OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My dad works in the Senate garage and has contact with Senators on a daily basis. Therefore, he actually knows the candidates who are running for president. This is what he told me about them-Clinton and McCain would not condescend to even speak to my father, in fact he told me that he's actually tried to say hi to Senator McCain and he just walked on by him without even looking. But Senator Obama actually stops and talks and watches tv with the guys down there. That may not seem like a big deal but if you think about it, it is. Who cares about people vs who cares about a political office? Something to think about.

Sounds like he'd make a good beer-drinking buddy, but we're chosing a President, not a beer-drinking buddy.

Charisma is important - people are more likely to have trust in someone they feel respects them and at least acknowledges them as a person and not as some random chump that's not worth the time of day.

As I say - most of these elections are merely exercises in image manipulation. Why should a candidate care about the little people - when all they have to do is look good on TV or a staged public setting.

I like charisma too, but I'm more interested in who the candidate is likely to nominate to the Supreme Court, what he/she will do with taxes, and if he/she intends to let Iraq fall to extremists. You know, important stuff like that.

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

How exactly do we know this is true, aside from this one piece of evidence? One might suspect it's true based on the characterizations we have been presented with via the ever so reliable media but the reality is, unless we are presented with more than one anecdote we know not whether every one except the affable Barack cold shoulders 'ordinary Joe'.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How exactly do we know this is true, aside from this one piece of evidence? One might suspect it's true based on the characterizations we have been presented with via the ever so reliable media but the reality is, unless we are presented with more than one anecdote we know not whether every one except the affable Barack cold shoulders 'ordinary Joe'.

Well obviously. I have no idea whether its true - but I don't think the attitude is entirely untypical in public officials or those aspiring to public office - given that much of a candidates public image is a marketing construction.

[garya505 2]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

[Traviesa 0]

How exactly do we know this is true, aside from this one piece of evidence? One might suspect it's true based on the characterizations we have been presented with via the ever so reliable media but the reality is, unless we are presented with more than one anecdote we know not whether every one except the affable Barack cold shoulders 'ordinary Joe'.

Just curious as to how many experiences would be necessary to be convincing. I mean, if that happened to you every day, wouldn't that be enough for you? It would for me. I'm not sure how much else convincing I would need.

[Peikko 1,575]

In other words, on the way up not only can they afford to, but they must massage the ego of Average Joe, once they reach a certain status they no longer need to bother? I know I am truly cynical on this.

[Traviesa 0]

I'm also not trying to say that this is the most important issue or make or break or anything like that. But I have always heard and found to be true that you can tell a lot about a person's character by the way they treat the people in their life. I wouldn't necessarily think it's a bad thing to have someone of good character in office.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

I don't disagree - but wondering about it doesn't really give you a whole lot, which is why I wonder why the man isn't judged more on his stated positions and voting record. That's really all there is to go on than trying to psycho-analyse the man through the media - because there really is no answer to those questions.

[Peikko 1,575]

How exactly do we know this is true, aside from this one piece of evidence? One might suspect it's true based on the characterizations we have been presented with via the ever so reliable media but the reality is, unless we are presented with more than one anecdote we know not whether every one except the affable Barack cold shoulders 'ordinary Joe'.

Just curious as to how many experiences would be necessary to be convincing. I mean, if that happened to you every day, wouldn't that be enough for you? It would for me. I'm not sure how much else convincing I would need.

Is Barack a nice guy? I am sure he is, I don't see any evidence to the contrary. However, he is a public figure and he is a career politician and it is in his best interests, as a relative newbie to create good impressions everywhere. My suggestion is, that he can afford the time to be the affable guy because for some reason, despite spinning the line that he's on a mission, his missionary zeal appears to me to be vested primarily in his own success. I don't see the evidence of his ground work for change that is essential for me to believe that he is more than the sum of some very pretty words.

That's not to say that he doesn't believe the things that he says he wants to achieve, but the truly inspirational do not talk about what they do, they do it and leave the talking to other people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In other words, on the way up not only can they afford to, but they must massage the ego of Average Joe, once they reach a certain status they no longer need to bother? I know I am truly cynical on this.

IMO - career politicians don't differ too much from corporate management types in terms of their attitude to underlings. Though there are of course exceptions to every conceivable rule.

[HAL 9000 96]

How exactly do we know this is true, aside from this one piece of evidence? One might suspect it's true based on the characterizations we have been presented with via the ever so reliable media but the reality is, unless we are presented with more than one anecdote we know not whether every one except the affable Barack cold shoulders 'ordinary Joe'.

Someone will post in on YouTube someday, relax.

[HAL 9000 96]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

I don't disagree - but wondering about it doesn't really give you a whole lot, which is why I wonder why the man isn't judged more on his stated positions and voting record. That's really all there is to go on than trying to psycho-analyse the man through the media - because there really is no answer to those questions.

I think the point would be to "psycho-analyze" to the point that you draw votes away from the man. Create doubts. Yet another Rovian tactic, to give it a more current label.

[garya505 2]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

I don't disagree - but wondering about it doesn't really give you a whole lot, which is why I wonder why the man isn't judged more on his stated positions and voting record. That's really all there is to go on than trying to psycho-analyse the man through the media - because there really is no answer to those questions.

I think the point would be to "psycho-analyze" to the point that you draw votes away from the man. Create doubts. Yet another Rovian tactic, to give it a more current label.

Sounds like any tactic you don't like the result of is "Rovian".

[HAL 9000 96]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

I don't disagree - but wondering about it doesn't really give you a whole lot, which is why I wonder why the man isn't judged more on his stated positions and voting record. That's really all there is to go on than trying to psycho-analyse the man through the media - because there really is no answer to those questions.

I think the point would be to "psycho-analyze" to the point that you draw votes away from the man. Create doubts. Yet another Rovian tactic, to give it a more current label.

Sounds like any tactic you don't like the result of is "Rovian".

Could be Clintonian, Obaman, etc, as I date relatively in italics gary.

My point would be to run a campaign on issues and not petty politics. Too much to ask of the gamers, right?

Edited March 18, 2008 by maviwaro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that's true - then we should be a bit less concerned with candidates associations and things their supporters and put the focus on what they actually stand for.

I've always been a believer in the idea that we get the government we deserve - and nowhere is that more true than in the fact that we've been living for 8 years under a guy who passes himself off as a fool.

The current crop of candidates are simply career politicians trying to be all things to all people. Even so cold-shouldering members of the public is probably the most elitist thing you can do.

I'm not concerned at all about candidates casual associations and things their supporters or endorsers say. But Wright is a man who was Obama's pastor for 20 years, and a man who Obama took the title of his book from. By all accounts, Wright is a man who Obama sees as a spiritual and community leader. Wright is a man who Obama previously admitted to that he might have to distance himself from, so he knew all along about the kind of hate speech Wright spews.

We all know what Obama says he stands for. We're interested to know what he really stands for, and how he would act as President. When we see stuff like this we wonder about that.

I don't disagree - but wondering about it doesn't really give you a whole lot, which is why I wonder why the man isn't judged more on his stated positions and voting record. That's really all there is to go on than trying to psycho-analyse the man through the media - because there really is no answer to those questions.

I think the point would be to "psycho-analyze" to the point that you draw votes away from the man. Create doubts. Yet another Rovian tactic, to give it a more current label.

Sounds like any tactic you don't like the result of is "Rovian".

Well Rove IS the most famous political spin-doctor we know of...