Obama is the great hype machine

User Forum Topic
Submitted by equalizer on January 3, 2008 - 10:25pm

He may have good ideals, but the 60's gradoise speeches are so passe, sounds like preaching. Oh yeah, he needs to change his name for far too many people have changed the B to a S. And he needs to get some makeup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dthLAaQyOr4

And check out the NYT spoof of lending standards

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/busine...

THERE’S an old “Saturday Night Live’’ skit in which Eddie Murphy sets out to experience life as a white man in New York. He starts in a dressing room, where makeup artists lighten his skin as he studies up by reading Hallmark cards. Duly prepared, he wades into Midtown Manhattan calling himself Mr. White.

His first stop is a newsstand, where the white cashier conspiratorially tells him to take a newspaper without paying for it. Then comes a ride on a public bus that morphs into a lounge with cocktails and music after the last black rider gets off.

Finally, Mr. White enters the Equity National Bank to ask about borrowing $50,000 even though he has no identification, no collateral and no credit history. But no matter. Such things are mere “formalities,” a loan officer says, while removing stacks of cash from a metal box. “Just take what you want, Mr. White. Pay us back anytime. Or don’t. We don’t care.”

Back in 1984, when the skit was shown on NBC, nobody would have imagined that it was poking fun not just at race, but also at banks’ lending standards. At the time, not even a white man in a gray suit could have gotten a loan without any documents and paid it back at his leisure.

But if you watch the skit today on YouTube or a DVD, you can’t help but see another, unintended layer of satire. In the last few years, so-called no-doc and low-doc mortgages — in which loan applicants can avoid formalities like pay stubs and instead simply state their income — have surged in popularity. Critics call them “liars’ mortgages.”

Submitted by 34f3f3f on January 4, 2008 - 9:40am.

Funny, I thought 'hype' was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

Submitted by bsrsharma on January 4, 2008 - 10:41am.

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

Submitted by asragov on January 4, 2008 - 11:19am.

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/120...

Submitted by nostradamus on January 4, 2008 - 12:33pm.

I honestly don't think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the "whatever dude, whoever is president doesn't matter" crowds in cities like SD.

If you've been in the south lately, you'll know what I mean. I don't even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she'd stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we'll end up getting whoever else is left once you've eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 4, 2008 - 7:10pm.

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don't know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He's not Hillary Clinton and that's enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He's a better version of Jimmy Carter. That's why I'm voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 - 9:04pm.

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

Submitted by paramount on January 4, 2008 - 9:24pm.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul - I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on January 7, 2008 - 3:48pm.

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they'll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn't seem to "want it". Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

Submitted by marion on January 7, 2008 - 4:22pm.

Nost: "I honestly don't think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the "whatever dude, whoever is president doesn't matter" crowds in cities like SD."

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 - 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost's comments but that still doesn't make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It's sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A "purple" dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

Submitted by bsrsharma on January 7, 2008 - 5:22pm.

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 - 5:48pm.

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama's speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain's resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

Submitted by nostradamus on January 7, 2008 - 5:59pm.

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He's one scary dude! If he weren't black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn't want him... :P

Submitted by 5yearwaiter on January 7, 2008 - 6:02pm.

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost "cameout-brokeout" as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

Submitted by juice (not verified) on January 7, 2008 - 6:11pm.

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

Submitted by bsrsharma on January 7, 2008 - 6:19pm.

Ban sex education.....

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

Submitted by Irish on January 7, 2008 - 6:40pm.

Obama's positions are very similar to Hillary's, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks...she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I'll be sad if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we'll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we've endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I'll vote for him if he's the democratic nominee.

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 - 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she's 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 - 6:50pm.

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the "vast right wing conspiracy"?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don't kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will - with a vengeance.

Submitted by zk on January 7, 2008 - 7:19pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

Submitted by drunkle on January 7, 2008 - 7:25pm.

"gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?"

it's his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 - 7:33pm.

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I'm not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone's handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it's a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 - 7:42pm.

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents' mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn't care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don't have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It's just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

Submitted by Irish on January 7, 2008 - 7:46pm.

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The "republican slime machine" along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That's why they need a "vicious" fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power...isn't that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama...it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

Submitted by NotCranky on January 7, 2008 - 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can't entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the "best of the worst". It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 - 7:52pm.

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton's as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 - 8:13pm.

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left's embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It's sad really.

Submitted by NotCranky on January 7, 2008 - 8:28pm.

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing...

Submitted by marion on January 7, 2008 - 8:34pm.

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 - 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he's black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he'd make a good president regardless of his skin color. What's the problem here? Can't a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost's statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don't see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 - 8:37pm.

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We're not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn't aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don't deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don't feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I'd like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

Submitted by drunkle on January 7, 2008 - 8:48pm.

allan:

you're saying that i "pulled the race card". i can't believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.