Barack Obama's candidacy for President has been what I am starting to refer to as "Slow-boated" in reaction to claims from the Obama campaign they are being "Swift-boated."
My contention is that "Slow-Boating" refers to the easy ride Obama has gotten in the media and from fellow Democrats because of the strange and unfamiliar dynamics of having a mainstream minority candidate in the race. "Slow-boating" is a pun based on the fact that Obama's campaign style has been to project vague and happy feelings to his supporters. Many of his supporters still know almost nothing about him or his platform.
With this kind of scenario, any attempt at this point to shine light on Obama or push him for specifics might appear to his supporters as negative and "Swift-Boating."
Until now Obama has been able to fill the gaping voids in his candidacy by plastering pretty positive words and images, and by keeping from responding to attacks by smiling and labeling them as silly and normal, but continuing to refuse to let anyone see under the hood of the mechanics of him or his campaign. Allowing two books to provide a controlled image of what he wants to show of his character, and the thin bland resume of his experience to provide a fragile projection for weary and worn out extreme Democrats and even some independents to build their hopes on, the Obama campaign in my opinion looks more and more like the Bush campaign in its style over substance strategic format.
When the void in the Obama candidacy approaches social consciousness it is easy for him to sit back and wait for political correctness to calm the situation down to dead silence, because there is no way to criticise Obama as long as he keeps his good humor and smile and does not choose to answer.
My concern is while I know Hillary Clinton can keep going without losing it, because she has for 16 years maintained a constant course. What does Barack Obama look like when he loses it? What is he like when he is mad? Is he a quitter? How much can he take? How stable is he going to be when the magic wears off? In short, who is he, and what does he stand for, and what does he want to do really? I am tired of the cardboard image, and I think someone in a country of 350 million ought to have the guts to risk being labelled as a "Swift-Boater" so the rest of the world can find out the truth.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30 ( 1 removed by Bruce K. )
I removed the "approve comments" John, do you have anything more to contibute? I guess you irrationally assume that because I want to know more about Barack Obama that I support George W. Bush and that is all your thinking process really needs to judge someone? This is exactly what I see way too much of with Obama supporters, and Bush supporters too if that makes you happy.
Bruce B. my last comment in my other article was within minutes of yours. So you feel it is fine to come here and demand that I answer you in another article on your time schedule? That's a new one.
I still dont like Hilly though. I think she needs to learn to take responsibility for her decisions and not try to distance herself from them. She changes her mind to often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright
> I don't know if there is a "black agenda" or what a "black
> agenda" that you have hurled at me several times in a few
> minutes now, and even taken your demand that I answer
> you right away to another article of mine, which frankly
> makes you seem like a jerk jumping up to defend Obama
> when you cannot even name the offense.
> Forgive me if I need a moment to process this kind of BS.
This may or may not be an attempt to stifle conversation
or intimidation or just a denial of service to anyone else
who want to read this article and discuss it, but Bruce B,
in my opinion you are way over the line in terms of a
productive discussion.
You have badgered me and tried to accuse me, and in
general lost my goodwill towards you in terms of being
able to trade view with you without feeling you have
some agenda.
I am fine that you are pro-Obama, and I have different
opinions and the right and forum to express them.
I am putting my foot down here and giving you warning
I am going to do something about this if you continue
to poison the discourse. I actually you think you should
apologize and back off and take a deep breath.
I really did Laugh Out Loud on that one bruce...Hillary is just as wishy washy as the rest.
this church. I do not necessarily think that a member of a
church is responsiblity for the pastor's opinions or actions.
On the other hand if the demeanor of a pastor of a church
has a chilling effect on its congregation or a fearful effect
on the commuity in terms of them feeling separated, and
I mean the whole community, that is a different issue.
Coming here out of the blue and calling Hillary Clinton wishy-washy,
or for that matter all the others is just a way to try to get attention
for yourself and short-circuit the discussion.
I did not say Barack Obama was wishy-washy, he is more quiet.
There is no wishy for him to be washy about ... in the context
you bring up, I would maybe say he is deliberately namby-pamby
as the article states, in favor of letting his supporters to the
wishing and washing.
I am just pointing out that Hillary's issue like the rest of the candidates depends on who she is talking to.
pretty radical people and teachings:
> This only drew further interest into Wright's preaching
> of Black liberation theology which some conservative
> critics say promotes "a sort of racial exclusivity".[8] Wright
> has rejected this notion by saying that "The African-centered
> point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it
> assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for
> themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history."[9]
Would you call that an African agenda Bruce B.? I think it
could be as much as anything else. Was this Barack Obama's
original political base in Chicago?
You bring up an interesting issue...
My personal opinion, for what little it's worth, is that being inspirational is one the most important, if not the most important asset a president can have.
It certailny worked for Kennedy and for Reagan. Presidents can always surround themselves with talented advisors but there is little they can do if they are as inspirational as- say - a shrub.
Reagan to me was more image, as Obama is, and Bush. Reality in America is starting to fray around the edges, if not unravel, and for anyone who thinks this is a good thing or that "change" and sunlight comes out automatically out of such a thing, remember when people get desperate, scared they have voted historically for some very dangerous people. It is in this line that I focus on Hillary Clinton and John McCain when I do not understand completely the other choices.
I wish that hard working class people could run in this campaign and win. Then I think America might get back on track. This is just my opinion.. I dont see how any of them can get up there and promise this and that but yet they havent walked a mile in our shoes.
If we have disconnected somehow, I want you to know that I did not initiate that disconnect, nor did I notice, since I am subscribed to you.
Also, when I saw that you chose to screen comments on this article, I left that first comment thinking you'd laugh and not allow it. I say what I want, quite crudely at times, but that isn't language I normally use (partly because I don't know if it needs a hyphen). If you want me to remove that first comment, I will. I can harass you about Obama without stooping to that level.
> this article, I left that first comment thinking you'd laugh
> and not allow it.
Sandy, you also made the same or virtually the same comment
back at the orginial article which was unscreened. It is an
insult to me personally that you would drag my attempt at
discussion down by what is a virtual terrorist tactic, same with
Bruce B.
You guys are out of control. I sometimes screen comments
because I have gotten some wackos here on Gather. Anyone
who has read my stuff knows I am both opinated and outspoken,
but if something has a value to a discussion I fearlessly welcome
it and include it.
In your case the value was to the meta-dicsussion and the
mechanics of what is happening over this obama thing.
You are Bruce B. both sidetracked and attempted to
poison the well of a perfectly reasonable and good
conversation because of what, questioning about Obama,
and I can only wonder if you are afraid to hear something
that will spoil your image of him ... like that's possible?
back at the orginial article which was unscreened. It is an
insult to me personally that you would drag my attempt at
discussion down by what is a virtual terrorist tactic, same with
Bruce B.
I apologize only for the language, Bruce. I stand by my opinion that it is cheap to leave one unresolved thread to start a new 'monitored conversation' one on the same topic.
Your reference to terrorist tactics is too absurd to even deserve a response.
You guys are out of control. I sometimes screen comments
because I have gotten some wackos here on Gather. Anyone
who has read my stuff knows I am both opinated and outspoken,
but if something has a value to a discussion I fearlessly welcome
it and include it.
I think we have to take the wackos with the wise ones, and look poorly on anyone who monitors or removes comments. I disconnected from Hillary Clinton for this reason. How do you rationalize saying that you are opinionated and outspoken, but others who do the same are wackos and you don't want to read their outspoken opinions?
In your case the value was to the meta-dicsussion and the
mechanics of what is happening over this obama thing.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
You are Bruce B. both sidetracked and attempted to
poison the well of a perfectly reasonable and good
conversation because of what, questioning about Obama,
and I can only wonder if you are afraid to hear something
that will spoil your image of him ... like that's possible?
I don't think a conversation in which you draw an opinion from facts that reflect nothing relevant to your opinion is perfectly reasonable. I came into that conversation disagreeing with your opinion and asking questions. I did not call you names or insult you personally. You are correct about one thing. You will not spoil my opinion of Barack Obama by making up stories about him. If you continue to do that, you will ruin my opinion of you. I will respect you more if you just say you don't like the guy, and give an honest reason instead of bringing unrelated information in and trying to "trick" me into reading nonsense into them. That's an insult to my intelligence.
> do you rationalize saying that you are opinionated and
> outspoken, but others who do the same are wackos and
> you don't want to read their outspoken opinions?
I do not need to prove anything to anyone. You or anyone
else can prove who or what I am to your own satisfaction by
interacting with me and getting to know me. I don't care if
everyone likes me or not, I'm not here to be liked, I am here to
enjoy myself.
You are assuming I delete people for their opinons, that is
never the case, and your assumptions, accusation and
reactions are always a bit off because of that. Try asking
some clarifiying questions at least before you waste a lot
of both of our time.
> I don't understand what you mean by this.
We are now discussion the discussion instead of
having the discussion.
> I don't think a conversation in which you draw an
> opinion from facts that reflect nothing relevant to
> your opinion is perfectly reasonable.
Now it's my turn to not understand you? Huh?
First, I have tried to say that "like" to me in this context
is abhorant. To think that you can like a presidential
candidate to me is a delusion. Like thinking you like an
actor because of a performance? Like has nothing to do
with this for me. I have tried to say this in as many ways
as I can, I don't want to have a beer, or be buds with
the President. It won't happen anyway, and any connection
anyone thinks they have as far as I'm concerned is a mental
illness, or in the case of Obama mass-hysteria.
I am however very much interested in how you read my
article .. why I wrote it to begin with. Why you say you think
I am trying to trick you. I doubt you think that, since you
say you cannot be tricked, and you would not be mad at
me and use gutter talk if you did not think I was trying to
trick others maybe?
Again, trick to me is a non-sequitor ... the only trick I can see
in politics is saying something that is not true about someone
else. If I state facts, and my opinon about them how can that
be an attempt to trick anyone?
Overall, I'm disappointed in where we are with choices down the road, and had hoped for better candidates myself.. oh well.... sigh.
Thanks for your thoughts.
ideas, not because he said he did. The Kennedy that is left
has turned into a bloated joke.
If John Kennedy had gone around chanting "Yes we can" over
and over with an intellectually challenged mob he never would
have gotten elected. People expected more from someone
running for President. Read Kennedy's speeches, he was a
statesmen.
The simple appeal of saying something unexpected, in a
debate setting such as "I will talk to leaders or rogue nations
unconditionally" is not change, is not leadeship, it's a whole
lotta nothing.
Want to elaborate on that?