Obama... drug use within the past 10 years?

[Mplssoxfan]

you're friends with Ann Coulter?

mr_genius for the win!

[BigSqwert]

Obama Fathers Two-Headed Gay Terrorist Baby: The National Enquirer-ization of American Politics

[FlaSoxxJim]

Obama Fathers Two-Headed Gay Terrorist Baby: The National Enquirer-ization of American Politics

 

It's an Obamanation Abomination!!

 

[YASNY]

Obama Fathers Two-Headed Gay Terrorist Baby: The National Enquirer-ization of American Politics

 

I've always considered Obama's popularity as the American Idol-ization of American Politics.

[BigSqwert]

I've always considered Obama's popularity as the American Idol-ization of American Politics.

Can you explain why that is? I'm honestly curious to know why.

Edited March 28, 2008 by BigSqwert

[YASNY]

Can you explain why that is? I'm honestly curious to know why.

 

Because it's been media driven. There is no substance there and the media has given him a major pass.

[BigSqwert]

Because it's been media driven. There is no substance there and the media has given him a major pass.

How do you define substance?

 

BTW: I'll be shutting down in a minute as I'm headed to Texas this afternoon. Might have to continue this conversation later.

Edited March 28, 2008 by BigSqwert

[whitesoxfan101]

Because it's been media driven. There is no substance there and the media has given him a major pass.

 

Indeed. I'm not sure how anybody can argue the guy has substance, Obama doesn't even do it with his own speeches. It's just about i'm young and good looking and likeable and have hope. He's just a young, masterful speecher that has made many people fall for his spell. In fact, this campaign has proven that any young, decent looking guy that can speak very well can put people under a trance, and that scares me big time. Obama seems to at least have good intentions, but a good speaker in the future might not.

Edited March 28, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[NorthSideSox72]

Because it's been media driven.

Agree.

 

There is no substance there

Disagree - he's got as much "substance" as most of the other candidates, as far as i can see. He just also happens to be really good at the American Idol thing, which makes it easy for Clinton and the Republicans to say that's all he's got.

 

and the media has given him a major pass.

For a time, I agree, this was true. Then he got pretty well pounded, and is still getting hit hard.

[whitesoxfan101]

I agree that the media is finally starting to be at least something resembling fair towards Obama, but I've seen many of his speeches and still haven't found anything resembling substance about him. Even when he finally admits something like the cap gains tax hike, he then says he never said it.

Edited March 28, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[NorthSideSox72]

Indeed. I'm not sure how anybody can argue the guy has substance, Obama doesn't even do it with his own speeches. It's just about i'm young and good looking and likeable and have hope. He's just a young, masterful speecher that has made many people fall for his spell. In fact, this campaign has proven that any young, decent looking guy that can speak very well can put people under a trance, and that scares me big time. Obama seems to at least have good intentions, but a good speaker in the future might not.

This is precisely what the GOP will use against him in the general. He's very good in the spotlight, so they say that's all he has.

 

But to say that's true is kind of a joke. Seriously... point out to me, for example, how Clinton has had more "substance" in this campaign than Obama. She hasn't. They both do the same thing - they make some stump speeches that are rah-rah, they have the same level of detail in the debates, and they both have other speeches (and stuff on their websites) that gets into policy specifics.

 

Mind you, if we're talking about experience here, then clearly McCain has far more than Obama. Clinton has a little more, but not much, or maybe even less, depending on your definition.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree that the media is finally starting to be at least something resembling fair towards Obama, but I've seen many of his speeches and still haven't found anything resembling substance about him. Even when he finally admits something like the cap gains tax hike, he then says he never said it.

Tell you what. Show me how any candidate's speeches are more substantial than Obama's. They aren't. ALL the candidates, except maybe Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, have a variety of different kinds of speeches they give, depending on the venue. Some very policy-oriented, others are just pep rallies.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

This is precisely what the GOP will use against him in the general. He's very good in the spotlight, so they say that's all he has.

 

But to say that's true is kind of a joke. Seriously... point out to me, for example, how Clinton has had more "substance" in this campaign than Obama. She hasn't. They both do the same thing - they make some stump speeches that are rah-rah, they have the same level of detail in the debates, and they both have other speeches (and stuff on their websites) that gets into policy specifics.

 

Mind you, if we're talking about experience here, then clearly McCain has far more than Obama. Clinton has a little more, but not much, or maybe even less, depending on your definition.

 

None of the campaigns have much substance. It's just Obama, despite having basically no experience, claims substance when he doesn't have any. It's an election where you vote your party, because substance and honesty are almost impossible to find, especially with McCain's recent pandering to the right.

[NorthSideSox72]

None of the campaigns have much substance. It's just Obama, despite having basically no experience, claims substance when he doesn't have any. It's an election where you vote your party, because substance and honesty are almost impossible to find, especially with McCain's recent pandering to the right.

I have to disagree, and not just about Obama. McCain, for example, has plenty of substance and experience. Obama has less experience than McCain by far, but is about on par with Clinton and some others. And there were candidates in both parties that are no longer in the race with plenty of it - my guy Bill Richardson, for example.

 

I think people don't see substance because substance isn't on CNN. You want to find substance from these candidates, you have to check the policy docs on their websites... or read serious journals and papers, not just watch the MSM news... or if you have to go the TV route, watch PBS.

 

The lack of "substance" in this race, to me, doesn't lie with the candidates... its lies with the media, and therefore, it also lies partially with the voting public who prefer sound bytes to hard information.

 

[lostfan]

None of the campaigns have much substance. It's just Obama, despite having basically no experience, claims substance when he doesn't have any. It's an election where you vote your party, because substance and honesty are almost impossible to find, especially with McCain's recent pandering to the right.

If you define "substance" as what his stances are on the issues and what his plans are if he gets elected he's most decisively a Democrat, he's pretty much been in lock step with the party since he's gotten elected. And if that is, in fact, your definition I don't know where you'd find any basis to say that. He does talk in pretty explicit detail now when he outlines his plans, he doesn't do that in the rah-rah speeches. Really it's no different than when Bush says things like "we're winning the war" or "we're keeping America safer." Those statements by themselves have no substance and if you want to find out what they're based on you have to look elsewhere.

 

If you define "substance" as experience in politics at the national level, he doesn't have that, but at the same time he makes no claims about having it either and never has. Whenever he's called on that his response is something like "don't confuse experience with time spent in Washington, not everything that comes out of Washington is any good."

[lostfan]

The lack of "substance" in this race, to me, doesn't lie with the candidates... its lies with the media, and therefore, it also lies partially with the voting public who prefer sound bytes to hard information.

ding ding ding... we have a winner

[YASNY]

Substance. What it means to me is that you stand up say what you are going do, or what you will not do. I watched Obama's speech yesterday, as much as I could until CNN cut away, and he never really said or committed to anything. He expressed opinions and skirted issues so as to make good sound bytes. He the dude said absolutely nothing of substance. And for the record, I watching on Fox and they cut away, then went to CNN to see more until they cut away. I kept waiting for him to take a stand, any stand, on anything. While I watched, he didn't.

 

As I said, no substance.

[lostfan]

Like I said, he doesn't do it in the speeches. In a speech he will say "I'm going to end this war..." which by itself doesn't mean anything. If you see him on Anderson Cooper or something that's when he gets more specific and he'll say "Well you see in Iraq we have only bad options and worse options" and then he goes on to say what they are.

 

The speeches are there just to spout populist rhetoric like all politicians do. You can't really get elected without doing that.

[StrangeSox]

Obama has given at least two economic policy speeches, a foreign policy speech, and a energy policy speech. People just keep saying "He hasn't said anything!" without bothering to check what he's actually said. Not every speech is going to be a detailed policy speech, but he has given several of those.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/p...ahamfelsen/Cmzm

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/obam...new_plan_to.php

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=OBAMA+POLIC...lient=firefox-a

Edited March 28, 2008 by StrangeSox

[YASNY]

Obama has given at least two economic policy speeches, a foreign policy speech, and a energy policy speech. People just keep saying "He hasn't said anything!" without bothering to check what he's actually said. Not every speech is going to be a detailed policy speech, but he has given several of those.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/p...ahamfelsen/Cmzm

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/obam...new_plan_to.php

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=OBAMA+POLIC...lient=firefox-a

 

I clicked on your google link, and in the very first link I clicked on, maybe third on the page, I found this:

 

Obama had been considered a war supporter when he first burst into the Senate in '04, and was denounced as a neo-con hawk by the anti-war left after several tough comments on Iran that seemingly backed the idea of bombing the Mullahs to prevent them from getting nukes.

 

It seems he wasn't always quite the anti-Iraq war he says he is. Thanks for guiding me to that. No substance.

 

[StrangeSox]

I clicked on your google link, and in the very first link I clicked on, maybe third on the page, I found this:

It seems he wasn't always quite the anti-Iraq war he says he is. Thanks for guiding me to that. No substance.

 

I can't think of any realistic support for that claim. He denounced the war in 2002, well before he was in the US Senate. That line just comes from some random blog and has no supporting evidence for that claim.

 

Barack's 2002 speech:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

 

You've been shown substance. If you want to disagree with that substance, by all means, go ahead. There's plenty there that I disagree with myself. I'm just really tired of hearing the same sort of BS about the different candidates again and again.

Edited March 28, 2008 by StrangeSox

[YASNY]

I can't think of any realistic support for that claim. He denounced the war in 2002, well before he was in the US Senate. That line just comes from some random blog and has no supporting evidence for that claim.

 

I just pointed out what I read.

[NorthSideSox72]

I clicked on your google link, and in the very first link I clicked on, maybe third on the page, I found this:

It seems he wasn't always quite the anti-Iraq war he says he is. Thanks for guiding me to that. No substance.

Its certainly true that the Dems feared he was a bit of a hawk, regarding going policy on certain countries. That is not the same as supporting the war in Iraq, which as far as I have seen or heard, he has never done.

 

Watch Clinton speak, or McCain speak, in these soundbytes. They offer no more or less substance.

 

[YASNY]

More interesting reading:

 

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

 

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

 

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

 

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

 

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

Edited to take chaff that wasn't part of the story.

Edited March 28, 2008 by YASNY

[Balta1701]

I just pointed out what I read.

And when I cite random, unsupported things that appear on left-leaning blogs, I get pounced on for them.