Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Liberty]

Exactly. Which is what you are doing any time you reduce an individual to the one characteristic of race. When you essentialize a person you eliminate everything about them but that one factor (in this case, race) and that is NEVER a positive thing no matter how good you try to make yourself feel about it. It is racism, it is negative, and it is the fundamental foundation for all the prejudice and discrimination that surely follows.

Jubaji, once, while a Puerto Rican friend of mine and I were speaking with a blue collar white woman, at one point she asks him, "what race are you?" He tried to evade an answer to this stupid question but she pressed on. Eventually he answered her. "But you're so smart!," she replied, surprised.

In other words, she never saw the person in front of her. I've run accross this type of scenario often.

The reality is that while you are dead on in your comment it is exactly what way too many engage in in the U.S. And judging by so many foreigners who also engage in this disgusting viewing of other fellow human beings, the U.S. is not alone in this practice.

How can we ever hope for peace in a world like that? Again, you're comment is dead on - but it is exactly what too many people do.

I grew up in an Oprah world, a world wherein, everyday for the past, what is it, 20 years now, millions of white mom's and their babies would tune in to this black woman who, in their minds had proven herself "not like other blacks." Thus, slowly sabotaging away some of this insideous nonsense planted in these white mom's by their parents and forefathers against a people merely for the color of their skin. What could a "not like other ethnics, Presidents" Obama begin to accomplish along these lines on a global scale if he were to turn out the real deal? What damage could he begin to cause to that twisted mentality that says some are inferior by their skin color, language, height, country, religion? How do you go about proving otherwise by mere comments alone? Astute observation alone (your Jubaji) has yet proven the solution. Your comment is valid but also the reality of what to many engage in out there.

Yes, Brewer, Obama should be better qualified, or at least greatly skilled at surrounding himself with those who are - more so a Susan Rice, for example, than a Zbigniev Brezhinski. As brilliant as Brezhinski is, though, if some o=f his ideology can be tempered, reigned in, can once more be of service to the U.S.

Enjoy your day guys,

Respectfully

[jubaji]

No, we arent just selecting any old black guy are we. Come on mate have a word.
We arent saying that as long as the guy is black its ok. We are saying that if its the right person then its perfect. There is a world of difference.
You need to think into this in some more detail you are making very elementary judgements based on simplistic notions of right/wrong.

**** off. You have made your racial agenda here very clear. Its not complicated, you are just an ignorant racist piece of shit and I'm glad you don't have a damn thing to do with our election, asswipe.

[Ghost]

**** off. You have made your racial agenda here very clear. Its not complicated, you are just an ignorant racist piece of shit and I'm glad you don't have a damn thing to do with our election, asswipe.

lol have you ever managed to put a coherent argument together or are you only capable of insults? All you have said so far is **** off, asswipe blah blah.

Mike ill answer your valid questions later or tomorrow nearly 1am here and im dial up connection right now.

[jubaji]

lol have you ever managed to put a coherent argument together or are you only capable of insults?

Its perfectly 'coherent'. You have based your entire stupid, unwelcome position on our election on your blatant racism; as simple as that. Don't try to pretend your racism is 'complex', idiot.

[jubaji]

I will warn you not to personalize your attacks on me only once. Is that clear..

I'll respond to the comments you choose to make. If you are especially sensitive about the kind of response you recieve, choose your words carefully. Is that clear?

Now using race as the means of determining an individuals worth or abilities is racism.

Like choosing the leader of the world's most powerful country based on the color of his skin? Like that?

[jubaji]

I didn't say you wanted to elect our president based on skin color. That is the stupid argument made by the nosey foreigner there. Any comments that should be read as directed at you are those responding to the notion that there is some 'positive' form of racism that is harmless.

[jubaji]

When you reduce an individual to the single characteristic of his/her race you eliminate everything else about the person and that is NOT positive. If you really care to, you can think about who makes the labels and who gets to apply them and when and why and in what context. Its a whole big rigamaroll, but the bottom line is that it doesn't do anyone any favor.

[jubaji]

but dealing with people in certain ways taking into account their race.

And as I said, that can often be termed cultural sensitivity.

And of course race and culture are not the same thing...

[Liberty]

While compiling my Obama qualifications list, I ran across this again. Thought I’d post it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17mccain.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

BAGHDAD — Senator John McCain arrived in Iraq on Sunday morning on a trip that was described as a visit by an official Congressional delegation, but that also served to showcase his foreign policy credentials as he campaigns for the White House….

Many Iraqi politicians are closely monitoring the American presidential race, and some said the visit bolstered their belief that if Mr. McCain, of Arizona, succeeded President Bush in the November election, the American military would have a large presence in Iraq for a very long time.

“This visit confirms that the Republicans believe that the Iraqi war is very important in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East,” said Wael Abdul Latif, an independent Shiite member of the Iraqi Parliament. “It’s a message to Iran that the United States will never leave, even after Bush is gone.”

Jalaladeen Sagheer, a senior member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a leading Shiite party, described the visit as “an advertisement for the American elections” and said it showed Mr. McCain’s commitment to staying in Iraq, a policy Mr. Sagheer said he favored. “It suggests that American officials will make good on their promises,” he said.

Some Sunni Arabs were not pleased by the visit. “If the Republicans win the election, then nothing will really change in Iraq, and we need a big change to kick the occupiers out of the country,” said Abu Mohammed, a 30-year-old barbershop owner in Samarra, north of Baghdad. “I would like to show him the schools and hospitals and how the children and women suffer.”

Another Samarra shop owner, 52-year-old Hamid Saleh, said he wanted the Republicans to lose the election. “All I want is someone who works to fix my country, and not destroy it,” he said….

Mr. McCain stands to reap the most politically from any rise in public support for the war effort, having staked his candidacy on his unflagging backing of President Bush’s troop escalation. While cautious about being overly ebullient about Iraq, Mr. McCain is almost invariably upbeat when he describes what is happening in Iraq.

He said last month, “Anybody who believes the surge has not succeeded, militarily, politically and in most other ways, frankly, does not know the facts on the ground.”

Yep, Mike, there’s no denying it. Looks like you’re right on – McCain is a different kind of Republican; certainly has no intention of continuing Bush’s mess. Yep, he certainly can identify with the people's suffering.

McCain, Mr. Super Qualified is slowly proving that if he has his way, Cheney’s recently announced concerns over the possibility of an Obama White House can be put to rest. Gotta wonder why Cheney would be so worked up about this, though.

[Liberty]

Wow, Mike Brewer is also a mind-reader! This guy’s skill and abilities are just unlimited. I wonder if he’ll write about this skill in his book?

You know, I once had a neighbor who when he was right about something and someone else was wrong, early on, after having attempted fair two way communication, if the other side continued wrong and one-sided he’d just “let them win.” I asked him how he could allow others to believe they had won, had been right, etc., and he told me he knew in his mind what was what and that that was good enough for him.

That is exactly where I am thnking of heading with all this – for, you answer and or attack where you want to and then try to turn it on me. You have yet to reply to my other posts to you, and though you have yet to make good on your own list, I have given you the benefit of the doubt on when you said you’d be getting back about it. The least you could do is reciprocate that much.

Still, your sometimes one-sided way on some issues yet once more has not been a total loss. I already have a lot of what I need on Obama’s qualifications. I’m sorting through it for one article. And for my own edification, if nothing else, Mr. 40 Days and Forty Nights Suffering Like Others Do.

In the end, it will not matter, Mike. You cling to your revisionist views of how North American Government has behaved since it’s founding and before. I have my own information of the atrocities it has plagued others with. We disagree on that. It is what it is. Points to what it points to about who we would vote for regardless of their qualifications.

[Liberty]

I mentioned in my post previous to this one that my research on Obama's qualifications would at least be to my own edification.

I said that out of my own unresolved concerns with Obama, as is the case with all candidates. One of my concrens had to do with the fact that I agreed with the remarks his Pastor had made about what brought about the tragedy of 911. My won view being that whether the result of a U.S. governement plot on it's own citizens or the result of an Al-Quaida attack, whether Jhad, or imperialistic those some 3,000 innocent lives (may they rest n peace) lost were the result of U.S. foreign policy. I've been concrened about how Obama would handle the pressure to walk away from his friend, Pastor Wright, when all the man has done is spoken the truth. Qualifications?

How about taking a stand, then righting its wrong, when it is wrong and somehow manuevering through this mess to try to reach both sides, as has been one of Obamas chief skills? It is hoped he will continue that way in the White House, should he get there and reamin alive, given his insane claims of plans to make government and it's shenanigans accessible to the American people in real time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23687688

Obama tackles race anger in major speech
Senator confronts issue triggered by his pastor's inflamatory comments

PHILADELPHIA - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to stem damage from divisive comments delivered by his pastor, while bluntly addressing anger between blacks and whites in the most racially pointed speech yet of his presidential campaign.
Obama confronted America's legacy of racial division head on, tackling black grievance, white resentment and the uproar over his former pastor's incendiary statements. Drawing on his half-black, half-white roots as no other presidential hopeful could, Obama asserted: "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected."
Obama expressed understanding of the passions on both sides in what he called "a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years."
"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races," he said in a speech at the National Constitution Center, not far from where the Declaration of Independence was adopted.
Obama rarely talks so openly about his race in such a prominent way, but his speech covered divisions from slavery to the O.J. Simpson trial to the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. He also recognized his race has been a major issue in the campaign that has taken a "particularly divisive turn" in the last few weeks as video of his longtime pastor spread on the Internet and on television.
Obama said the sermons delivered by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "rightly offend white and black alike." Those sermons from years ago suggested the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself and say blacks continue to be mistreated by whites.

Spiritual guide
While Obama rejected what Wright said, he also embraced the man who inspired his Christian faith, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and has been his spiritual guide for nearly 20 years.
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said, speaking in front of eight American flags. "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Obama said he knew Wright to occasionally be a fierce critic of U.S. policy and that the pastor sometimes made controversial remarks in church that he disagreed with, but he said he never heard Wright talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms. The comments that have become a source of debate recently "were not only wrong but divisive" and have raised questions among voters, he said.
"I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way," he said. "But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man."
He said he came to Wright's church because he was inspired by Wright's message of hope and his inspiration to rebuild the black community.
Obama said Wright's comments have sparked a discussion that reflect complexities of race in the United States that its people have never really resolved.
"We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," Obama said. "But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."
Obama said anger over those injustices often find voice in black churches on Sunday mornings. "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning," he said.
Obama argued that the anger often distracts from solving real problems and bringing change. But he said it also exists in some segments of the white community that feels blacks are often given an unfair advantage through affirmative action.
"If we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American," Obama said, drawing a rare burst of applause in a somber address.
Obama said one of the tasks of his campaign to be the first black president is "to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

[Liberty]

I will gladly provide a comprehensive list of what McCain has done, and I'll do so when I have more than the sporadic ten minute break with which to do it. As for right now, I have not attacked you, and I've given you no cause to call me a revisionist. What I have stated in this thread has been 100% factual and correct. All of it. Obama lacks experience. He is a proven liberal-only voter. He has never cast his vote in the Senate "across party lines." When he's lent his support to anything sponsored by conservatives, it has been with significant riders attached. He does not come from a poor background. He was raised in a white household as far from the means streets as is imaginable. He has selected as his closest advisors fervent racists. And in addressing the only thing that does matter, he just doesn't have the background in my opinion.

As for McCain, I have detailed several times his sefvice record dating back to the 1960's. For over 40 years, he has been entrusted with life and death decisions on behalf of this government and this nation. He has been a POW, and lived for 5 years under conditions more heinous than most Americans can even imagine. As a Senator, he has worked closely with members of the opposition party, and he has taken on corruption no matter where it came from. From his involvement in cleaning up USA Boxing years ago to fighting pork barrel riders in national legislation, he's got a record of working across the aisle, even when it has earned the ire of his party to do it. I said I'd post thespecifics, and I will. The research will take longer than I presently have to spend because I am at home visiting my wife and son, who I have not seen in months. When I'm back at work, with nothing better to do than prove you wrong, I'll do just that.

As for "turning it all around on you," I did no such thing. You tried to distill everything John McCain does, stands for, and on which he's campaigning into the single issue of Iraq. That's a misrepresentation, and it borders on propagandism. You falsely represented the man and his positions, and I called you on it. That's not turning anything around. It's confronting a falsehood. As your "source" you used an excerpted story from the New York Times. Not only is that a paper that is historically and demonstrably very anti-Republican, but it is the very same paper that tried to smear McCain with unsupported accusations of an affair not one month ago. The story was shown for what it was, and in most people's opinions, the paper was shown for what it was. So for you to use a source that is so completely biased against McCain carries no weight at all. It's very much like me using Hillary's criticisms of Obama as a source for information when arguing about him. Her personal bias discredits her as a source the same way the Times' discredits them.

Another thing that I have noticed with some interest is how personal you get when you begin to lose. Instead of talking about the facts and giving any of the examples in support of Obama, you resort to calling me names and throwing little hissie fits about me being a mind reader. You drag into the argument things like my book and make all these snide little personal ad hominem attacks. The funny thing is, you only seem to do it when you know you're wrong about something. I look forward to comparing your list of what Obama has done to the list of what McCain has done. Obviously, it will take a great deal longer to compile a list of McCain's accomplishments because there are far more to count and compile. However, when I do post it, I hope you'll read through it without this personal anger and resentment you appear to be showing. Your last post was pretty uncharacteristic with all the attacks and accusations, but I suppose that's a natural defensive position for someone who's lied about McCain the way you have and then used his enemies alone to justify the position.

Tell ya what. I'll go out get some Prozac, my expense, and will split them. Mike, I'm not upset with you. I'm just calling you out. Of, course you and I will continue to disagree on this issue. I believe qualifications are important but not the be end all and all. Example, I once spent some time with one of the most qualified Orginal Bruce Lee students out there. Perhaps he was having a bad week or whatever, but the man was completely rude with someone who was unable to get a technique down. That, not his quaifications, is what I remember about him. I once had a similar experience with a famous, Nobel Laureatte playwright. That is what I remember about him. I once met a famous game show host. The guy was flown in on a jet,a and showed up in a limo. During my time with him, his manners were impecable. That is what I remember about him, what has left an impact, not his qualifications. Personally, I feel that if Obama really wnated to make an impact he'd follow Dr. Kings footsteps and stay out of politics. On the surface, those appear to be his qaulifications. Time will tell. Well, back to my article - writing it for a cass project, by the way. Again, I merely meant to call you out, not offend you in any way. We don't see eye to eye. Can't hope to on everything. Respectfully.

[Liberty]

Here you are Mike:

1. Why is it fair for terrorists to attack us because of our foreign policies but not okay for us to attack others because of theirs?

It’s not – it’s wrong both ways.

2. Why do you continue to misrepresent McCain's beliefs and campaign even though you've been directly questioned about it twice now? It’s your role here to see to it I don’t get away with it if that’s what I am doing.

He’s has sided with Bush and been endorsed by him.

3. Why won't you admit that you're belittling McCain on his accomplishments and his successes while over-hyping Obama on his?

I’ve yet to over-hype Obama.

4. Why would you feel a sudden need to lie about when you made up your mind to support Obama?

This one is my fault entirely. I’d said that to rib you, then forgot let you know that. I’ve not yet completely settled on him. Apologies.

5. Why try to distract from the facts of the debate by launching into a bunch of personal attacks and name calling directed at me?

Again, I don’t take seriously, ribbing you. Still, if I’ve injured you, as it seems I have, my apologies, in spite of my disagreeing with yu that a brief time suffering racial injustice first hand is the same as a lifetime of it day in and day out.

6. And finally, why are you suddenly so reserved about putting up Obama's resume next to McCain's? It's all for your own edification now, is it? Why? Because you're worried that personality really is all Obama has going for him when placed side by side with a man like McCain? If you like, I'd be happy to list instances when McCain overcame party opposition, lobby and special interest opposition, and even foreign opposition to make sure the "right thing" was done. We can add it to the already overwhelming amount of legislative and political accomplishments McCain has over Obama if you like, and I can kill two birds with one stone. I can prove that McCain's ability to look out for the little guy, to work as a unifying force in government, and to push for fair and honest solutions to problems is demonstrably superior to Obama's as well. It's not speculation or the product of a two year campaign, but of decades of consistent service.

Maybe it would make it easier to discuss this if you went ahead and provided a list of things you think a President ought to have. YOU write the job description, and I'll debate you on your own terms and by your own criteria. Tell me what's important, and tell me why, and I'll try to show you how McCain has met those criteria while you show me how Obama has. That's as lop-sided as debate gets, Liberty. I'm allowing you to write the rules in favor of your own candidate and I'm agreeing to follow them. And you know what? I am certain I can show McCain is a better candidate based on real experience and proven track records no matter what criteria you choose.

Honestly Mike, you could provide all the qualifications you want for McCain and I’d still not vote for him, as I simply do not care for Republican views, no matter how honest the candidate. Again, I will give your list serious thought, though. I mean, I can be wrong. By the way, you promised a list to everyone here, so don’t single me out, as 'now that I provide it Liberty shows his true colors.'

Now you'll notice that in calling you out thus, I didn't resort to your brand of insults and attacks - mocking you with mind reader cracks or belittling your other endeavors. I didn't suggest you needed drugs to control your bipolar disorder or anything like what you've done to me. So how about showing some respect instead of just talking about it and stepping up to the plate with some criteria? My apologies, Mike.

Problem with a list of Obama’s qualifications. I am working on one. But my own criteria for such things get in the way. Obama, has suddenly reversed his claims on what he did/did not know about his Pastor’s messages. As has McCain now, compared to when he ran against Bush. In other words, to me, the one qualification which must be there is consistency integrity. In it's abscence the others simply do not matter. Example, I am simply disgusted how Bill Clinton shows his face in light of his immoral conduct while in office. He also allowed Bin Ladin to get remain alive and freed FALN terrorists ruight before leaving office. yet he romps around and Americans rally behind he and his wife like these things never happend.

I may be wrong, right, indifferent at times, rib you, etc., but I will acknowledge when I have wronged you. You may not understand that as I express it at times, but I nevertheless value such a thing. To me, you and any other human being I have wronged is worth apologizing to simply for it’s own sake. I am not happy with Obama at the moment, he is proving a politician – I don’t care what his or McCain’s other credentials may be.

Give me a few days to finish out the list. Still..

I guess we’ll have to find out within the next 4 years

Respectfully,

[jubaji]

Once again, D.I. proves his chronic inability to reason to any degree whatsoever and his pathological addiction to grasping at any bullshit that happens to drift into the barren wasteland that is his 'mind' and responding to his own idiotic imaginings rather than to real people.

You are a fucking hopeless moron, D.I.

[Ghost]

ok going to wait for Liberty to put up his list as his research is usually pretty reasonable.

However, id like to comment on the seeming need for a lot of experience.

Experience is of course necessary, but it doesnt mean quite so much if its bad experience. The kind of experience that leads to totally moronic desisions like going to war in iraq. It amazes me that the general public had the common sense to work out that this was a load of crap but some politicians couldnt.
Also McCains experience is a leadership that many now arent interested in.

Who has experience in the way Obama wants to do things. No one does, and thats really the point, we want to get away from the old ways that arent working.

Further to this experience only counts so far. As per any real world job interview candidates are selected based on character more than anything.

Mike, with all respect you are playing a very obvious tactic here. You are simply selecting the one area you know for sure that McCain has over Obama, his lack of experience. We all know that no matter what anyone digs up on Obama, McCain will have more. Thats for sure and i think its why you are following this argument so much.

Regardless of Obamas comparative lack of experience he is, to me, far better spoken, far more intelligent and imo what america needs right now. I like McCain well enough but hes not got it upstairs in comparison to Obama.

You know it is possible for the younger guy to be more intelligent, have a better character and have better ideas while having less experience. Experience matters for sure but not as much the other components.