[BronUVT]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Also this:

"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency

ripped shamelessly from stefu's sig A shame that it would matter, it's no worse than Bush.

[LoisCampon]

Plus, he actually meant that.

[GWRIeEQp]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Mackenzie King spoke with his dead mother in spiritism sessions. Who?

[avdddcxnelkaxz]

Not true. Edwards has a record significantly to the right of Obama in the Senate. Although they haven't served contemporaneously, Edwards was part of the center-right of the Democratic Senate caucus, while Obama has been in the center-left. That's nice, arbitary labels, themselves based on image (they aren't image-based if you can come up with an universal definition for both). Actual voting record differences between the two?

In terms of rhetoric, the biggest difference seems to be that Edwards hews more towards protectionism. This is a widely repeated claim among those who have an access to US TV networks. I suspect the image originates from the label "populist", which is presumed to mean "protectionist". In rhetoric, I have never seen John Edwards praising protectionism or high tariffs. His record certainly isn't protectionist: for NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN on China, ending US steel tariffs, normalising trade relations with Vietnam. All these were Senate floor votes where the liberal establishment politicians of the Democratic party (think Edward Kennedy) were against what Edwards was for. So what is the "protectionist" image based on? When you say "rhetoric", do you mean the rhetoric of the candidate himself or the rhetoric of TV pundits "analyzing" his candidacy?

Obama seems a hell of a lot smarter and more charismatic Edwards (received his education from State Uni of NC) leeched off millions of dollars from corporations as a trial lawyer before being elected as a Democratic US Senator from a state leaning Republican in 1998. Obama (received his education from Columbia, Harvard and other universities with the help of affirmative action programs) worked as a bureaucrat for NGOs and as a law teacher before being elected as a Democratic state senator from a solidly Democratic district, thus becoming a mediocre establishment liberal parroting state party line (Chicago Democrat being a liberal and against the Iraq war, how rebellous of him!) in 1996, something he has been ever since. Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs). But still, it "seems" to you that Obama is more intelligent. Why? Exactly my point: based on pure image, not facts. This is what's wrong with US politics, citizens trusting in image instead of facts.


Also, when talking about the actual issues, I don't think it's important whether one considers Obama be "for" or "against" starting a war which started long before he became a Senator -- he hasn't introduced any sort of actual plan what to do in the Iraq war. He's just "against" it. Kucinich has at least said he'd "bring all the troops home" ASAP, he has something concrete. Obama has nothing but a wide-spread image of a progressive rebel altough his actions in public service are that of a completely normal (read: mediocre) liberal Democrat.

[Pashtet]

Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs).



There's virtually no correlation with raw intelligence there. Socioeconomic background and personal interests dominate at that level.

[Rexaviennatutr]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs).



There's virtually no correlation with raw intelligence there. Socioeconomic background and personal interests dominate at that level. Yes. Edwards' "socioeconomic background" in form of his education was very bad. Obama's was extraordinarily good. Yet, Edwards actually made a lot of $$$. Obama made himself a career bureaucrat.

[Alex Photographer]

There's nothing particularly bad about NC State. They could easily both be just as intelligent but Obama's interests lay elsewhere.

[Uplillacype]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I like your analysis in this thread, VJ, but I would say Obama's race will not really matter in the Democratic primary You know what kind of people democratic primary voters are so you're probably correct.

It's just hilarious to see how his supporters are presuming already that if he loses, it's because he's black. Does one really think the journalists in NYC would've pushed Obama for the cover of both Time and Newsweek as a presidential candidate before he himself announced his candidacy (and over 2 years before the actual elections are going to be held) if he would be an old white guy? If he would be an old white guy, we wouldn't be talking about him right now.

It's too bad the current urban media elite considers such non-issues as the color of the skin when deciding cover images instead of real qualifications or opinions of the candidates. Or, pray tell, the actual problems citizens are currently facing wrt. their government.

There's nothing particularly bad about NC State. They could easily both be just as intelligent but Obama's interests lay elsewhere. Is there some-sort of remotely objective listing about the level of US colleges somewhere in the net?

[sisimelanyk]

Looks like I hit the soft spot of a True Believer. "His plan starts withdrawal in a few months"... right. We'll see that, won't we? No facts will work on you.

Look dude, your tone is absurd. Please making assumptions about my knowledge when it's clear that there's a hell of a lot that you don't know about American politics. You have lectured me about things I already know, willingly twisted what I said and then smacked -smiley behind everything. Talking with you (let alone arguing with you) about this is counter-productive so I won't do it. That's not what this thread is for.

[naturaherbal]

It's just hilarious to see how his supporters are presuming already that if he loses, it's because he's black. Does one really think the journalists in NYC would've pushed Obama for the cover of both Time and Newsweek as a presidential candidate before he himself announced his candidacy (and over 2 years before the actual elections are going to be held) if he would be an old white guy? If he would be an old white guy, we wouldn't be talking about him right now. It could have something to do with the fact that he's got more charisma in his pinky than the rest of the field combined. Look at it this way: on Friday, when he visited Austin, he drew a crowd of 20,000 people. I don't think we've seen numbers like this since RFK's primary run, and he did that in the middle of the primary season (rather than a year before). You're right in that his popularity isn't due to issues, but it isn't due to color either (though both are involved). It's about something a lot more visceral.

[newspetty]

Speaking of judging based on image, VJ, what do you call it when you trot out your pet theory about how the complex history of race relations in a foreign country are responsible for a candidate's success in a political party you have never been a part of?

[NewYorkDoctorD]

And how are you coming up with these theories on what motivates the editors of Time and Newsweek? Did they recently announce a "boost the negro" policy to you, or are you just promoting a theory which fits the facts? Oh, wait, they also boosted Jesse Jackson over twenty years ago. A clear pattern. Well, in a sense it is, since JJ was the last black candidate who people took even remotely seriously (followed by duds like Mosely-Braun, Sharpton and whatshisface, Keyes), but it seems you've decided race is irrelevant and relevant simultaneously or something.

Race relations in America are extremely complicated and filled with emotional landmines due to slavery and segregation. I grew up in Prince George's County, MD--the wealthiest per-capita majority-black county in the USA. I no longer live there; my family moved once it became a snakepit of corruption and the criminals moved into our formerly-safe part. They elected a nepotistic black phlegmwad over more trustworthy white candidates with years of experience. Next door in D.C., they repeatedly put Marion Barry into power (first as mayor, then on city council) despite the fact that he is an incorrigible crackhead. It's a long story why, and it doesn't involve magazine coverage.

Race is still a very significant, EXPLOSIVE issue. Every black candidate is judged first as a black man/woman, then as a candidate--note the babble about whether Obama was "not black enough," as though he could have his melanin revoked or something. One of the many reasons I like him is that he does not try to sell himself that way--but he's still going to be judged that way. Now get a clue, and pull the rod out of your ass while you're at it.

[Stoniaanapy]

Originally posted by VJ

What the ****?

What I said was that neither J. Jackson or B. Obama were serious nationwide candidates before Time and Newsweek made them their cover stories for no reason. That might be true of Obama. But -- and I speak now as a political junkie who was living in Iowa in 1988, and thus was able to follow the campaign up close at the very beginning -- it certainly wasn't true of Jackson. The Jackson campaign -- the Rainbow Coalition -- was a grassroots effort of considerable scope and depth that the mainstream media nevertheless didn't treat seriously until it became impossible not to; Jackson had deeper and more passionate support than any other candidate in '88, including the eventual nominee, Dukakis.

[djmassk]

Giuliani was famous before 9/11 because it is said he turned New York from a criminal hell like in the Movie Taxi Driver, into a very safe city.
He even went to Mexico City to "teach" them his techniques for making cities safe.

[lkastonidwedsrer]

Well, I saw the first one today. A neighbor's bumper sticker. He's gay, and that's cool. Hell of a nice guy. The only reason I bring it up is I'm wondering if it's going to be unique to his concerns, or is it a sign of the democratic ticket?

"I Hillary"

[stuck_in_WA]

He's probably angling for a veep slot, which he has a very very good shot at.

Hillary/Richardson '08