Obama to hold mass rally for acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium

[The Duke]

Is it arrogant for Obama to move his speech to a larger venue so as to have a bigger crowd for the TV cameras?

It undeniably is.

There is all kinds of evidence to suggest that Obama has a massive ego, and perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that he ran for Presdient to begin with.  To run for President you have to believe that you should have the power of thousands of nuclear weapons at your fingertips, and that seems far more arrogant than wanting a bigger audience at your speech.  The only President of modern times who truly had no ego was Gerald Ford, and he was the only person who truly did not seek the job.

Do I wish that the enthusiasm gap were reversed and that Republicans were as excited about McCain as Democrats are about Obama?

Of course I do.

Frankly, I think the enthusiasm gap should be reversed.  John McCain is a war hero.  He is the first Presidential candidate I get to be proud to have voted for because I truly respect him as a man.  The most important thing Barack Obama has done in his political career is to get elected to things.  John McCain changed the way political campaigns are financed, he exposed and ended the corruption of Jack Abramoff and of the Boeing tanker deal, and his leadership on foreign policy saved our country from defeat in Iraq.  Tell me again why the enthusiasm gap favors Democrats?

Am I a little jealous.

No, I'm a lot jealous.

I hope it rains on the jerk.

Do I think Supersoulty is crazy?

Absolutely not.

I think he sees real comparisons between the way Bush approaches politics and the way Obama approaches politics. They both believe principle is less important than winning elections.  They both appeal to their party's base by appealing to the superficial and emotional rather than on substance.  They both approach the world in heavily religious terms that believe revelation and not inquiry is the proper mode of truth seeking.  Most dangerously, they both view history as a dramatic story in which they are chosen by destiny to play the role of hero, that they can change the world not by developing rational solutions to problems but by sheer force of will, and that change must be fundamental and revolutionary or else it is "small ball".  Supersoulty points out the various ways that the Obama story is beginning to parallel the Bush story and he is ridiculed by Obama supporters.  It reminds me of the way Bush supporters responded to attacks on their man after 9/11, frankly.  So visceral.  So emotional.  So personal.

Obama backers and Obama himself have no right to criticize anyone who says Obama is Bush's doppelganger.  After all, this is what you have been working on doing for years, is it not?  Building a Rove-DeLay style machine that could counter ours?  Isn't the whole idea that you just build a machine that can elect a Democrat President no matter what the cost?  After years of dailykos telling us their goal was to build the Democratic version of the Bush machine, you're angry that someone accuses Obama of running the Democratic version of the Bush campaign?  Please.

Besides, you have all forgotten the most important lesson of the Bush-Rove-DeLay story: It ends in failure, humiliation, and disillusionment.

[12th Doctor]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

[bgwah]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

So what? After her car accident she was an overweight cripple, and McCain began cheating on her. What a hero!

[tik 🪀✨]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

Er.. does that make it any better?

I don't think you're crazy, by the way, but I do think you went in to this idea on your own, formulated it, and then began picking away until the parallels seemed undeniable. A self-fulfilling prophecy, really.

My (God I can't even say the word anymore without feeling a little hoaky) hope for Obama is that, given his perceived intellectual capacity when compared to Bush, he would make a more concerted effort to surround himself with a wider balance of opinion. His campaign has tried to emphasize that change is not something he himself offers, just what he represents as a President of the people of the US.

I don't think you're in any place to criticize his family's dealings. Is there some quote you have that the reason the kids would get the dog was because Obama would be gone so much busy campaigning? Is there really an important reason that I even have to ask that question?

Your Freudian analysis was a little shallow I found, I'm sorry to say. What, exactly, is the purpose behind trying to find a reason why Obama is or seems to be so egotistical? I think the performance of Bush these past six years especially was the result of not some kind of mind-f*** as a child, but a mind-f*** after September 11th. I don't blame the man for it sometimes, I can't imagine not losing my bearings after such a thing. In any case, I fail to see the relevance. I don't care if Obama is egotistical unless it means worse diplomacy, and that is hard to imagine after 43.

I think this elongated campaign season may be toying with your mind a little, but the calls that you're crazy should cease. That said, this is still the campaign season. The acceptance speech is one of the critical moments of it. Obama will capitalize on that opportunity in the fashion his campaign has already been run. One thing we must remember is that campaign season Obama will likely not be similar to an elected Obama.

Oh, and one last thing - Obama throws people under the bus. He stood by the curb for a long, long time before he pushed Wright under, his first serious problem. Too long, many said. A representation of bad judgment? Quite possibly. But please, please, let's try not to dig too deep. There's a point at which the hole begins to fall in upon itself and you're just stuck. In the dirt. I'm going to go eat a burrito.

[12th Doctor]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

So what? After her car accident she was an overweight cripple, and McCain began cheating on her. What a hero!

First, there are obvious signs of trouble in the marriage long before that happened.

Second, I don't pretend McCain is a perfect human-being.  He is flawed, just like everyone else.  But McCain doesn't put on a facade of perfection either, which is important.  And the real question is, is there a recent pattern of behavior?

[bgwah]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

So what? After her car accident she was an overweight cripple, and McCain began cheating on her. What a hero!

First, there are obvious signs of trouble in the marriage long before that happened.

Second, I don't pretend McCain is a perfect human-being.  He is flawed, just like everyone else.  But McCain doesn't put on a facade of perfection either, which is important.  And the real question is, is there a recent pattern of behavior?

I doubt he can get it up anymore, so it's probably not much of an issue.

[??????????]

It amuses me that some who compare Obama and his supporters to Nazi's probably railed against the comparison of George W. Bush to Hitler that some extreme members of society made.

Comparing modern day politicians to the likes of Hitler is pretty tasteless and reduces debate to an extremely unfavorable level. Frankly, I pretty much lose respect for anyone that compares people like Obama or GWB to Hitler. These comparisons are extreme, inaccurate, and unnecessary. It would be best if we could avoid these distasteful situations.

Correct. Comparing him to Lenin would be a much more accurate slander.

[Lunar]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

Ross Perot, who paid for Carol McCain's expensive medical bills while John was in Vietnam said this:
"‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Carol's wikipedia page covers all this.

I don't bag McCain much because of this, but certainly the guy has some ambition (he told his college roommate he wanted to do something so that he would be remembered in the history books and Carol early on that he wanted to be president).

[12th Doctor]

Er.. does that make it any better?

No, it doesn't.  However, I don't approve of people attempting to use that as a misdirection tactic to draw attention away from Obama's shortcomings, which is, after all, why it was brought up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that makes three people I guess.  Actually, I came about the notion while reading Bush on the Couch.  I slowly started to realize a pattern with Obama overtime, including his tendency to use Bush-like tactics, but reading the book gave me a lens to focus with.  Not that that was my introduction to psychology, mind you, but noticing things and then putting them together is a whole different game... the latter takes time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if my thoughts are correct, and Obama has many of the same emotional incapacities as Bush, then its not going to matter that he is more intellectually capable... in fact, it might make it worse.  And as for "change"... its hard to see where the "he and it" stop and begin.  Is there really a difference?  Not in the minds of most people, I would imagine.  If someone represents change, than one assumes they are the vehicle to deliver it, correct?  Otherwise, vote for someone else.  If however, his only point really is that he merely represents change, then one must ask, how.  Is it just because of his race?  Because he is young?  Isn't that shallow, if either is true?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I merely brought it up to demonstrate similar patterns of behavior.  It's obvious that Bush's kids were never told how to act, what is expected of them, etc.  If Obama's kids are similar, and I think they seem to be, since they seem to get away with alot and say whatever they want, it indicates to me that they have similar parenting styles, which is indicative of similar personalities.  I didn't bring it up to be mean or vindictive, I brought it up as a side point, and it somehow became a main item.  As for the dog... Obama himself said as much, on a couple of occasions, and Michelle on a couple more... Hell, even the kids might have said it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit, it limps, but I'm not a professional, and I don't have time to write a novel.  That being said, my purpose is to demonstrate that Obama might come loaded with all the severe personality problems that have made W such a bad President.  And I disagree that 9/11 had anything to do with Bush's flaws.  It merely allowed them to manifest in his need to be the big dude, his sadistic enjoyment of other's misery, his disrespect for people who really are capable of putting themselves in harms way for the greater good, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I simply don't see the need for a speech in front of 100,000 people (as opposed to "just" 20,000) other than ego, and the desire to wow people with a show of force.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Muslims, and his staffers who were disrespectful to Muslims, and Scarlett Johansson, and his own "white grandmother" (one could write a paper on his identification of her alone, or lack there of), and, and, and... when it happens a few times, its interesting... but it has clearly become a pattern.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to approach this without calling my sanity into question.

[12th Doctor]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

Ross Perot, who paid for Carol McCain's expensive medical bills while John was in Vietnam said this:
"‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Carol's wikipedia page covers all this.

I don't bag McCain much because of this, but certainly the guy has some ambition (he told his college roommate he wanted to do something so that he would be remembered in the history books and Carol early on that he wanted to be president).

H. Ross Perot is not a valid source for anything... and I'm not saying that because I am trying to cover McCain's ass... I'm saying it because it is H. Ross Perot.

That being said, as I said, I don't think McCain is perfect.  I respect him, but he has made his share of mistakes.

[The Duke]

In reference to Soulty's last post, throwing ScarJo under the bus was my favorite part of Obama's campaign.

And the sad thing is, she probably still thinks he's an inspirational figure who will change us with the audacity of his hope.  God, there are so many people who are borderline brainwashed at this point in the campaign its getting freaky.

[Boris]

They both believe principle is less important than winning elections.

Yes, but all politicians do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but all politicians do. Bill Clinton used a very similar "change" mantra to shore up his base in 1992. Reagan kicked off the 1980 campaign talking about "States Rights" or something along those lines. Superficial, emotional, anti-intellectual, yet effective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not quite sure what you mean. Can you provide examples?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

eh, I think you're overanalyzing the rhetoric behind the campaigns. The "change" mantra is utilized, because, well, it works (1992, 1980, 1976, 1968, 1960). None of the aforementioned campaigns truly implemented nor relied upon "revolutionary" change in the political system (except maybe Kennedy via LBJ with civil rights, but that was probably going to happen with Nixon regardless). Largely, they have attempted to develop quasi-rational decision making mixed in with political calculations so they can win a second term. Unfortunately, this "rational" decision-making often has had too much of the latter mixed in (Bill Clinton) or is simply not all that sound (George W. Bush).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if I would describe the responses in this thread as "visceral," "emotional," and "personal." They don't seem to be taking Supersoulty all that seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes. Given how you guys basically destroyed America over the past eight years, it would be prudent idea to build a political machine capable of winning an election to ensure a cessation of the damage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats and Obama supporters do not tend to view electing their man having as sort of "cost" attached so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. They're certainly not ripping apart John McCain like you guys did to Kerry, Clinton, and Dukakis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure what dailykos has to do with anything, but the comparison isn't really valid. using emotion to appeal to voters is hardly unique to the Bush campaigns and Obama has not gone after McCain like you guys went after Kerry. Even the stuff against Clinton was relatively tame, since all Obama had to do after his 11 win streak was play defense and not screw up while Clinton was forced to go into the attacking mode.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It probably will end that way because the circumstances upon Obama's entry will suck, but time will tell, bro.

[opebo]

.... Comparing him to Lenin would be a much more accurate slander.

...God, there are so many people who are borderline brainwashed at this point in the campaign its getting freaky.

OK, the above are two examples of extremely silly right-wing myth-making about Obama and the 2008 election.  States, Obama is obviously barely left of center even by American standards.  To compare him to Lenin is absolutely ridiculous.  Remember, just because someone is left of you does not mean he is left of everyone else.

And Ford - just because some people actually like their candidate for a change does not mean they're 'brainwashed'.  Remember your man Reagan?

[The Duke]

Boris,

It probably will end that way because the circumstances upon Obama's entry will suck, but time will tell, bro.

So anything that goes wrong is Bush's fault?  Scapegoating failure already, are we?  Now there's a change I can believe in.

You say that it's okay that Obama puts politics ahead of principle because everyone does it.  You say that it's okay that he uses vague language instead of outlining concrete proposals because everyone does that, too.  But isn't part of the whole idea of the Obama campaign that he is different from other politicians?

You asked for examples of Obama thinking of the world in religious terms.  Aside from the obvious examples of religious language to arouse the crowd's subconscious ("We are the ones we've been waiting for" invokes the coming of a Christlike figure, except that in true new-age form we all get to be Jesus just like we all got to be Time's Person of the Year), there are clear examples of Obama going further, even relying heavily on the scripture to justify public policy positions (Which, as I recall, was considered very dangerous to the seperation betweenchurch and state when Bush did it.).

One example would be his use of Christianity to justify expanding the welfare state.  One of the reasons Obama said he was drawn to Trinity United Church in the first place was that, in Obama's words, "Rev. Wright's sermons spoke directly to the Social Gospel, and I found that very attractive."  In other words, God wants us to be big government liberals.

The costs associated with electing Obama that I refer to are the cost of your principles.  The whole-hearted adoption of Obama as the Great Left Hope will ultimately cost you, in the same way that conservatives adoption of Bush has cost them.  Conservatives wound up defending everything Bush did not matter how much of an affront to Bill Buckley's conservatism it was.  Liberals are already beginning to do the same.  It starts with a defense of withdrawing from the public financing system ("His fully privately financed campaign is really just a different kind of public financing!"  Sure, and eating steak for dinner is just a different way of being a vegetarian.)  But it doesn't end there.  Obama's kabuki dance on Iraq is an affront to the basic principles most liberals say they believe in.  You guys can't possibly think that this is acceptable, can you?

I also don't agree that Obama has run a clean campaign.  The attack on Clinton that he was somehow racist were despicable, and everyone should be ashamed of Obama for having done it.  Especially his supporters who thought they were getting something different and have ended up with something exactly the same.

Let me also point out this one little thing in your post:

I'm not sure if I would describe the responses in this thread as "visceral," "emotional," and "personal.

O Rly?

Given how you guys basically destroyed America over the past eight years

How could I have confused certain parts of this thread with "emotional", "visceral", or "personal" attacks?

[The Duke]

And Ford - just because some people actually like their candidate for a change does not mean they're 'brainwashed'.  Remember your man Reagan?

Not personally, no, I don't.  I was not alive when Reagan campaigned in 1980, and was one year old when he was re-elected in 1984.  I was never in a position to be "brainwashed", my Reagan experience comes entirely from the history books.

[Boris]

So anything that goes wrong is Bush's fault?

lol, where did I state that? I merely stated Obama (or McCain) will be assuming the office under difficult circumstances. Most likely, due to forces outside their control, their success in dealing with the problems causing these circumstances will be limited.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really an Obama supporter so I don't quite understand your point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I merely stated that all politicians do so. I never condoned its practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but I don't quite see why people believe it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that is not a unqiue introduction in american politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, I understand your point, but this is more of the "appeal to emotion" stuff you touched on before and hardly unique to Bush, but essentially identical to the way modern political campaigns are run in the United States. It paints Obama as religious with "Kansas Values" while subsequently satisfying the base. It's part of a marketing game. Very little of this will be applicable in reality due to the way the system works. For example, a significant increase in the welfare rolls is unlikely because it's not really politically expedient for Obama to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, sure. That's essentially how American politics works. One side fucks up/gets unlucky and the opposition takes over. It's cyclical. You guys will probably be slaughtered again this cycle, but re-emerge in 2010 much stronger.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

eh, not really. They were lockstep behind him in 2004 but became disgruntled after the immigration thing, if I recall correctly. Don't know why they defended his performance in Iraq though; it was terrible until last year when they finally started to get their act into gear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really an accurate description of their defense. They tended to trash the entire public financing system as opposed to claiming that his privately-financed campaign is a "different kind of public financing." Even though it was fairly obvious that the rejection of public financing was based on political expediency but whatever...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

don't really see what sort of "kabuki dance" he's doing. All he's really said on the issue is that he wants american troops out of iraq within the near-future. Which is smart from his perspective because a) he probably hasn't yet had a meaningful conversation with someone who knows what they're talking about regarding up-to-the minute policy in Iraq [that will most likely occur during the transitional period, I'd imagine] and b) conditions on the ground in different areas will change for better or for worse within the next six months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The operative word being "relatively." Obviously, there is no such thing as a "clean" campaign in modern presidential politics. Did those attacks on Clinton after the SC primary even originate from the Obama camp? Pundits in the media and prominent black politicians just kinda started to blast him. The whole episode was kinda weird.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those three adjectives could hardly apply to me (and irrelevant with regards to the specific comment I made since you originally used those words within the context of defending Obama, which I was not doing). You guys advocated Bush in 2000 and 2004. He fucked up, badly. Everyone basically accepts this so there is no reason to be "emotional," "visceral," or "personal." And because he "fucked up, badly" there really isn't any reason to wonder why the Democrats want to run as effective of a campaign as Bush did in 2004.

[Democratic Hawk]

What's with all the psychobabble?

[Flying Dog]

I thought it was when the election was over. If he won or not. Good, those kids deserve something after having to be without their dads for long stretches at a time.

Actually, that is not psychologically healthy for children at all.   And I'm not sure how it works, but either way it was in exchange for something.  Giving children something as a replacement for a father's absence is, in and of itself, damaging to a child, as it teaches them any number of lessons, none of which are positive.  And the very fact that they thought they could make this demand is telling in and of itself.  That is my point, and by God its a valid one.  I don't care how crazy people think I am for bringing it up.

My Dad was absent a lot on business - a lot. However, when around, we loved him, and admired his personal qualities and character and his three sons wished to emulate him, and largely did. He gave us everything, but it didn't spoil us, because we didn't want to disappoint him. That would have been totally beyond the pale.

In short, it is a bit more complex than you might suggest. The point is, if you really admire a parent for who they are as a person, and know that when the going gets tough, they are there for you, the numbers of hours around becomes less significant. Just my two cents. I suspect Obama over time might be in that category for his kids, although obviously I don't know the interplay with his kids up close and personal.

Yes, I know its complex, which is why I said "any number of things".  Long absences of a father aren't good for children anyway, but giving them something for it, even if its lovable, and cute, and seems like it loves you back, really isn't the way to handle the situation.

How do you know that is the only thing Barack and Michelle are doing/have done. The fact of the matter is that you are in no position to judge their family situation. Sorry...

They are both the product of situations where the father was almost completely absent, though being a very successful individual, and where the mother was anything but nurturing.  Bush's mother was totally self-absorbed in her own grief following the death of Robin, while Obama's mother seems to have been quite the thrill-seeker... eitherway, neither of them provided the kind of attention a younger child should have.
How was Obama's mother a thrill-seeker? Examples?

Neither of them could escape being reminded of their father's success... even bearing the father's name.I don't believe that Obama's father was viewed as a "success." Heck, he died in poverty in Nairobi.

  And neither could escape being reminded of the absence of that father.  This has a tendency to foster confused feelings in a child.  Often times, many children will, on the surface, idolize their father to an extreme degree, but if that father is very successful, they could then in turn adopt a subconscious desire to destroy their father (and his "penis") by out-succeeding them.

Have you even read Obama's first book? He harbored public resentment towards his father for abandoning them and not being there for him. Hardly subconscious.
Once again, Obama's father was not "extremely sucessfull as you overly-state. He was a economist for the government who then became a drunk and poor man before he died. 
 

This leads to extreme egotism and megalomania... essentially the child fails to successfully navigate the phallic stage, in otherwords.  Often times, these people adopt an extreme fear of having their own "penis" destroyed, and as such they will resort to anything, lying, grandiose claims, taking on a external appearance of extreme personablity, to avoid being exposed as insecure.   

For his part, Obama seems to acknowledge that he was insecure and emotionally confused, and in that regard, he at least seems to be more introspective than Bush.  That's a good, thing, but Obama resorted to drugs to ignore the pain he felt... now he smokes like a chimney.
I agree. However, he's admitted to having a couple cigarettes during the campaign but he is hardly a regular smoker.
 

Now, it is in no way certain that a person will end up like this, if they have a similar background, and certainly, there are some big differences in those of Bush and Obama, but recently, Obama has shown many of the personality qualities that are most disturbing in Bush, such as his tendency towards making claims about his own abilities and experience that just don't match with the facts, and exaggerating their own potency.  Making implausible denials and trying to change the facts afterwards.  Obama also desperately wants people to view him as one of them and as someone who can be trusted by all and in everything, and this is particularly unseemly given recent events.  Both show a disturbing tendency to "throw people under the bus" when that person becomes in the slightest way inconvenient.
You seem to greatly exaggerate almost every single one of these thiing. Once again, example's please. 

Something that Obama does that Bush doesn't, that can be disturbing, is his tendency to refer to himself in the third person.  It's a sign that someone is trying to distance himself from himself.  Bob Dole started it during the 1996 campaign, because he knew he was adopting policies more conservative than his own beliefs in order to appeal to the base.  And now we get to hear "Obama will bring an end to the war..." coming from Obama.  "Obama won't do this"... "Obama will do that"....
I've only heard him do this once or twice. 

I do have real concerns here, I'm not being crazy or trying to bring down Obama.  And I certainly could be wrong, but I think its worthy of discussion, is all.  Obviously some people would rather mock me that discuss that matter.

All and all, you seem to pull conclusions out of thin air or use small instances as a means to base this "analysis" of Obama on. You also seem to be prone to over-exaggerating every single minute detail into a full on dissertation of Obama's mental state. This is not only irresponsible but completely refutable.

[Flying Dog]

Most of U.S citizens think they're better then other people (i.e. Middle East habitants)
Doesn't mean you should compare them to Nazi's.
Using that logic: Nazi's are white, Oh my, we must be neo-nazi's!

LOL!  You obviously don't have close interactions with Black people.  If there was a group, even liberal, and not in the least racist, that was all White, a Black person would be worried about being lynched (as a friend of mine reminded me that night).

If there was a party that was largely white (but not racist), and the majority population was not white, you'd here calls of them being Nazis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are referring to the most recent polls, he's still not a known quality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a Nuremberg style stadium and Hillary and McCain come off as not being elitist; Obama does.  (Note that I did not say, "is.")

Look at Phila's Mayor Nutter.  A successful stock broker, Ivy League eduction, about 20 years in politics and 15 on city council.  Elite by most standards and arguably a policy wonk.  He was trailing badly in the polls.  What does he start doing? 

Running commercials showing his daughter, showing him taking her to school.  Suddenly he comes across as a regular guy, the boy next door type, a real normal guy.  White people start voting for him and get annoyed when someone calls him "not Black enough."  He wins the nomination and his wife introduces him as "My Boo, my road dawg," in a moment we all found charming and real.  He get's called, by dyed in the wool Republicans (even on this site), as "the real deal."

With Obama we get Nuremberg; with Nutter we got nice.

No, I only live 15 minutes away from a city that is 43% African American.

You state that Obama is a unknown quantity then you state that people view him as elitist. All I'm saying is that most Americans seem to disagree with you that Obama comes off as an elitist. That may be your perception of him, but It definitely isn't with a lot of Americans.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Obama needs to realize that pandering to the GOP base is going to turn off those of us with IQs above 40. If Obama ran as a real democrat I'd be still voting for him instead of voting Barr.

[Flying Dog]

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

Ross Perot, who paid for Carol McCain's expensive medical bills while John was in Vietnam said this:
"‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Carol's wikipedia page covers all this.

I don't bag McCain much because of this, but certainly the guy has some ambition (he told his college roommate he wanted to do something so that he would be remembered in the history books and Carol early on that he wanted to be president).

H. Ross Perot is not a valid source for anything... and I'm not saying that because I am trying to cover McCain's ass... I'm saying it because it is H. Ross Perot.

That being said, as I said, I don't think McCain is perfect.  I respect him, but he has made his share of mistakes.

So you can dismiss source's just like that but use small instances in Obama's life to put together a fully-fledged analysis of his mind-state?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obama needs to realize that pandering to the GOP base is going to turn off those of us with IQs above 40. If Obama ran as a real democrat I'd be still voting for him instead of voting Barr.

You live in New York. Your vote doesn't matter.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Congratulations, you've managed to crack the code and learn about the mystical lost art of making a protest vote. What's next? Learning basic reading comprehension?

[J. J.]

No, I only live 15 minutes away from a city that is 43% African American.

You state that Obama is a unknown quantity then you state that people view him as elitist. All I'm saying is that most Americans seem to disagree with you that Obama comes off as an elitist. That may be your perception of him, but It definitely isn't with a lot of Americans.

15 minutes is a light year, in your case (and frankly the bulk of white people that I know).

The impression that os being created is that of an elitist; it is not a good move in American politics.

[Flying Dog]

No, I only live 15 minutes away from a city that is 43% African American.

You state that Obama is a unknown quantity then you state that people view him as elitist. All I'm saying is that most Americans seem to disagree with you that Obama comes off as an elitist. That may be your perception of him, but It definitely isn't with a lot of Americans.

15 minutes is a light year, in your case (and frankly the bulk of white people that I know).

The impression that os being created is that of an elitist; it is not a good move in American politics.

Except the fact that I used to work in a 90% black neighborhood and my next door neighbor is black. I get plenty of interaction with the African American Community, thank you very much.

I still don't get how giving a big speech elitist but whatever.