i dont really want to do this..but i will since once a friend of mine asked me a similar question which i thought was as stupid as this post i am making but got me thinking
``yo man do you feel white or black (white mama related)`` me:''stfu ...hmmm''
In the eyes of societies and like barack said on 60 min yesterday ''you are treated as an african american (no 5 pager)
now return to the political discussion
One of the more tampered poli threads in a while
I also initially felt Barack was running too early...and that running and losing will hurt him
but there are still 11 months left and 4 years change a lot of things so actually...
this will be a fascinating time in US politics that will draw a lot more peoples attention
if he was aggressively for change, you would think he wouuld have introduced several important bills.
"Introduced several important bills" as a junior senator in two years time?
That's not a very realistic standard.
the fact that he hasn't introduced legislation goes to a much larger point: he is not the progressive candidate most liberal democrats (such as myself) are looking for. we have a president who should be impeached and put on trial. perhaps we dont have a democratic candidate willing to go that far, but i can't get excited about Obama because he plays it way too safe.
all the obama cheerleaders on this board love to talk about how great of an orator he is...okay, what has he said that inspired you and/or made you anxious for him to go in and make a change? someone just posted that he is sponsoring a bill (perhaps his first bill) that will call for troop removal by march of '08. that's who you guys are riding for soo hard, and this early on?
give me a break. i'm not pointing fingers, but i will make an educated guess that most of the people on this board do not follow politics enough to make broad statements about the qualifications of candidates. vote for who you want to, but if you think Obama has proven himself to be a progressive candidate...well, i think the evidence shows otherwise. i think it would be great (for society) to have a black president...more so than a woman. but foremost, i want someone who is aggressively challenging the current administration and/or bringing new ideas to the table.
You're mad that he hasn't spearheaded W's impeachment?
Please stop saying this. He is relatively inexperienced as a U.S. senator--he is not lacking in political experience, having served in Illinois' state senate since 1996.
You forgot to add "& unknown in most of the country".
Hey, your right. I wasn't so much stating my opinion, as I was partially thinking how others will portray him when the time comes.
Tho, I do believe some are already putting to much faith on him so soon. I guess I should just wait and see the outcome to the Democratic nomination. If he can beat Clinton & all the money behind her, he's probably got a good chance for the pres spot.
Most career politicians are self serving, sleazy and usually in SOMEBODY'S pocket.
The fact that Barack is not as "an experienced politician" as his opponents is a positive in my book.
These folks apparently have most of you fooled into thinking politics are brain surgery.
When in reality, how hard is it to simply "do the right thing"
I like Mr. Obama because he appears to NOT be like your typical "experienced" politician, and is willing to "do the right thing" regardless of whom he may alienate.
P.S. I also believe the answer to most of our problems lie somewhere in between what the stereotypical left and right believe. And Barack, at least on the surface, seems to be willing to walk on that unpopular(amongst the party extremists) ground.
I totally agree. But politics is a dirty game. Can you get what you want out of it, without playing that game? But maybe it doesn't matter if the people are behind you.
if he was aggressively for change, you would think he wouuld have introduced several important bills.
"Introduced several important bills" as a junior senator in two years time?
That's not a very realistic standard.
the fact that he hasn't introduced legislation goes to a much larger point: he is not the progressive candidate most liberal democrats (such as myself) are looking for. we have a president who should be impeached and put on trial. perhaps we dont have a democratic candidate willing to go that far, but i can't get excited about Obama because he plays it way too safe.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
So far I've learned that you have trouble reading
I learned from KVH in another thread that, as a Black man, Obama is statistically more likely to be a homosexual!
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
So far I've learned that you have trouble reading
uh....yeah.
dog, your point was that "Obama is as close as you are going to get". what you implied was that he was the most progressive democratic candidate in the running. if that is the case, then what is everyone jumping up and down about? that is my point.
dean was able to inspire a lot of voters because he was aggressively challenging the bush administration. regardless of whether people saw Dean as having enough political experience, he had people rallying for him because they wanted to see a change. Obama is not rallying for anything, pushing new legislation, or in any way stirring the pot. he is playing it cool. that is the bottom line. okay??
Also faux rillz, i really doubt anyone thought Obama was close to a presidential contender until he made the speech at the democratic convention, including himself. Until Jack Ryan self-destructed, the race in Illinois was expected to be extremely close for his senate seat.
Deej, did I say anything about what "anyone" thought? I referred only to Obama's own aspirations, which were undoubtedly in place by that point--he probably discovered his desire to be president at about the same age that most people on this board discovered their passion for music.
And you're just plain wrong--while they may not have envisioned him running quite this soon, lots of people (including a non-Illinoisian like me) viewed him as an eventual presidential hopeful well before the convention speech.
In re this little tete a tete you are having. Yesterday on CSPAN, there was an interesting discussion about Obama's announcement. One journalist specifically talked about "Dreams of our Fathers" and how it is clear that it was not the work of someone who was thinking about national office. Far too raw and real for anyone thinking that way. I believe he said that the book had its germination around the time he won the editorship of the HLR, a time when presumably Barack had different dreams. I am curious if anyone has read the book and agrees with this opinion.
I for one think that Barack is smart to run now. The money does not come around that often. If he loses he can hold onto his seat and wait for the next time. Running will season him and give him a chance to connect with all of the power brokers. Who knows he may win. I do really believe that Hillary and the powers that be in the DNC are going to crush Barack but maybe I'll be wrong.
Oh, and to the guy who was saying that soccer moms are gonna vote for Hilary. I think you should talk to a few of them. Obama is their wet dream. A handsome, stand up family dood with "moderate" rhetoric.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
So far I've learned that you have trouble reading
uh....yeah.
dog, your point was that "Obama is as close as you are going to get". what you implied was that he was the most progressive democratic candidate in the running. if that is the case, then what is everyone jumping up and down about? that is my point.
dean was able to inspire a lot of voters because he was aggressively challenging the bush administration. regardless of whether people saw Dean as having enough political experience, he had people rallying for him because they wanted to see a change. Obama is not rallying for anything, pushing new legislation, or in any way stirring the pot. he is playing it cool. that is the bottom line. okay??
My point was that wishing for candidates who have no hope of winning(Ultra-progressive liberals) is pointless. I don't think you and I share much more than overlapping views, as I am pretty moderate and pragmatic. I am excited only in that there is a clear alternative to the Hillary machine, and that the guy is clear-headed and pragmatic, at least in his appearances so far. I have major issues with his vote on the banruptcy changes that were a giveaway to the Banking lobby, but I haven't heard one voice on that issue. That pales in comparison to Edwards and Clinton's votes FOR the war, which is a much more urgent problem and could have been EASILY voted against. So I don't think you read me clearly except for the last line.
in Virginia, we are empowered after winning two consecutive governorships and then a US senate seat last year. Mark Warner will probably take John Warner's seat if he retires. I'm saying all this because it is what makes me feel like changes are happening. that's why I'm excited and feel like Obama can do it. sorry about all the "cheerleading". WTF?
"They smile in your face....................................." ________________________________________________________________________________
The buzz in Democratic circles for the past two weeks has been over the decision to raise money for Sen. Barack Obama by two or three multimillionaire liberals from Hollywood who were thought to be supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. An explanation that this is the movie industry's delayed reaction to some of President Bill Clinton's policies is not credible. The real reason for the defection is more troubling for Clinton's campaign.
In fact, the Hollywood defections have the same root as resistance to Clinton's candidacy among less glittering Democratic activists throughout the country. A substantial number of them do not want to participate in a coronation of the former first lady because they still doubt her viability as a presidential candidate. They question both her positions on the issues and her skills on the campaign trail.
What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."
For many months, long before Clinton confirmed that she was a candidate, her agents have been pinning down commitments from a staggering array of Democrats who were connected in large or small degree to her husband to create an aura of inevitability about her nomination. That effort hit a bump two weeks ago with the announcement that David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, the founders of the DreamWorks film studios who all were thought to be staunch Clintonites, were sponsoring a fundraiser for Obama.
According to Democratic sources, former President Clinton got Spielberg to step away from a tacit endorsement of Obama.[/b] Spielberg has let it be known that he will host a future fundraiser for Clinton as part of a policy of helping all Democratic presidential candidates. But Katzenberg and Geffen seem to be clearly in Obama's camp.
Two theories for these defections have been put out by Democrats favorable to Clinton. First, the gay community in Hollywood is seeking revenge against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy restricting open homosexuality in the military. Second, the entertainment industry still harbors resentment about Clinton-Gore administration criticism of the material that is presented to children.
in Virginia, we are empowered after winning two consecutive governorships and then a US senate seat last year. Mark Warner will probably take John Warner's seat if he retires. I'm saying all this because it is what makes me feel like changes are happening. that's why I'm excited and feel like Obama can do it. sorry about all the "cheerleading". WTF?
Candidates like Warner and Obama are clearly the path the Dems need to take if they want to get that executive branch back.
You peeps should read the vampire economy by guenter reimann for a detailed look at nazi domestic policy. Then ask yourselves why you are so eagre to emulate it.
You peeps should read the vampire economy by guenter reimann for a detailed look at nazi domestic policy. Then ask yourselves why you are so eagre to emulate it.
I read that years ago....you have NO idea what you are talking about. Get a grip, Dolo. Sheesh, can't you see you are completely out of your league here? Do you even have a high school diploma?
First, the gay community in Hollywood is seeking revenge against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy restricting open homosexuality in the military.
I find that really really really hard to beleive.....
Obama: When I moved to Illinois 20 years ago to work as a community organizer, I had no money in my pockets and didn't know a single soul. During my first six years in the state legislature, Democrats were in the minority, and I couldn't get a bill heard, much less passed. In my first race for Congress, I had my head handed to me. So when I, a black man with a funny name, born in Hawaii of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, announced my candidacy for the U.S. Senate, it was hard to imagine a less likely scenario than that I would win--except, perhaps, for the one that allowed a child born in the backwoods of Kentucky with less than a year of formal education to end up as Illinois' greatest citizen and our nation's greatest President.
"By dint of vision, and determination, and most of all faith in the redeeming power of love, he endured the humiliation of arrest, the loneliness of a prison cell, the constant threats to his life, until he finally inspired a nation to transform itself, and begin to live up to the meaning of its creed...
The man we honor today did what God required. In the end, that is what I will tell my daughters...
... I will tell them that this man gave his life serving others. I will tell them that this man tried to love somebody. I will tell them that because he did these things, they live today with the freedom God intended, their citizenship unquestioned, their dreams unbounded."
“Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different,” Obama has written. “His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”
-----
If he's going into this presidency lauding iconic figures like these. Realistically what did these 3 men have in common? I don't think america or his family needs a wakeup call to the racism that is still prevalent in our world.
Ha ha! I saw that. You, Guzzo and friends should do LITTLE research. Dude's all over the media and other stuff is public info.
I've done some research on dude and he seems like a viable candidate based on the issues. Still not sure how he'll stand up to the potential Max Cleland-like media attack the republicans are sure to launch of he gets the nomination
If he's going into this presidency lauding iconic figures like these. Realistically what did these 3 men have in common? I don't think america or his family needs a wakeup call to the racism that is still prevalent in our world.
You're mad that he cites disparate figures as influences on his intellectual development?
And it doesn't sound like he was telling his daughters that "racism... is still prevalent in our world"--his point seemed to be about the value of public service and of doing the right thing.
And it doesn't sound like he was telling his daughters that "racism... is still prevalent in our world"--his point seemed to be about the value of public service and of doing the right thing.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that we still live in an America that's fully capable to assasinate free thinkers. As an African American candidate it's a harsh reality for his family.
You're mad that he cites disparate figures as influences on his intellectual development?
Moreso, worried that if he's going to put himself on a path to lead. He's gotta have a strong defense or else history has a way of repeating itself.
And it doesn't sound like he was telling his daughters that "racism... is still prevalent in our world"--his point seemed to be about the value of public service and of doing the right thing.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that we still live in an America that's fully capable to assasinate free thinkers. As an African American candidate it's a harsh reality for his family.
You're mad that he cites disparate figures as influences on his intellectual development?
Moreso, worried that if he's going to put himself on a path to lead. He's gotta have a strong defense or else history has a way of repeating itself.
- spidey
Oh. Your post was an elaborate expression of a fear that he'll be assassinated?
Comments
i dont really want to do this..but i will since once a friend of mine asked me a similar question which i thought was as stupid as this post i am making but got me thinking
``yo man do you feel white or black (white mama related)`` me:''stfu ...hmmm''
In the eyes of societies and like barack said on 60 min yesterday ''you are treated as an african american (no 5 pager)
now return to the political discussion
One of the more tampered poli threads in a while
I also initially felt Barack was running too early...and that running and losing will hurt him
but there are still 11 months left and 4 years change a lot of things so actually...
this will be a fascinating time in US politics that will draw a lot more peoples attention
You're mad that he hasn't spearheaded W's impeachment?
You forgot to add "& unknown in most of the country".
Hey, your right. I wasn't so much stating my opinion, as I was partially thinking how others will portray him when the time comes.
Tho, I do believe some are already putting to much faith on him so soon. I guess I should just wait and see the outcome to the Democratic nomination. If he can beat Clinton & all the money behind her, he's probably got a good chance for the pres spot.
The fact that Barack is not as "an experienced politician" as his opponents is a positive in my book.
These folks apparently have most of you fooled into thinking politics are brain surgery.
When in reality, how hard is it to simply "do the right thing"
I like Mr. Obama because he appears to NOT be like your typical "experienced" politician, and is willing to "do the right thing" regardless of whom he may alienate.
P.S. I also believe the answer to most of our problems lie somewhere in between what the stereotypical left and right believe. And Barack, at least on the surface, seems to be willing to walk on that unpopular(amongst the party extremists) ground.
I totally agree. But politics is a dirty game. Can you get what you want out of it, without playing that game? But maybe it doesn't matter if the people are behind you.
Do you really think a Paul Wellstone-type Progressive has any chance of getting elected President in the US? As much of a fan as I was of his when I was a Minnesota native, he would not have gotten very far in a presidential bid, and similar candidates seemingly exist to simply push progressive issues into view, aware that they don't have a prayer of winning a national election.
Obama is as close as you are going to get.
The right can hate Clinton and the left can hate Bush when in reality the much larger problem is that "politics are a dirty game".
This is the best example of "Hating the player, but not the game" that I can think of.
My generation may be too deep in their loyalties to be willing to admit this.
A good start would be NOT to support those involved with the "dirty game" that the Clintons & the Bush's have played so well over the last 20+ years.
Supporting Dems like Gore, Hillary, etc. is supporting "dirty politics".
(And yes, supporting Bush crony and old-line Reps is supporting "dirty politics" as well)
that's my point. it sounds like most people on this board share more liberal and progressive views than your typical democratic politician, so therefore, i just don't get all the hype about Obama on here. if we can agree that he is far from being an outspoken candidate on change, than what is there to be excited about, aside from the fact that he is a qualified black candidate? so far - we've heard that he is a great speaker and that he likes to engage people in a "dialogue". wow. now i am inspired.
So far I've learned that you have trouble reading
uh....yeah.
I learned from KVH in another thread that, as a Black man, Obama is statistically more likely to be a homosexual!
dog, your point was that "Obama is as close as you are going to get". what you implied was that he was the most progressive democratic candidate in the running. if that is the case, then what is everyone jumping up and down about? that is my point.
dean was able to inspire a lot of voters because he was aggressively challenging the bush administration. regardless of whether people saw Dean as having enough political experience, he had people rallying for him because they wanted to see a change. Obama is not rallying for anything, pushing new legislation, or in any way stirring the pot. he is playing it cool. that is the bottom line. okay??
In re this little tete a tete you are having. Yesterday on CSPAN, there was an interesting discussion about Obama's announcement. One journalist specifically talked about "Dreams of our Fathers" and how it is clear that it was not the work of someone who was thinking about national office. Far too raw and real for anyone thinking that way. I believe he said that the book had its germination around the time he won the editorship of the HLR, a time when presumably Barack had different dreams. I am curious if anyone has read the book and agrees with this opinion.
I for one think that Barack is smart to run now. The money does not come around that often. If he loses he can hold onto his seat and wait for the next time. Running will season him and give him a chance to connect with all of the power brokers. Who knows he may win. I do really believe that Hillary and the powers that be in the DNC are going to crush Barack but maybe I'll be wrong.
Oh, and to the guy who was saying that soccer moms are gonna vote for Hilary. I think you should talk to a few of them. Obama is their wet dream. A handsome, stand up family dood with "moderate" rhetoric.
My point was that wishing for candidates who have no hope of winning(Ultra-progressive liberals) is pointless. I don't think you and I share much more than overlapping views, as I am pretty moderate and pragmatic. I am excited only in that there is a clear alternative to the Hillary machine, and that the guy is clear-headed and pragmatic, at least in his appearances so far. I have major issues with his vote on the banruptcy changes that were a giveaway to the Banking lobby, but I haven't heard one voice on that issue. That pales in comparison to Edwards and Clinton's votes FOR the war, which is a much more urgent problem and could have been EASILY voted against. So I don't think you read me clearly except for the last line.
________________________________________________________________________________
The buzz in Democratic circles for the past two weeks has been over the decision to raise money for Sen. Barack Obama by two or three multimillionaire liberals from Hollywood who were thought to be supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. An explanation that this is the movie industry's delayed reaction to some of President Bill Clinton's policies is not credible. The real reason for the defection is more troubling for Clinton's campaign.
In fact, the Hollywood defections have the same root as resistance to Clinton's candidacy among less glittering Democratic activists throughout the country. A substantial number of them do not want to participate in a coronation of the former first lady because they still doubt her viability as a presidential candidate. They question both her positions on the issues and her skills on the campaign trail.
What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."
For many months, long before Clinton confirmed that she was a candidate, her agents have been pinning down commitments from a staggering array of Democrats who were connected in large or small degree to her husband to create an aura of inevitability about her nomination. That effort hit a bump two weeks ago with the announcement that David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, the founders of the DreamWorks film studios who all were thought to be staunch Clintonites, were sponsoring a fundraiser for Obama.
According to Democratic sources, former President Clinton got Spielberg to step away from a tacit endorsement of Obama.[/b] Spielberg has let it be known that he will host a future fundraiser for Clinton as part of a policy of helping all Democratic presidential candidates. But Katzenberg and Geffen seem to be clearly in Obama's camp.
Two theories for these defections have been put out by Democrats favorable to Clinton. First, the gay community in Hollywood is seeking revenge against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy restricting open homosexuality in the military. Second, the entertainment industry still harbors resentment about Clinton-Gore administration criticism of the material that is presented to children.
Candidates like Warner and Obama are clearly the path the Dems need to take if they want to get that executive branch back.
I read that years ago....you have NO idea what you are talking about. Get a grip, Dolo. Sheesh, can't you see you are completely out of your league here? Do you even have a high school diploma?
I find that really really really hard to beleive.....
-----
If he's going into this presidency lauding iconic figures like these. Realistically what did these 3 men have in common? I don't think america or his family needs a wakeup call to the racism that is still prevalent in our world.
- spidey
I've done some research on dude and he seems like a viable candidate based on the issues. Still not sure how he'll stand up to the potential Max Cleland-like media attack the republicans are sure to launch of he gets the nomination
You're mad that he cites disparate figures as influences on his intellectual development?
And it doesn't sound like he was telling his daughters that "racism... is still prevalent in our world"--his point seemed to be about the value of public service and of doing the right thing.
Oh yeah? Well, I study military strategy. A LOT.
Holler at your bishop.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that we still live in an America that's fully capable to assasinate free thinkers. As an African American candidate it's a harsh reality for his family.
Moreso, worried that if he's going to put himself on a path to lead. He's gotta have a strong defense or else history has a way of repeating itself.
- spidey
Oh. Your post was an elaborate expression of a fear that he'll be assassinated?