Obama as the election gets closer and closer. It’s going to be fun to watch.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Heading out of town for the day – will respond to Danyl later.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Danyl’s “overwhelming evidence” of Obama’s impending victory is politico.com’s current Electoral College standing based on meta polls. Well here’s a real “reality based” analysis. Before I comment on polls, I need to amend my comments earlier in this thread in light of tracking polls done since my first post re any bounce from Obama’s international trip. Now that the three day rolling averages of Gallup and Rasmussen fully incorporate the Berlin speech and aftermath, it is clear that Obama has received a modest 3 point bounce (the current gap minus the average gap in the week leading up to his trip). The first overnight polls taken after the speech showed no signficant movement. So-called bounces are particularly important for Democrat candidates for President because the GOP normally holds its convention last and because Republican candidates for President have historically finished strongly and have frequently closed quite large poll deficits between the summer and the November election. A bounce is a temporary boost that a campaign hopes, once the polls settle, elevates the candidate to a new higher level thus opening up a lead that hopefully becomes unassailable. The bigger the bounce, the more likely this higher sustainable lead can be achieved.
When it comes to polls, not all polls are equal. A quick dive into the internals of each poll reveals a wealth of data including crucially the partisan makeup of the poll. The large media organization polls (ABC/WaPo,CBS/NTY, Fox News, NBC, Time, Newsweek) are notorious for over sampling Democrats sometimes by ludicrously wide margins. They generally only do national head to head polls. Amongst the large polling organizations that poll both nationwide and state by state, Zogby and ARG are largely discredited due to being so widely off the mark in the 00 and 04 Presidential races (and the 08 primaries). Quinnipiac is so so while Gallup is generally good and Rasmussen often (but not always) the most accurate. In individual state races, there are local media and pollsters who mirror this quality spread. An important note about state by state polls is that many poll less than 500 voters and so have quite high margins of error.
Meta polls like RCP or Politico make no distinction between good and bad polls – they merely average them all. Gallup’s daily tracking poll is well regarded except that they only poll registered voters (as do most of the state by state polls) rather than likely voters. That distinction is crucial because Republicans generally are more reliable voters and so whilst a Democrat candidate may lead by 5 amongst registered voters that lead often shrinks to 2 or 3 when only likely voters are polled.
On the issue of Republicans finishing Presidential races more strongly, the following examples bear mentioning:
• Gerald Ford almost overhauled Carter’s 30 point lead in the summer of 1976 in a year meant to be horrible for the GOP (post Nixon)
• Bush Snr overcame a post 88 Dem convention poll lead of Dukakis of 17% to win easily
• Bush jnr did the same overcoming a slight Gore lead in 00. Kerry led Bush by almost 15 points at the height of Iraq War negativity in the summer of 04 & Bush still trailed by 7 post the 04 Dem convention
• Bush Snr lost to Clinton largely due to the 8% Ross Perot polled which split the vote on the right letting Clinton in through the middle
The current Electoral Map that phil, Danyl and others take comfort from is a snapshot of the current position only. Much can change between now and November. The map cited however cannot weigh the following truisms in US politics
1. A good number of polls are weighted in Dems favour for the reasons cited earlier
2. The MSM reports heavily in the Dems favour – the media bias is now the most pronounced ever and for the first time some MSM are sheepishly admitting it
3. The power of right wing new media has been proven to blunt and counterbalance somewhat the Democrat bias of the MSM.
4. Obama is a weak finisher – he lost 10 of the last 12 Primaries to Hillary – some by embarrassingly large margins. He crossed the delegate line thanks to the Dem’s predilection for caucuses (with sometimes 1% of registered voters participating) and proportionate awarding of delegates and even then, that was not enough as he needed the super delegates to finish the job.
5. McCain is a strong finisher – he came from dead last in summer 07 polls in IA and NH to trounce Romney’s well funded campaign and Huckabee’s MSM assisted populism.
6. Almost all recent state by state polls in the battleground states show Obama losing ground to McCain sometimes quite substantially.
7. The GOP and right leaning 527’s have barely begun to define Obama – something they have a veritable gold mine of material amassed over the last 6 months to achieve in the fall once voters’ minds are more focused on the race.
The bottom line is this: Obama has been on the receiving end of THE most lopsided worshipful media coverage in US political history. He went on a world tour rich with numerous impressive photo ops. He’s up against a cantankerous man old enough to be his father who is associated with an unpopular President. By all rights Obama should be absolutely creaming McCain and yet all he has managed is a 3 point bounce after his nomination (which dissipated within a month) followed by another 3 point bounce post his Messianic trip.
Obama’s cheerleaders on this blog and in the liberal leaning media all over the world (and in the US MSM) breathtakingly predict a landslide and yet Obama clings to a modest and fragile lead despite a hurricane force tail wind of recent positive events. The MSM and liberals have prematurely predicted the demise of GOP Presidential candidates in the past and were comforted along the way by the very polls Danyl cites.
The most astute and accurate political commentators see the 08 race as likely to be very tight and close. I totally agree.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“..The most astute and accurate political commentators..”
they’d be the same ones you relied on before..?
..for your previous screeds of irrelevant/wildly innacurate ‘predictions’/bullshit..?
(oh..!..that’s ok then…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
KIA- Your prediction that Clinton might end up the nominee could still come true given the forged birth certificate scandal.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
oh well..you’ve got ratty..(the reasoned voice of new zealand politics)..on-side..
(that’s a ‘start’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Just to show that us dirty leftie trolls can still laugh at ourselves, the following: (From the London Times)
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action – and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”
July 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
PhilBetter/Stronger/Faster: “There is hardly anything the Left are in such sorrow over, as the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe.”
What a dick. What a ridiculous thing to say!
July 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Red
I have no doubt that Obama will be the nominee. As for the birth certificate, all I have read on that issue leads me to conclude that Obama was a natural born US citizen so I don’t believe there is anything there to comfort Clinton.
I note phil has given us another thorough, detailed and lucid analysis of my last post.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“..What a dick. What a ridiculous thing to say!..”
(he/she’s a positive fount of them..
..he/she then uses them as the foundation stones of his/her ‘arguments’..
go figure..!..
..and the feckin’ idjit expects to be taken seriously..(?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
From a previous thread on the same topic
Now I should let KIA speak for himself, but since this is really just the usual ‘right-wingers are morons’ slur perhaps some examples are in order….
Now that hardly sounds like a Clinton’s-gonna-win rant, more like a balanced pro-con analysis. And that’s just from one thread – from early May 2007!
Looks like Philu’s memory and history re-writing skills are still right up to the level of how wrong it was to oppose the Communist takeover of South Vietnam.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I see nothing in Hussein Obama that would make me want to vote for the guy, he comes across as false and a man who is prepared to adjust his “aims and goals” to his audience, in short he will say anything, do anything and contradict himself day after day just as long as he achieves his goal, it reminds me of Helen Klark who once said “I am prepared to be as vicious, nasty and deceitful” as I need to become the PM of New Zealand.
However as with all left wing politicians the media let him get away with it while constantly reminding us how “great” he is, like JFK, Tony Blair and David Lange he is good for nothing more than a sound bite.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
wow..!..you actually went and re-read the old stuff..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
If Obama wins, the excitement should come because it is a huge symbolic victory in a country where racism is rife. There’s no need to get excited on either side of the political spectrum, really. The differences between Republican and Democrat are fairly superficial, and politics in the United States are structured so that nothing really changes, and that’s the way it’ll most likely be with Obama. Hell, the most beloved President in recent history didn’t do anything except say nice things and then get shot.
That said, I like Obama, and sincerely hope he can make some changes for the good. (Note that the word is “hope”. I don’t believe he will.) He’s much prettier than McCain (better image), and Fox News don’t seem to like him, and given the depth of analysis I’ve seen in their coverage of politics, anything they don’t support is worth supporting just so I can be contrary to them. (If they don’t have to give proper reasons or depth to arguments, I don’t see why I should.)
July 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
“..I see nothing in..”..john key..” that would make me want to vote for the guy, he comes across as false and a man who is prepared to adjust his “aims and goals” to his audience..
..in short he will say anything, do anything and contradict himself day after day just as long as he achieves his goal..
..it reminds me of’.. a younger don brash..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Well, at least they’ve worked hard for their goals without waiting to receive handouts. I’ll give them that.
(Since we’ve gone off-topic again…)
July 27th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“If Obama wins, the excitement should come because it is a huge symbolic victory in a country where racism is rife.”
Got an example?
“Fox News don’t seem to like him, ”
Their journalists have donated a lot of money to Obama and none to McCain
July 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Off the top of my head, no. I am sick at the moment, and you could say my brain has the dumb. My friends from the States have certainly given me the impression that racism is rife. Well, maybe rife was the wrong word, but they gave the impression that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism in society in the United States. Certain attitudes towards those of hispanic descent, the use of the word “nigger” (I doubt it’s meaning will ever be positive, despite the efforts of certain people in popular culture), and so on and so forth. I think it is a fairly accepted thing that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism, however. But I can’t think of specifics which you couldn’t put an ideologically driven spin on off the top of my head.
“Their journalists have donated a lot of money to Obama and none to McCain”
That’s interesting, but the impression I have been given on the rare occasions that I view Fox news is a dislike of Obama. Please note also, that my second paragraph was mostly facetious in tone. Calling Obama prettier didn’t give it away?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“Off the top of my head, no.”
Just more leftist bullshit then. Thought so.
“the impression I have been given on the rare occasions that I view Fox news is a dislike of Obama.”
If you only view it “rarely” how would you know? On both of these issues, (America is racist, FOX news is biased) you sound to me more like a leftist bigot than an informed person. If this is an incorrect impression, maybe you should take more care with what you write.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
As much as I appreciate the humor of the London Times piece above Tim Blair has a rather more cutting take:
UPDATE. Obama seems to have captured the crucial German vote. They do love a charismatic leader:
They also like men with global ambitions who publish autobiographies in their mid-30s. Here’s Spiegel Online‘s besotted Gerhard Spörl:
The clincher, according to Spörl—Obama isn’t physically imperfect:
The inability to lift one’s arm is a particular turnoff for certain German voters.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Yes, because I am such a leftist. Ooh, and a bigot too?
Now who’s making unfounded statements? Is it anybody you disagree with that’s a leftist? Ironically, my politics are those of somebody who is socially liberal, and economically centrist, slightly leaning towards the right. I voted ACT at the last election and will likely do so again, as I believe Parliament needs balance, and a party more towards the right will provide it with such balance.
So don’t go round calling me a leftist. It’s not that being a leftist is particularly offensive. It’s just that I have observed from previous posts of yours that you appear to hold leftists in particularly low opinion. You have no reason to hold me in such low opinion, except that you disagree with my view, from firsthand accounts of my friends from America (some of whom are from racial minorities and some who are not), that there is a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States. Admittedly, I did not offer solid factual evidence for that view.
It’s such an illogical thing to go off what friends from the United States have said, and to make a decision to believe what they’ve said as reasonable, given that entrenched attitudes take a long time to change? Consider that they still have affirmative action programs in certain institutions in the United States. For what reason? Racism is still prevalent and disadvantages minorities. (I don’t agree with affirmative action programs, by the way.) Consider why it is that in Obama’s campaign race has often been mentioned. Why should it even be mentioned? It’s his race. No big deal. Yet it has been mentioned? Why? Because race, and racism, is still an issue. Hell, it wasn’t too long ago that race riots were taking place (the early 1990s, for example), and thirty years before that many were opposing desegregation of schools. Entrenched attitudes take time to change. Here, wikipedia says “Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by moderate portions of the U.S population. Members of every American ethnic group have perceived racism in their dealings with other groups.” Not the most reliable source, I know, but it doesn’t seem that I have an unreasonable belief. Note that in my second post relating to racism, I revised my description of it as rife, as it was a poor description. Note that my revision does not make claims as to the scope, just that there is a strong undercurrent. So in my revised statement, it should not be assumed that I believe “America is racist”. Instead of playing the man, play the issue, Redbaiter. You have not offered any kind of evidence that there is not a strong undercurrent of racsim still prevalent in the United States. Instead, you have just attacked me personally. It seems to me that you’re the bigot around here.
I offer you some definitions of bigot:
A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
Narrow minded or prejudiced in your beliefs.
A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion, system, or party, and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently.
Intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views.
Oh goodness, does that sound like anybody around here?
On rare occasions I view Fox News, but I also view other news sources, and shows which comment on Fox News, while showing what they are commenting on, with enough context that an understanding can be gained. I also watched Fox News regularly a few years ago, when I had different sleeping patterns. They seemed pro-Republican. Given the sources I have viewed, and my more regular viewing of Fox News a few years ago, it appears to me that Fox news is biased.
Perhaps before you go round calling people you disagree with leftist bigots (that’s the only reason I can see that you would call me such names), you should consider your own viewpoints.
While this isn’t particularly well-written (like I said, I’m sick and my brain has the dumb), I have responded with some reason and given you knowledge as to my political beliefs, and am willing to change my view if you provide some evidence of your own regarding racism in the United States, and more evidence regarding systemic biases in Fox News which became apparent through my watching of it in the past, and my viewing of news commentary regarding Fox News with the pieces they were commenting on in context. As such, it should be seen that I am neither a leftist, nor a bigot. Apologise.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“I have responded with some reason”
I don’t think so. Your original statement was that “racism is rife in the United States”. You have produced nothing to support this but hearsay (some friends with opinions, possibly as lame as your own), and some drivel from Wikipedia, (a source so politicised as to be useless). You have provided nothing to quantify this view (rife compared to what?)
You still apparently cannot provide one example of the racism you say is so rife, so to me it just sounds like the same old same old baseless hate US leftist crap that is daily uttered here by brainless leftist bigots with all the political perspective of earthworms.
“Given the sources I have viewed, and my more regular viewing of Fox News a few years ago, it appears to me that Fox news is biased.”
Widespread comments to the effect that FOX is biased are just leftist smears. In fact, university studies and other methodical investigations undertaken by objective and legitimate researchers have shown that FOX is not biased. Leftists hate FOX because it dares to present a balanced view- ie one that gives equal prominence to either side. They want wall to wall leftism like most other news sources. (Interesting that you’ve changed from someone who only rarely watched FOX to a regular viewer, and you make this change without any explanation and without the the slightest hint of shame.)
“Instead, you have just attacked me personally.”
That is a weak lie. I have said you sounded like a bigot. This is not an attack, merely a true expression of the impression I gained after reading what you had written. I even said it may not be so. (However your follow up tends to reinforce that original impression.)
“Perhaps before you go round calling people you disagree with leftist bigots (that’s the only reason I can see that you would call me such names)”
Grow up. This is not calling people names. Leftist is an adjective (in this context) and bigot is a noun. If I’d called you a dumbfuck, you may have had a point, but even if I had used that expression, it may be rude but it is still merely fair opinion. You now sound like the typical politically one dimensional easily offended pseudo liberal, one who mistakes a challenge to your views for a personal attack, and who regards any ideas that are radically different to your own trendy lefty mainstream viewpoints as “offensive”.
You need to understand this is the internet, and people, to a considerable extent, say what they like here without the restrictions that might apply in universities or government or big company work places or other situations where thanks to the totalitarian socialists, people often have to look over their shoulders before voicing an honest opinion.
“Apologise.”
Never.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Former regular viewer of Fox, when I had insomnia and/or different sleep patterns. (I am not a regular viewer now. This is why I did not characterise myself as such.) It didn’t impress me then, and what I have heard of it, and seen since then has not impressed me, but I fully accept that it is just an opinion and I could have watched Fox News at bad times, and seen biased coverage only dealing with one side of their “fair & balanced” reporting. I find it hard to believe, but I accept it could be true.
Note that I have already agreed that my original statement regarding racism in the United States, that it was rife, was poorly worded, and modified it accordingly.
Hearsay. Race riots in relatively recent times, policy targeted towards race, the fact that race is still a divisive political issue? I didn’t mention studies on the judicial system which claim it is biased against minorities, police brutality, or such, because I believed you would criticise them as leftist propaganda, instead I focused on broad statements regarding some events and policy, which combined with the attitudes held by friends of mine lead me to believe that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism (not necessarily a wide scope). It doesn’t seem that illogical a belief to hold, especially given the time it takes entrenched attitudes to change. You have not offered any evidence to the contrary.
I have stated that my politics are not from the left, and that I am willing to be persuaded as to other views. I am neither leftist, nor a bigot. I’m not particularly offended, and I guess I shouldn’t have got annoyed that there are still apparent fuckholes on the internet who are particularly intolerant of others views, and who have little to back up their own, because really, what have you given me? You haven’t bothered to refute anything on racism (which is the sticking point, really), you’ve offered nothing that shows why I appear to be a leftist or a bigot, and you’ve given me an alternative opinion on Fox, which I can accept (especially given my original comment on Fox News was flippant, and obviously not meant to be taken seriously). Oh, and you keep returning to my statment about racism being rife, which I already admitted was a poor choice of words.
So go on, please challenge my views, offer some evidence to the contrary regarding my statement that “there is a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States”, and if not evidence, offer a logical basis for there not being a “strong undercurrent of racism in the United States”. I am open to being persuaded that my opinion is incorrect. But don’t go back to my statement regarding racism being rife, because I have admitted in this post and in my previous post that it was a poor choice of words. While you’re at it, keep the polemicising labels out of it. Holding that there exists of “a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States” is not a leftist view. It is a view on opinions that certain people in society may still hold. It really has nothing to do with the politics of the left or right.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
“But don’t go back to my statement regarding racism being rife, because I have admitted in this post and in my previous post that it was a poor choice of words.”
“Poor choice of words” is mere semantics, and pretty feeble semantics at that. The reality is, you have admitted you were wrong. On the issue of racism being rife and on FOX news being biased. As I initially claimed you were. Considering this, there seems to be little more I need to say.
“Holding that there exists of “a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States” is not a leftist view.”
It is actually. Its just another propaganda lie, another wedge the left use to drive into the social cohesion of that country. People who are not leftists understand that this is a common strategy of global leftist forces, and South Africa and New Zealand are another two good examples. There is an age coming when this racist nonsense will be seen in its true light, and I look forward to such a post racial time, when true social progress can be made without the handicap of leftists using imaginary race issues to progress their obsession with power.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I haven’t read the comments, so I may be repeating points that others have made.
His flip-flops on the surge in Iraq are not going to be sufficient.
As far as I can tell, he hasn’t flip-flopped on the surge. He opposed it at the time and has said in interviews that he would still vote against it. He can’t admit that he was wrong. And he’s also changed his view on plenty of other things, e.g. public financing, partial-birth abortion, Iraq withdrawal etc; the sum total of those may be damaging.
But if he wins, it is clear he will be an extraordinarily popular United States President globally.
If I were an American (lived there for seven years), I wouldn’t necessarily want a US president who was globally popular, especially when you look at why he is popular overseas, i.e. he could be considered an appeaser.
Obama is only 4% ahead of McCain, but he will well ahead in the electoral college vote, and he is receiving twice as much coverage as McCain. This is arguably the result of an uncritical gushy media, but I can’t see it changing.
In a poll last week, 71% of Americans thought the media were biased towards Obama; 11% thought they were pulling for McCain. You’re right, though, David. That’s not going to change.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Jivekitty
All countries have people who are racists – it is an attitude that is endemic to the human condition. You imply that the US is particularly racist. No country is perfect and yes there are a few parts of the US where the numbers of racist people are higher than in other parts of the country but by and large, there are few states, counties and cities where there exists the types of institutionalised racism you allege – certainly no more than you’d find in rural NZ, Australia or the UK. Redbaiter is right in challenging your original statement that racism is rife in the US because it is not. He also rightly raises the issue of the left using racism as a wedge issue which is ironic because the left loves to accuse the right of the same. When you look at the Obama campaign, all substantive attacks surrounding Obama’s race have come from people of the left (namely the Clintons eg them circulating the traditional African dress photos, Bill and Hillary making pointed references during the primaries).
Red also referred to the academic research on media bias (done by places like UCLA and Harvard – well known to tilt to the left) and he is right – Fox News is demonstrably less biased than its competitors including broadcast and print media. People confuse Fox News’ commentators such as Bill O’Reilly and Shaun Hannity who unashamedly tilt to the right with the hard news team such as Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith and Britt Hume. The hard news team do try hard to be balanced whereas as CNN, MSNBC and the big 3 networks have been so blatantly partisan for the Democrats that it has become obvious. A Fox Opinion Dynamics poll released today reported on registered voters’ perception of Obama’s overseas trip:
Only 19% thought it was exclusively a fact-finding tour
Only 36% think that the media has reported on the campaign objectively.
Only 6% believe McCain has been given the better treatment while 46% believe that the media has given Obama more positive coverage.
67% of voters are convinced that the media wants Obama to win including more than 60% of Democrats and of independents also believe that the media wants Obama to win.
This poll is part of the reason why Obama has only managed a modest post-trip bounce in his poll ratings because the voters here aren’t stupid – they know when the media are in the tank for Obama.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
KIA I envy you your patience.
..and Jivekitty, if you’re still reading, you need to understand that bashing the US, especially at any time its under a Republican administration, is a leftist strategy. The US is in fact a great country. Sure it has problems, but practically all of those problems can be sheeted home to the cultural war conducted by the soviet left. (Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as two prominent exponents of that war) When you bash the US, you’re aiding and abetting the power obsessed vandals of civilization who are behind global socialism, and whose ambition is to turn the US Constitutional Republic into the same old same old soviet gulag they have made of every other country they have taken control of.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
JiveKitty: In the USA, guess what will be the respective voting rates of Whites and Blacks, for McCain and Obama. Which grouping votes almost entirely along racial lines when confronted with a ballott where there is a white candidate and a black one?
Why is it impossible for a WHITE to win certain mayoral contests in the USA?
Was Geraldine Ferraro right about Obama or not?
And by the way, the phenomenon is similar with respect to women. Women vote along gender lines far more than men do. That is why I think the single biggest reason the Nats have spent years in the political wilderness, is that Helen Clark is a woman, and the Nats dropped Jenny Shipley as their leader – HUGE mistake……….
July 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
And guess which party was behind the notorious Jim Crow laws in the South? And which party fought tooth and nail to prevent President Johnson passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965 allowing blacks the right to register to vote across all 50 states? A clue..its symbol is a donkey!
July 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The reason I mentioned racism originally was because a win by Obama would show how far the civil rights movement had come, and also perhaps help highlight the issue of racism in the United States. As I admitted, I was wrong to say racism was rife. I do, however, believe there is a strong undercurrent, and that a victory for Obama would be of hugely symbolic importance to the civil rights movement (you cannot win the presidency on just the African-American vote), and would also show how far civil rights have come in the United States. I don’t feel it is bashing to say that there is a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States, as it is, in my eyes, the truth (I feel the undercurrent is stronger and more prevalent than in, say, New Zealand, for example), and neither Democrat, nor Republican has solved the problem. And just because racism is everywhere does not mean it is right.
The Economist’s piece, “A Dream Deferred? Black America” (April 4, 2008), states that politically African-Americans in the United States have come far. However, socially and economically, they “are still much worse off than whites.” They do worse in schooling, higher education, and find it harder when applying for jobs.
They have huge systemic problems relating to what can be seen of as a form of institutionalised racism through the problems of resegregation of schools. “Today blacks are again increasingly concentrated, if not legally segregated, into failing schools. Some 73% of black children study where over half the students are non-white, and 38% attend “intensely segregated” schools (over 90% non-white). Those schools get less funding and have less qualified teachers than average. In turn fewer blacks finish their studies.” Becuase of the trouble with schooling, on average, they get lower SAT scores, and thus have worse chances at entering better universities. Affirmative action is a failed policy, also (and unjust to those who lose out because of its implementation anyway.)
In the job market, “lingering prejudice makes life harder for many black job applicants. Social experiments have repeatedly shown that employers who are offered two otherwise identical resumes prefer one that carries a typically white name to one with a typically black name. Increasingly it is poorer and less educated black Americans who use “typically black” names, according to research by Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago.” With decreased social and economic opportunities due to institutionalised racism, there are links to poorer health statistics for African-Americans, and it is also a likely contributor to their much higher probability of going to prison.
There are also more individual stories of racism. In Steve Coll’s commentary in The New Yorker (October 8, 2007), regarding the Jena Six case, he posits that although some evidence is murky “a cumulative verdict of racial double standards lies beyond reasonable doubt” with many African-Americans understanding “the case not only as the civil-rights era redux but as a stark illustration of a here-and-now problem, one about which whites are mainly silent: the mass incarceration of black youths–America’s “school-to-prison pipeline,” as some scholars have christened it.” The Jena Six case came about through a series of cumulative incidents, beginning with a black student asking “the school’s white principal if it would be all right to sit under an oak tree outside, an oasis of shade known as the “white tree,” because only Caucasian students congregated there. The principal said that the young man could sit where he liked. Later, the student and some African-American friends walked over to the oak and chatted with some white schoolmates. The next day, somebody fixed two nooses to the tree’s branches.” Events escalated from there.
There are more stories of recent racism in the United States than I care to count (I doubt I could even if I did care), if you care to look at them. For example, there was a fairly recent CNN documentary “Black in America” which focused on where the United States is at regarding race relations. It showed many African-Americans instructing their children to fear the police (“When you are stopped, whether you have done something or not, you cower. I want you to cower because I want you to live”); an educated African-American man, for an entry-level job no less, being denied even an interview (the implication is this is because he’s black, and I am inclined to agree with this interpretation of events); a CNN producer who cannot hail cabs and has to get a subordinate to do so; another individual who sends her child to a $40000 per year private school, only for it to be assumed she is the child’s nanny; and other such stories. I accept that the documentary probably had a bias, but I cannot accept that events such as these should be occurring and are not racist.
Because of things like these, I feel it is safe to say that there is a strong undercurrent of racism in the United States, and note that I have only given you some examples of racism against African-Americans. There are undoubtedly many such examples against other races. That is why I feel justified in saying that if Obama wins the Presidency of the United States, it will be a hugely symbolic moment for the civil rights movement. It will show the United States has moved in a less racially-biased direction, because you cannot win a Presidency on the African-American vote alone (and perhaps it will highlight the work that still needs to be done).
And yeah, it does seem females often vote on gender lines, as was shown in the Hillary campaign for the primaries.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Jive
These same stories could be told about minorities in New Zealand, England, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Holland, Japan etc etc but somehow you single out America. Why is that? What makes racism as perpetrated on blacks different to that perpetrated on Aboriginals, Maori, Inuit, Pakistanis in England, Morrocans in Holland, Turks in German or Philipinos in Japan. Nothing – no difference and yet where are their stories and where is your condemnation the the respective governments that allow such racism to continue.
You did however hit on the mother load of the subtle (and I believe racist) undercurrent being fuelled by the left in the US – that a vote against Obama is inherently racist. Somehow America can only expurgate its prior sins vis a vis slavery is if they elect Obama. Opposition to Obama for all conservatives I know has nothing to do with his race. It has to do with his hard left positions, the radicals like Wright and Ayers he courted and took advice from through his politically formative years, his miniscule governing record, his frightening naivete on the war on terror, his steadfast denial of the success of the surge even after seeing it for himself, his greater than usual pandering and flip flopping to get elected and his overreaching hubris and arrogance manifest in so many blatant ways over this campaign. Doubtless some ‘rednecks’ in Ohio and Kentucky will never vote for Obama because he is black. There are dozens of outstanding black politicians I would vote for in a hearbeat if they were standing where I live. I believe I am truly colourblind.
Achieving civil rights symbolism is not the most important reason to elect the leader of the free world. Obama as President could assuage white guilt and be a Jimmy Carter style muddled, wooly headed leftist disaster and what would that achieve?
July 28th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Sorry 3rd line should start “What makes racism as perpetrated on blacks any…
July 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
kiwi
So it seems that we are not the only country where the left are being allowed to frame the debate, I guess that just shows how shallow and false Hussein Obama actually is.