Obama's Pastor -- is Obama a secret radical, or is this just guilt by association?

[Taq_is_hot]

Well, I wouldn't make any real decision on him before reading about him and watching him. But I never got good vibes from him. Now that I have seen him a lot, those vibes have grown. He just seems like such a pop symbol. He does not seem like a true professional. While he may seem sincere, he just does not seem like he really knows how to be the leader of a country. I am not for the democratic party anyway, but I probably would choose Clinton over Obama.

[Pangloss]

Well it's your vote, fair enough. I do think it's interesting how many people I've talked to around town who feel that way, who oppose Obama but have difficulty really pinning down why. It's quite often I hear the "bad vibe" mentioned, or the association with Rev. Wright, or his popularity.

 

Very different from the kinds of objections leveled against Clinton or McCain. Those tend to be VERY specific.

[ParanoiA]

I am going to vote for Obama because I find him authentic and sincere.

Those who are not going to vote for Obama are doing it (not because the other candidate is better' date=' but because they have been motivated somehow and for some reason to distrust him.[/quote']

 

The second sentence finds it's grip in the first. Anytime some shiney shoe salesman politician comes along selling authenticity and sincerity, I get worried. They said the same crap about Slick Willy too.

 

You have to be a terrific con artist to be all things to all people. The only negatives I've heard on Obama have been related to Wright, and other examples of the company he keeps. He seems to be filling the role of the unknown new comer really well, and all the benefits that affords, and not many are considering him within that context.

 

Most Obama supporters that I've talked to, seem to be in that weird, spacey kind of worship mode where they are done with any resemblence to critical analysis. I'd rather stand for someone that I know - which inevitably means some fraction of disagreement, rather for someone that remains calculatively unknowable, and therefore consequently unable to disagree with on anything material.

 

It all feels like tactics.

[john5746]

I'm done with Clinton, not that I am even sure I will vote democrat in the general, but I am done with her. She can't even come up with a decent exit strategy for her campaign, so I don't think she will come up with one in Iraq.

[Pangloss]

An amusing comparison.

[ParanoiA]

You know, I was surprised and impressed with her performance on O'reilly. I was impressed how she didn't let him bully her, definitely presidential. And a couple of times, hell, I think she even said what she really thinks. Seriously, I thought she did really well in Billy's interview. I'm just not scared of her like I used to be.

[iNow]

I'm done with Clinton, not that I am even sure I will vote democrat in the general, but I am done with her. She can't even come up with a decent exit strategy for her campaign, so I don't think she will come up with one in Iraq.

 

That IS funny.

 

Another thing that strikes me is that she can't even make or manage enough money to keep her campaign running without borrowing more. Strikes me as a poor reflection considering that the US is so far in debt already. Not a good thing to elect someone who keeps borrowing more, with little or no hope of it being paid back.

 

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2190880/

Sen. Hillary Clinton has lent her campaign another $6.4 million since April 1, a staffer confirmed on Wednesday. The Clinton campaign began last month with $10.3 million in unpaid bills to everyone from political consultants to caterers. If a candidate borrows money during the course of a campaign, what happens to all that debt when she drops out or the election's over?

 

It needs to be paid back—unless the candidate is the one owed the money. Lenders want their money back, and they are expected to follow the same practices they would if they were lending to a business or an individual. (If Clinton had borrowed from a bank, for example, she would be required to pay interest on the loans.) Moreover, under campaign finance law, an uncollected loan from a corporation—whether it's a bank or a sign maker—could be construed as an illegal contribution. As a result, even though vendors don't always require campaigns to pay upfront, they must make a good-faith effort to collect on any money they might be owed.

 

To pay back those loans, a candidate is forced to do exactly the thing she wasn't able to accomplish during the course of the campaign—raise more money.

[Pangloss]

I heard about this loan thing. Obviously it's not a good way to MAKE money, but it's not hard to see that the money candidates "spend" on their campaigns can be readily paid back to themselves if they achieve sufficient donations, and they can take any amount of time to do that. So basically it costs them nothing (assuming they find donors down the road for Hillary's 2012 campaign).

 

(Which seems a sure thing, though I must say if Obama loses in 2008 I don't think Democrats will ever forgive Hillary.)

[iNow]

Obviously it's not a good way to MAKE money, but it's not hard to see that the money candidates "spend" on their campaigns can be readily paid back to themselves if they achieve sufficient donations, and they can take any amount of time to do that.

Oh, I absolutely agree, I just see this type of strategy akin to spending one's entire $600 rebate check on lottery tickets.

 

 

"Blow on these, honey. I needs me a new car."