Senator Obama Mentioned as 2008 Contender
- 06-17-2006, 11:37 PM
Senator Obama Mentioned as 2008 Contender
Obama's Profile Has Democrats Taking Notice
Popular Senator Is Mentioned as 2008 Contender
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 18, 2006; A01
EAST ORANGE, N.J. -- Barack Obama was standing before a packed high school auditorium when he noticed a familiar face in the crowd -- none other than singer Dionne Warwick. He paused, flashed a mischievous smile, then let loose with a perfectly on-key performance of the opening line of her hit song "Walk On By."
The audience of 300 students and adults roared with approval.
Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as "a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear."
His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.
The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer -- less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature -- is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.
"I think he is unique," said Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). "I don't believe there is another candidate I've seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does." As for the 2008 presidential race, "I said to him, 'Why don't you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?' I know what's going to happen. And I think it's going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision."
Obama deflects such talk, while not ruling out a presidential candidacy. The speculation is as much a commentary on the state of the party as it is on Obama. The Democrats' most prominent likely contenders -- such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) -- are figures who have been in the public eye for many years and wear scars from earlier controversies.
At age 44, the former Harvard Law School standout has little baggage. But Obama also has a scant legislative record in the Senate, where some members privately say they view him as drawn to news conferences and speeches more than to the hard details of lawmaking.
He has yet to carve out a distinctive profile on the policy and ideological debates that are central to how Democrats will position themselves in a post-Bush era.
In his stump speech, he offers a standard Democratic criticism of President Bush's tax cuts as favoring the rich, and promotes energy independence with only modest detail about how to achieve it. Nor does he dwell on the Iraq war, assailing the administration's handling of the conflict but not addressing such questions as a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Instead, it is almost entirely Obama's biography, along with his gift for engaging people in large audiences and one-on-one encounters, that is driving interest.
"It's very exciting for him to come here," said Iqua Colson, a public schools administrator who appeared at the event here. Most of the students are African American, as is Colson, and she said they see the Senate's only black member as an appealing role model: "He represents hope, promise, excellence."
Every speech includes a version of people telling him in 2004 that a Hawaiian-born African American with a Kenyan father, Kansan mother and "an unpronounceable name" could never be elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. Before mostly black audiences, he triggers guffaws by saying people rendered his surname as "Alabama" and "yo mama." He refers to himself as "a black guy" before white audiences, "a brother" before black groups.
Every story ends the same, however. He overcame the odds, he tells the listeners, and so can they.
It is a homily that has left some fellow politicians swooning. "I haven't seen a phenomenon like this, where someone comes in so new and is so dazzling," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a 25-year veteran of Congress. Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Obama "is more requested than anybody else" in the party's hierarchy for fundraising and campaign appearances on behalf of congressional candidates. "Everyone wants him. He's lightning."
Barely known outside his state until he delivered a widely praised speech at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, Obama is scrambling to meet his party's demands.
He starred at a March 30 dinner for Connecticut Democrats that drew more than 1,700 people paying at least $175 each -- the state party's biggest such take in decades. "The Darling of His Party," the next day's Hartford Courant front-page headline said, "Wows the Faithful." A March rally on behalf of a Senate candidate in Vermont drew 2,000 people to a hall with 800 seats. "Organizers underestimated Barack Obama's star power," said the next day's Burlington Free Press.
Invitations he has turned down included a chance to be Stanford University's commencement speaker, because he tries to spend Sundays at home in Chicago with his wife, Michelle, and their two young daughters.
Interviewed recently as he jetted between campaign appearances for Democrats in Massachusetts and New Jersey, Obama said he is flattered but so far unmoved by appeals that he seek the presidency in 2008: "It's gratifying to know that my message resonates enough that people are thinking in those terms. But at this stage, I haven't changed my mind from previous demurrals."
Obama, however, is not exactly standing still. He recently hired two nationally experienced political consultants, Anita Dunn in Washington and David Axelrod in Chicago. The senator suggested that a presidential bid is a matter of when, not if.
"We've visited 25 states since taking office," he said. "And in each of those states, we might have 2,000 people show up at a rally. And we'd get back to D.C. and we'd realize we didn't have e-mail addresses for any of those people. That might be a useful thing to have when, you know, I'm running for something and might be looking to raise some money."
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who lauded Obama's political and legislative skills, said he must think about what timing is best for him. "It is unfair to him to heap too much praise on him, because he's so new here," he said. "He's kind of like an all-star baseball player who comes right out of high school or college and has a major impact in that first season. And always the question is, 'Can he sustain it? Will he get burned out?' "
Obama said he wishes reporters and others would pay more attention to his work that helped Illinois veterans receive larger disability benefits, and his legislation encouraging alternative fuels. But he said he understands that "there's a certain story line that attaches to each celebrity. . . . My story line is: 'Rising star comes to D.C. and how quickly will D.C. corrupt him?' "
He praised Clinton's approach to Congress and prominence. "One of the things that both Hillary and I recognize is that we are conferred a huge advantage by virtue of our notoriety," he said. "We don't really have to chase the cameras."
For now, most of his Democratic colleagues believe that Obama's advancement only benefits them. In East Orange, Obama made three stops on behalf of Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), including at a fundraiser that brought in $500,000.
Menendez, who has won seven U.S. House races, later confided, "I took some notes on his interactions."
Onstage, Obama carries audiences along with self-deprecating jokes and gently rhythmic riffs that accent his main points. With a comic's timing, he gets big laughs describing how he reacted when friends first urged him to run for the Illinois Senate. "I prayed on it," he says, pausing briefly. "And I asked my wife." He adds that "those higher authorities" gave their assent.
Perhaps because he has been a national figure for so short a time, there's little of the air of self-importance that surrounds many senators. Staffers generally refer to him as "Barack" rather than "the senator," and they don't snap to attention, as some aides do, when the boss suddenly appears.
Offstage, his matter-of-fact demeanor rarely changed in two busy days of travel. As the plane was about to lift off in overcast skies, he nonchalantly discussed the weather-related crashes that killed Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan and Minnesota Sen. Paul D. Wellstone on campaign trips. An Obama staff member and a reporter later acknowledged that they found the conversation a bit unsettling.
Stylistically, Obama conveys a "sense of authenticity, which I think is the silver coin of the time in terms of leadership," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). In the Senate, he credited the freshman with persuading Republicans to accept a controversial provision on wages in the hard-fought immigration bill.
What Kennedy viewed as a coup, however, was seen as showy overreaching by some Republicans. They complained that in private negotiations Obama seemed more interested in his pet amendments than in the need for an overarching, filibuster-proof compromise.
Such reproaches are bound to increase with Obama's visibility, and the potential danger of moving too far, too fast "is certainly something that I think he thinks about," Kennedy said. "On the other hand, there is enormous thirst within the Democratic Party, within the country, to have new directions, new solutions, new ideas." Kennedy said he doesn't know Obama well enough to counsel him on whether to run in 2008.
But some grass-roots Democrats are ready. "I think he's spectacular," said ophthalmologist David Victor after hearing Obama speak at a Boston rally. "Barack Obama represents the heart and soul of the party, the real future of the party."
Washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report in Washington.
- 06-18-2006, 12:21 AM
- 06-18-2006, 01:10 AM
He'll be a better choice than Hillary but damn Obama almost sounds like Osama and would be an ironic name for a US president LOL
06-19-2006, 09:06 AM
the people would vote a black republican in office first, he doesn't have a chance until that happens
06-19-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
I agree, sort of anyway. I expected Barack to run in 2012. He is just a first term senator, and I didn't think he could garner the support necessary to take on Hillary. I read his autobiography, and it was an interesting story to say the least. His mother is white from the heartland of America, his father is African and goes back to Africa leaving his family behind, and Barack admits to using drugs. Not a great background to run for president, but Obama is an incredible speaker and motivator, as witnessed in his address at the last Democratic Convention. He has had several major political victories and maintains a huge following. I guess Barack is a candidate for the whole "american dream" scenario, overcoming obstacles and succeeding. This could play big.
Still, he is a Democrat. Hillary is going to win the nomination - no matter what else hapens - in 2008. And some Republican will beat her for pres because nobody really wants Hillary to win. If Barack was a Republican, his chances would increase dramatically. If Colin Powell ran for pres as a republican against Hillary, he would undoubtly be the first African American to be President of the US. I would wager he would put up landslide type numbers in the race.
06-19-2006, 12:38 PM
Historically senators never fair well in presidential campaigns.
Furthermore, he's waaaaaaaaaaaay out there on the far left.
He wants amnesty for illegals and has yet to renounce the tired tax, tax, tax policies of the Democrats.
I really fail to see what is so great about him. Up to this point what has he really accomplished???
06-19-2006, 01:07 PM
the only thing great about him is that that he is being promoted as a black democrat. un like the republican party that has more black and minority members in true powerful positions, the left has not been very good on bringing black americans up to that standard... reasons why i wont get into for it is another topic in a whole. Obama is just a new cool thing to look at... and you are correct.. why his politics is outed.. the nation will pass over him as they have done with almost every black liberal.
06-19-2006, 01:42 PM
As has been said here, this guy's name alone will kill his presidential aspirations. Nobody is going to want a president named Barak Obama.
Like some others, I agree with the theory that the first black president will be a Republican, and I've always felt this way.
I think that J.C. Watts would be a good pick. Although "JC" stands for "Julius Caesar," nobody knows him by that name. "JC Watts" sounds very all-American. And he was a star college football player and played in the CFL.
06-19-2006, 07:21 PM
The fact that the Dems have to bring up this know-nothing, rookie political hack, is a testimony to how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Democrat party has become. They got no credible candidate left in the party. All the Blue Dog Democrates have been circumcised and strangulated to death. It is a party of lunatics, moral degenerates, hypocrites, dinosaurs and yellow dog Democrates. Collin Powell is damn right when he said the Dems are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
It is a damn shame that the Republic does not have a credible opposition. It is unhealthy for a democracy.
06-20-2006, 12:31 AM
07-05-2006, 04:53 PM
No Democrat will be elected until at least 2016. The party needs a whole heap of changes, mainly the addition of a complete platform. They have the fundraising support, they just can't manage to capitalize on all of the mistakes the Republicans have made. Honestly, no matter what party you are, you can admit that there have been numerous opportunities, mainly the DeLay indictment, the NSA scandal, etc., etc. where the Democrats could have capitalized big time, but just ended up stumbling over their own feet.
Barack never says anything worthwhile in his speeches. Yes he's good at speaking, but not at speaking of what he or his party intend to do for our country. He is not a winning candidate for President, never will be. The Democrats need to find a good Governor from a fairly in the middle state, like a Clinton version 2.0, if they want to compete in the future.
07-05-2006, 08:08 PM
Billary Klinton was the failed governor of a failed state. As Ross Perot put it,"I wouldn't even consider hiring him to be mid level manager." His treachery at the highest office, resulted in unprecedented security bleach and compromise. The Chinese conducted mass scale theft of secrets concerning nuclear war head design. The Chinese intelligence services loved Klinton/Gore so much that they were actively channelling money into Gore's campaign, hoping to get another traitor into WhiteHouse. Damn Gore was taking money from Chinese nuns and monks who were supposed to have taken vows of poverty. The Russians were putting bugs in the States Dept's conference rooms. The whole Klinton WhiteHouse was leaking intelligence like a freaking sheeve. Al Qaeda grew unchecked and unstopped, precipitating in 911. The stock market has the biggest burst in history, pecipitated by Alan Greenspan's rolling asset bubble inflation scheme. The scumball should be tried for treason. Treachery by way of dereliction of duty.
07-05-2006, 10:41 PM
Would you mind providing a source for this information, I spoke to a few of my professors about this comment, none have ever heard of that. Neither have staunch Republican lobbiests and Congress staffers that I have shared your enlightening rhetoric with.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
07-05-2006, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
What are you talking about???
Without Algore, earth will reach 10,000,000,000,000 degreees fahrenheit by Friday at 4:38 pm est.
Oh Algore, savior of the nonsexist, bathhouse friendly cosmos...deliver us unto a gender neutral, Prius rich landscape where your nuance and gravitas will show us the light and taxes will obliterate the middle class.
Bush lied kids died!!!
07-05-2006, 10:45 PM
Also honestly man, China is so ****ing far behind us in terms of military technology it's not even funny. Do you honestly think our latest breaking developmental secrets are kept in the White House or the State Dept.? Also have you ever even tried to get into either building, the background check alone takes months, doubtful that some random spy would slip through.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but from the standpoint of a polemecist, that arguement lacks proper spelling, grammar, citations and basic logic, I really do not see how you expect anyone on this board to believe it.
07-05-2006, 11:09 PM
07-06-2006, 06:12 AM
I think Governor Mit Romney has been spoken of running in 2008.
Being a resident of Massachusetts myself, that makes me :shudder:
How about Governor Schwarzenegger running? It's only a matter of time before they change that rule for him
07-06-2006, 06:29 AM
Obama isn't going anyway. I was impressed with him for a "shooooooooooooooooooooort time". since that time, however, he has proved himself to be a true politician with little to no vision. As the article mentioned, he just seems to tow the party line in a splenderous fashion, but nothing more.
I can't think of a single person I'd "almost be please voting for" with the exception of good ole rudy juliani. I like the fact that the turned crime in NY on its head and kicked it in the face and then publically said some pretty nasty stuff about his ex-wife In short, it seems he still has testicles...haha. I'd vote for a man with balls who seems just shy of a raving lunatic before I'd vote for another spineless politician on their knees in front of UN representatives.
07-06-2006, 07:53 AM
Yah, I'm not the hugest Bush fan on Earth, but I like the fact that he at least stands for something and sticks with it. At the end of the day I am pleased that he has some personal strength, knows what he wants to do, and does it, which can not be said for most of the proposed Democratic candidates.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
To the person above who said that about Ahnnold, won't happen. Even if that rule wasn't there his approval rating and history as Governor of California is not favorable. Personally I like a lot of his ideas and proposals, but I remember just recently there was a time when his approval rating was lower than Bush's, and that's pretty low.
Overall, I expect McCain to throw his hat in. He's doing everything by the book right now, gaining support from the far right, including the vital financial backers, making 'visits' to New Hampshire and other states, etc. If he runs though I hope he can ditch his ultra-right allegiance right after the primary and market himself for who he really is. We can save anything more on that topic for another thread though.
Yah, everyone the Democrats have proposed is a ****ing loser. Plain and simple. Apparently they didn't learn from 2004. If Feingold runs I will laugh so damn hard.
07-06-2006, 08:05 AM
Oh....McCain....if there is anybody I hate more than hillary clinton, its john mccain. That guy will be the death of america if he is president. talk about a people pleasin son of a b1tch. he flip flops like john kerry during a seizure.
i'll never get over him taunting the americna people regarding the immigration debate offering any american citizen $50/hr to pick strawberries and saying we still wouldn't do it. that quote will never die. if he runs, it will be teh death of him.....i'm very glad he said it, otherwise, i think he may have a chance.
07-06-2006, 08:15 AM
The sad thing is that fact is pretty damn true.
I would not say he is flip-flopping at all, in fact show me on his voting record where he does so.
I dislike things about McCain, mainly his attendence records, but I like that he is efficient, he can use bipartisanship effectively and repeatedly to get legislation he wants passed with little commotion (for the most part). I think this would be of use if he were President.
I do not think he is flip flopping, just playing the fundraising game super smart. He'll wander to the right for the primary, but its obvious from his past that he won't stay there, at least not long after he is the chosen candidate.
I also believe he would be a good diplomat, better than the current President, hell better than anyone we have now.
I know he is not perfect, but of the candidates I have seen so far, I think he is the most solid choice for the American public, that is Democrats and Republicans. I believe that people on both sides would support him as President and I think he has the ability to help ease bipartisan tension and help the Republican party avoid some of the blatant type of mistakes they have made over the past few years. I know I'd rather have him as my leader than Bill Frist that's for damn sure.
07-06-2006, 10:19 AM
From what I have read about McCain, he is a horrible, horrible man. When in front of the cameras he acts like a different person.
I do not think he is mentally stable enough to survive the long campaign one must endure to become president.
If you think Howie "Scream" Dean looked like an @ss clown, McCain would be about 100xs worse.
07-06-2006, 11:09 AM
I disagree whole-heartedly.
What candidate/politician doesn't try to put up a front?
I've met him in person at restaurants a few time, always an extremely nice guy, willing to talk and makes an attempt to be very polite and outgoing.
Again, show me how his voting record differs from what he says on camera and I will agree with you, but until then, I do not believe that to be true. I consider him to be 100% better than Dean, just go back to the McCain/Bush debate in 2000 and tell me that he folds under pressure, simply not true.
Johny Kerry was the real ass clown. A flip flopper that lied, yes LIED, about his service in Vietnam, a horrible politician, and a boring speaker is better in your eyes than a man that is honest about his service, is very successful at working with staunch Democrats on key issues, introduces successful policy time and time again, and sticks with his side.
I'm not sure where you heard your information about Mc Cain's personality, but I would double check it and I would also check his voting record if I were you. Of the proposed candidates, Mc Cain is the only one that successfully works with members of both parties, extreme and moderate, to aggregate successful legislation. He is not a loud mouth, has a fairly moderate platform, and yes, he can handle pressure very well, he did so for the past 6 years as he scrutinized his own party and the current administration.
Remember, there will never be a perfect candidate, there are a few things about Mc Cain that I do not like. However, these are small grievances. When compared to the other proposed candidates I think he is honestly the best person for the job at this point in the race. He is playing it smart so far, setting himself up for a successful campaign, one that is more moderate than the opposition and more forward-moving. I admire his positions on federal spending, immigration, foreign policy, earmarks, human rights, and as a fairly right-leaning person myself, hope that he continues to play the game smart and emerge as the most sane and viable candidate in 08.
Seriously though, Howard Dean, come on. That guy doesn't know his head from his ass. He's a loudmouthed left wing reactionary, just like Billary and Obama, has no real ideas for the future of our nation except the whole criticize the Republicans bit, and I doubt you could name one piece of decent and important legislation that he has ever introduced. You can not say the same about Mc Cain, who has managed to keep his cool and speak out against his own party at a time when coherence is so high, and just take a look at how he worked with Feingold to attack soft money contributions, an important step in trying to curtail campaign spending and the idea of 'the candidate with the most money does the best', something that helped Bush out and Hilary is hoping will help her out.
07-06-2006, 01:04 PM
I don't favor Dean or Lord Kerry over McCain but I do know that McCain is a maniac and he's selling us out over the border.
Furthermore, everyone knows that McCain has gone against Bush purely for revenge (still bitter about losing the 2000 primary in South carolina) and to garner positive press from the liberal media.
07-06-2006, 01:31 PM
07-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Wouldn't say that, he's been pretty good with Karl Rove and a lot of Bush's financial backers lately and has been meeting an awful lot with Bush himself, as well as backing him publicly.
07-06-2006, 08:28 PM
You are just sore because I have exposed the double talking, chronic complaining, morally and intellectually bankrupt, left wing extreme, liberal ideology that you so loved to wrap yourself in.Originally Posted by yeahright
Your statement also reflect your lack of knowledge about what actually goes on and has gone on in the real world. You have simply proved that you are not aware of those facts that have been reported publicly in the news media.
So, what are we going to do? Stay in Iraq and do what the liberal left wing haters like to condemn as 'butting into other country's business'? OR shall we pull our troops out of Iraq, like what the chronic whiners complain as "abandoning Afghanistan"? Which side of the mouth this time? LOL
Let me guess. While we are here, the chronic whiners would bellyache about America butting into other people's business and demand we pull out. After we pull out, the chronic whinners will bellyache about abandoning the Iraqis. LOL
How am I doing? lol
07-06-2006, 08:41 PM
Those are public source information. If they don't know about those, that means they don't know jack sh1t about the real world. It was in the newspaper, for god's sake!Originally Posted by ktw
The Russian bugging the State Dept was reported in newspaper. It was so funny. The Russian put the bugs in the conference room and sat their car outside to listen in. The State Dept was a disaster. Operatives came and went at will.
The Chinese stole the W-80 warhead design. W-80 are the miniaturized nuclear warheads carried by cruise missles. There was a big fuss about this. If the people you talk to, don't know about this, then they are pretty much out of touch. Get your 'Congressional' buddies to dig out the Senate hearing on this.
The Chinese Intelligence openly endorsed Klinton/Gore. Gore took money from Buddhist monks and nuns. This is also in the media. Gore ended up returning the money, one of the many donations they ended up returning when the scandals burst.
I am not going to dig out newpaper archive from previous years for this.
If you want to look into this, there are several books that may be able to enlighten you.
Legacy : Paying the Price for the Clinton Years
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261294/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-1164965-8182205?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=gla nce&n=283155]Amazon.com: Legacy : Paying the Price for the Clinton Years: Books: Rich Lowry[/ame]
Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261405/sr=8-2/qid=1152230622/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1164965-8182205?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security: Books: Robert Patterson[/ame]
The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
Barnes & Noble.c om - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House - Barbara Olson - Hardcover
Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barnes & Noble.c om - Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton - Barbara Olson - Paperback - REVISED & UPDATED
Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security
Barnes & Noble.c om - Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security - Robert Buzz Patterson - Hardcover
Hope you have a strong stomach, as these will make you sick.
P.S. They may or may not contain the specific cases I mentioned.
07-06-2006, 08:48 PM
From the reader's review of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261294/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-1164965-8182205?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=gla nce&n=283155]Amazon.com: Legacy : Paying the Price for the Clinton Years: Books: Rich Lowry[/ame]Originally Posted by BioHazzard
"....Lowry has obviously read a ton of books about Clinton - he knows the inside story on pretty much any Clinton issue or scandal.
Think Clinton was responsible for the booming economy of the 1990s? Nope - the recover was underway before he even was elected. Think he erased the deficit? Wrong - gushing tax revenues did that, and a Republican Congress that imposed a slim veneer of fiscal discipline. Think he was serious about "reforming welfare as we know it?" Think again - he signed that bill only because he thought it was necessary for his reelection, and then he vowed to supporters that he'd fix it, though he never did. Think he was an innocent victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hah - he brought all his troubles on himself and has no one else to blame. Think he was tough on crime? Hardly - he nominated a clueless Janet Reno attorney general, the Queen of the Bunny Planet. Think he helped bring peace to the Middle East? Not even close - he strengthened Arafat, whose refusal to accept generous concessions from Israel led to the current bloodshed. Think he cared about the people of Africa? Not so fast - he not only did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda, his administration actively opposed any UN effort to send more troops there.
What's most effective about Lowry's indictments are his temperament and sources. No rabid Clinton-hater (not, of course, that there's anything wrong with that), his tone is more of a sober, serious, and grown-up accounting of all that was wrong with Clinton and his presidency. It's not an hysterical, rabid, slobbering at the mouth rant. And his best digs come from Clinton sympathizers and former employees, which lends even more legitimacy to the book.
After reading this, it's fairly obvious that for a man who worked long hours into the night, Clinton was a lazy president - he preferred talking about tough issues to actually doing something about them. He avoided any action, no matter how justified, necessary, or right, that he thought might cost him a dip in the polls, while taking action only on issues that he thought would help him politically, or were just easier, like school uniforms and the V-chip.
Because of that, one could almost conclude Clinton was an inconsequential president, except for one major issue: terrorism. By treating it as a law enforcement issue, he essentially washed his hands of it and left it to the Justice Department to track down terrorists, a task for which the department was not prepared. As a result, Osama and his cohorts had free rein to kill Americans all over the world, until finally the country woke up to the war we were in on September 11, 2001. Clinton knew Osama was a threat, yet other than bombing empty buildings and deserted training camps, he did nothing. That would be difficult, you see, a distraction from his important work of pardoning rich fugitives and getting Hillary elected to the Senate.
It was often said that Clinton lacked core convictions, but Lowry shows he did indeed have those. What he lacked was the courage to act on them unless they were politically expedient.
As for the writing, it's excellent. Fluid, interesting, easy to understand, and leavened with light touches of humor. For a political book, it's enjoyable reading.
Lowry understands Clinton. If you are willing and able to do the same, then read this book. You'll be the better for it...."
07-06-2006, 08:59 PM
Yes, apparently law professors at Georgetown and GWU know nothing!
All of those books are written by pundits, people no better than Bill O'Reilly or the kids that made the 9/11 hoax video.
Clinton had Chinese nationals sleep in the White House, that is the extent of it.
I asked the staffers if they had heard anything about that, they looked it up on Thomas (Library of Congress site) which has the Congressional Records for nearly every year, nothing came up.
'The newspaper'. Way to narrow it down buddy, it makes a big difference what paper it was in and who wrote it. You can't compare the Washington Post to the Washington Times. Also a funny sidenote, a CIA analyst for Iran gave a presentation to my program, an interesting note she made was that nothing sensative or comprimising ever makes the news, which is what you're claiming happened. I mean either the world is a hoax or your inaccurate pundit books are just a great source of information that is undiscovered to dozens of people that work in DC for the past 15 years.
Give me a break buddy, this is ridiculous. You need to realize the agenda of all of those books, and most pundits in general. Just because someone can fill a few hundred pages with a steaming pile of b/s does not mean it's true.
It should not be hard to dig this up if it was so obvious and in all of the newspapers.
Also, to get into any secure area of the State Department requires an intense background check and security clearance. Also, what the hell do the Russians have to gain by going there, they would definately be more smart to plant bugs in the CIA where the actual analysts that advise the President work.
Cool, someone copied a warhead design. Most of our older designs have been public for years, do you honestly believe that technology is cutting edge if China could produce it? Have you never paid attention to military technology in general. Anything that is public is at least 25 years old, if not more, not to mention that our highest level of technology is not just easily broadcasted in DC, it is kept secret at bases across the country, one that you might have heard of is known as Area 51. Honestly, none of our enemies have been able to develop the surveillance technology we had before the SR-71 went up in the air, let alone our best warhead design.
07-06-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Don't tell me you are trusting some random readers opinion on a global bookstore. Do you really believe everything you see on the internet? If so you have some work to do buddy.
07-06-2006, 09:13 PM
1. Don't worry about me.Originally Posted by ktw
2. Read other reviewers' opinions.
3. Why don't you go read the book and tell us what you think then?
4. Go ahead and rebutt the facts reported in those books.
07-06-2006, 09:19 PM
I feel charitable tonight. So I did your homework for ya.Originally Posted by ktw
1. Al Gore's taking money from Chinese scum operatives.
Salon Politics2000 | Smoke and mirrors
Washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance Special Report
Washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance Special Report
2. States Department Spy scandal
KGB Spy Gusev PNG'd: Dec 8, 1999
Russia Indignant Over U.S. 'Spy' Expulsion
3. Chinese stealing nuclear war head design
NucNews-US 8/24/99 (Scroll to the near bottom)
China May Have Stolen Nuke Secrets - Los Alamos
CNN.com - Senate hearing examines loss of nuclear secrets at Los Alamos lab - June 14, 2000
Sobering Senate Hearing on National Labs Espionage
Democracy Now! | Nnsa, Los Alamos and Nuclear Safety
Soooo.... hoax you said?
May be the George whatever hell profs need a sabbatica to clear their memory cluster****.....
P.S. Before you resort to the left wing extremists' favourite play book, may be you should do some background research on the author of Dereliction of Duty. It makes you look foolish and ill-informed to make such blanket statement as to call them all 'pundits'. If you have done your homework and read the readers' reviews of those works, you would have come across a near universal admission by the critics that, irrespective of the political inclination of the authors, the FACTS they uncovered, are irrefutable.
Instead of doing your homework and speaking about the facts, you resort to pulling spin. That is rather disappointing.
P.S. I dug out some info (hardly exclusive nor extensive, just some pointers) to point you towards the right direction for your research, because I thought you were interested in learning. If you don't, then I don't really give a rat's behind. I don't give a sh1t about convincing you or anybody, about anything. What anyone chooses to believe in, means **** sht to me. lol It is your life, not mine.
If you want to believe none of the stuffs I mentioned have actually happened, well then don't. lol What difference will that make, whether you accept them or not? Do you think ther real world will stop working?
07-06-2006, 09:55 PM
Sorry man, plenty of time doing other reasearch for my job, which believe it or not is in the political realm.
Other than the nuke story, the other sources are false.
I am not left-wing, nor have I ever been. I am simply a realist who seeks the most unbiased information which I use to formulate my own views.
This conversation is pointless, we will all continue to believe what we will, thanks for the time to find the links, I will look for the hearing the Thomas database tomorrow and read the testimony to see what was actually said, that way I do not have to rely on CNN.
What about what I said was Spin? Is this the classic b/s O Reilly argument? Please do not tell me you get any political information from that sh1twad. Authors with a political agenda aimed at defaming the other party so they look better are pundits. People like Samuel Huntington, research professors, are not pundits.
As for the professors, you should check school rankings, those are two of the best schools in the country at which one could get a JD, MPP, or PHD in Political Science. If their staff isn't up to date, our higher education system is completely butt****ed.
Have you ever attended a hearing before? I laugh if you really believe the questions proposed are devoid of party or personal influence. ****, I've seen John Mica speak about blatant lies for hours, blabber about bad security diagrams that never meant **** for 3 hours, I've seen other Senators make comments that are completely off base, and are conflicted by testimony and empirical evidence. The findings of the committee are what matters, not the description of the proceedings. Hell, most members NEVER, I repeat NEVER show up for any hearings at all. I know my elected rep. has not attended a hearing on either of her committees all summer, so what does that say about the thoroughness and bias of the hearing process. I am not saying that the link you sent did not happen or anything like that, but you need to realize real spin when it's staring you in the face. I remember hearing about the hard drives, but the CNN article mentions nothing of the Chinese warheads that came from them. Furthermore another good question is WHAT THE HELL DOES CLINTON HAVE TO DO WITH DUMBASS EMPLOYEES AND CRAPPY SECURITY GUARDS? DO you think he sits around all day and plans the security programs for Los Alamos. I hope not, the thought of that even being true is a joke in itself. It is one thing to blame those accountable and another to blame the President because he happened to preside over the nation at that time. ****, same thing could have happened under any President, funny that you would, as you say it, "spin" it to try and make a case against Clinton.
As I said I am done, we are both too stubborn to move away from our viewpoints.
Next time you engage in political conversation, do not judge a person's ideology by their position on 3 events that happened in history, that is a really poor way to pigeonhole an individual, a common tactic of those who use spin tactics to the fullest.
07-06-2006, 09:56 PM
O/T While I was googling just now, I came across this interesting article. Thought people might be interested.
Soviet Spymaster Kalugin on Bush, Gore, Reagan, Nixon, Saddam, Putin, CIA, China
"....A: I was interviewed by a major Russian newspaper two weeks ago, Commerzant. The first question was, “Why do you hate America?” I said, “I love America.” They asked, “How come everyone hates America?” I said: “Because of their ignorance. They do not know America and American history, or they may be envious. Envy and ignorance create hostility.” (Note: )
I said: “America has created a society which may be the model for the world. It’s not perfect; you have all the contradictions and conflicts. But it’s allowed millions of people of all beliefs and religious views to come together and live in peace, and created a powerful and viable America.” ..."
"...Q: Do you have any regrets about your life as a spy?
A: No, none. I did my job well. I never cheated. I seriously served a cause I believed in. … I believed in communism. It was based on the best economic and philosophical theories. It was essentially rooted in Christianity, social justice, brotherhood, love of people, equality and freedom.
It turned out to be all slogans. It was discredited by a bloody and brutal and cheating [leadership]...."
07-06-2006, 10:33 PM
that was an interesting read, i agree with him on the second to last question, we will never be perfect, but we manage to do it better than anyone else.
07-07-2006, 05:31 PM
Not only that, but he has a hard on for steroids and is too worried about about which athletes are using steroids. This guy will be too concerned with non-issues and ignore real issues like education, economic growth, lowering taxes, addressing illegal immigration, Islamic jihadists, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, being tough on criminals, especially child molesters/rapists, and anything else I left off.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I heard about that quote too and I simply can't understand why he would basically offend all American citizens, which are also the people who can legally vote. I hope he enjoys the lime-light while he can, maybe we will only get to see his sorry azz whenever the media creates another anti-steroid campaign.
07-07-2006, 09:17 PM
You should probably read about his ideology a little bit more, he covers all of the areas you mentioned.
Also, in the Senate there is only a certain amount of work one Senator is allowed to do. If McCain gets assigned to some lame issue that no one cares about it through one of his committees, it is still his job to adress it in a manner that he sees fit. **** I had to listen to Trent Lott debate about grain elevators in North Dakota for 3 hours once, guarantee that it's not important to the masses, but it's still part of his job. McCain also has well published views on the war, national defense, etc. Also, I do not know how much you know about foreign intelligence, but every single President gets briefed by the CIA on a daily basis about emerging crisis', so it would be impossible for him not to pay attention to and address prominent foreign affairs issues.
Also, do you really think it would be a smart move for the Republicans to nominate anyone more right or as far right as Bush? Think long-term strategy. If the Republicans want to keep control of the executive branch they have to elect a candidate that can work with both parties to aggregate effective legislation and gain a better-than-Bush level of sustainable public approval. If they elected anyone as far right as Bush they might please their conservative fan base and lose their more moderate constituants.
I know there are people in this thread that are probably Bush admin. supporters, do not take this as criticism of Bush, it's just simple strategy, there have been too many errors in the past 6 years for voters to respond to, electing a Bush-like official would kill election hopes in 2012 or 2016. There is a trade-off to be made and obviously they know this. Why do you think McCain has been meeting with Karl Rove and Bush's staff on a near daily basis? It's fairly obvious that he is part of the GOP's strategy to maintain power in that branch, and even if you are a Republican non-McCain supporter that is of interest to you. The Senate and House are slightly different, but a lot of smaller states in 2006 could change the majority position around, which would also be a major roadbump for the GOP.
Right now I do not know why anyone is even focused on 08. 06 is just as important and is less than 6 months away, a Democratic House, Senate, or Congress could be a very bad for the Republican Party, I hope they do not manage to sway the majority in their favor.
We all learned from Howard Dean that candidates who campaign too early have nowhere to go but down. McCain could not afford this if he were to run, he already has the roadblock of being a Senator, not a good position for moving up to the Executive position. I will bet you all good amounts of money that if McCain runs in 08, he will wait to start a full force campaign and will whistling a far different tune than in his 2000 run, he needs the GOP right now and they could definately use him to win over the more moderate fringe of their party.
What do you guys think of the possibility of Bill Frist running? Or Governor Allen?:
07-09-2006, 10:58 PM
rudy, rudy, rudy! haha
anybody who can take on the streets of NY, make a difference, and then have the balls to publically call his ex-wife names and not back down has my vote for president.
Not politically correct - check
Not afraid to stand up against human trash - check
The rest is irrelevant. At this point, we simply need a leader the american people can look up to. without a leader of some sort....we're screwed.
07-09-2006, 11:43 PM
NY still smells like piss and garbage though...
As long as it isn't Hillary, Obama, Feingold or any of the other people the left has mentioned so far then I'm probably able to somewhat support em.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Omen in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 2Last Post: 01-06-2009, 06:42 PM
- By David Dunn in forum PoliticsReplies: 49Last Post: 11-12-2008, 02:19 AM
- By bpmartyr in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2008, 12:59 PM
- By bpmartyr in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-18-2008, 12:42 PM
- By 01yz426 in forum Weight LossReplies: 7Last Post: 01-24-2008, 06:38 AM