DescentBB

NY Times is running a article of Lord Hussein tighting control over access and his image. So what has he to hide?:

\"At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.\"

So now We have Obama selectively barring Muslim's that if the same was done at a airport guess how loud the word \"discrimination\" would be shouted.

\"In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday's meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.\"

So now lame excuses are given for a presidential contender to meet with black leaders. Should we not know what is discussed? Is this a sign of how he will act as president? Instead of comparing The Messiah to Jimmy Carter, perhaps we should bring up \"Tricky Dick\" Nixon.
Oh and what does lighting have to do with paper and pen reporters?

So for you Barack \"Lord Hussein\" Obama, Messiah of nameless change, lovers....think very critically and watch very carefully. The signs of a secretive, behind your back type president is taking shape. If Obama can't take the scrutiny, perhaps he should go back to being a lawyer.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/ ... mpaign.php

Well gee, I wonder why? Half of this stunningly STUPID country is branding him as Muslim.

Don't you think if you were applying for, say, a Bishop's position, and your adversaries were spreading rumors that you are gay, you wouldn't really want a few guys in rainbow shirts sitting at your table?

Pretty obvious to me.

I agree with Testi about Obama's motives for trying to distance himself from muslims but it shows me he has no leadership on the issue.
If he can't lead on the issue of his own image then how the hell is he going to suck it up and take a hard stance on world changing events that will no doubt come his way?
He's showing that he's just a politician and based on his resume in that field he's an inexperienced lightweight who doesn't qualify for the position of President.

Oh come now, he isn't showing anything. You really think Obama himself sits there and says, 'you can be behind me, you cant'. Do you think his campaign sent out a memo, \"no muslums.\"

Even fox news reported the story last night as one of Obama's volunteer staff workers that told them that they couldn't sit behind him.

They thought they would be protecting him, as testi said, but they screwed up. This isn't an Obama blumder, its more then likely a stupid college student blunder.

Yes Goob, how easy is it to blame the volunteer workers? Is he also going to blame someone else for his mistakes if he gets in the whitehouse? Last time I checked Obama is where the buck stops. If he is going to let incompetent worker make image defining decisions, I want him as far from the nuclear football as possibly can be.

Did this incompetent worker submit a resume to be reviewed? Did Obama meet him/her? No. I've volunteered for things, you literally just show up.

This is a campaign, the name of the game is to get as many people on your team as possible. You don't sit down and vet your volunteers. And you can't keep your volunteers from acting like idiots.

And iirc the camp did apologize and let the girls be in another photo op.

This is akin to the republican party running ads that McCain has condemned. They believe they are helping McCain by running these Rev. Wright ads. He asked them to stop, they ignored his wishes. These are image defining decisions.

Your \"buck stops here, nuclear football\" argument is equally applicable.

This is a stupid volunteer story, not an Obama story.

I agree about your view on volunteers. OTOH, decisions such as what happened should not be made by them. Obama has a core, experienced staff that travels with him who \"should\" be making the decisions. Local volunteers are for logistics/setting up venue etc...not for these kind of decisions.

Also lets not slide by the secrecy issue in the OP. I would find even more troublesome the desire to keep from the public eye his back room dealings, especially when the meeting is already public knowledge and the reporters are knocking on the door. Was barring the reporters another issue of blaming the \"volunteers\"?

\"Lord Hussein\"?
0/10, you suck at trolling.

Seriously though, this thread is ridiculous. OH WAIT, A PRIVATE MEETING! THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE BIG CONSPIRACY, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!
And a president is hardly responsible because some aides thought it better that he's not seen with people wearing attire similar to that of a country the US is at war with.

Well I don't agree with the "volunteer" explanation. I just don't see a volunteer making that kind of a decision autonomously. I think it's a convenient scape-goat for a political maneuver that was probably fine with them until it became the center of attention like it did. Like Testi said, it's understandable (from a lame political perspective). I agree with Will.

Will Robinson wrote:I agree with Testi about Obama's motives for trying to distance himself from muslims but it shows me he has no leadership on the issue.
If he can't lead on the issue of his own image then how the hell is he going to suck it up and take a hard stance on world changing events that will no doubt come his way?

And I think you could say that about a lot of politicians (except George W. Bush, incidentally).

I don't think Obama necessarily led a group-meeting the morning before the event to discuss excluding all Islamic-looking people from the picture, but I don't believe for a second that he's out of the loop with regard to how his image is being maintained.

TIGERassault wrote:"Lord Hussein"?
0/10, you suck at trolling.

Seriously though, this thread is ridiculous. OH WAIT, A PRIVATE MEETING! THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE BIG CONSPIRACY, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!
And a president is hardly responsible because some aides thought it better that he's not seen with people wearing attire similar to that of a country the US is at war with.

Tiger you suck at reading comprehension and being up on the political arena.
First off "Lord" Hussein is a reference to the Messiah stature his kool-aid followers have claimed him to be. I merely enhance the messiah label to show how worshipful his followers are....and scary.

Secondly the meet was not private. Please read the OP and "gasp" try to read the linked article.
Do try and take some anti-spasmodic medication for that knee of yours

Of course Obama is responsible. As leader and head of his campaign, he has to take responsibility, even if it was the sole decision of some over-zealous volunteer.

Now, he has already released an apology, and taken some steps to rectify the issue. That doesn't sound like he's shirking any responsibility to me.

Yes, it was a dumb political blunder that will cost him some votes, but making it out to be a reflection of character weakness or a sign of conspiracy is ridiculous.

------------

Personally, I'm already exhausted of the name-calling and these kind of partisan political antics. If you're going to support or denounce a candidate, relate it to the issues they stand for.

Foil, the dumb blunder may very well cost Obama the State of Michigan (where this happened) as Michigan has a sizable Muslim American population. Time will tell, but if he does lose Michigan, he can reflect back to this incident as being the \"for a lack of a nail a horseshoe was lost\" scenario.

Foil wrote:... but making it out to be a reflection of character weakness ...

It is a reflection of a weakness of character to deal with an accusation that you claim is false by swinging to the opposite extreme. And showing up with a calculated lack of any Muslim presence at all is an opposite extreme.

It is also a weakness of character to avoid extremes because they're subject to controversy.

I completely agree that swinging to an opposing extreme to deal with something difficult is weak at best.

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your point, though. I understand that he claims the accusation (that he intentionally excluded the Muslim women) is false; but I'm not sure where the \"swing\" you mentioned is.

[Edit: I see, did you mean that he was trying to respond to the accusations that he is Muslim by intentionally excluding Muslims? That's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' for me to buy, given the reports centering on a volunteer. Plus, I doubt he'd be so foolish. That said, it's now his problem, as it was something done by his campaign under his leadership.]

That he is a Muslim, or that he has ties with the Nation of Islam, or that his apparently less ardent support of Israel in the middle-east is in any way tied with his Muslim upbringing or associations. That he is an Islamic sympathizer, you might say, to whatever degree, I guess.

And not by intentionally excluding Muslims for all to see (because that just hurts him in the eyes of both sides). Like I said I suspect they were probably fine with that bit of image-washing until it became public.

To reiterate a point I made before, I don't think this is the kind of thing a volunteer feels the freedom to do, in any campaign. I don't think Obama would have lasted so long if this were really the level of discipline and control under which they run their campaign. No way is it that wide-open to a volunteer's own volition.

Thats just it Foil. Obama does not want people to even use his middle name as it will be seen as a possible link to Muslim extremism. By not haveing scarf wrapped Muslim women any where near his photo ops is only a extension of his middle name sensitivity. I suspect if Obama's name was Roger Jones, he would have no problem with Muslims being in a picture with him.

On a side note, McCain might be smart to have a few Muslims in his next photo op.

Wow. Let your staff screw up one photo op and you're not fit to be President. Tough crowd.
More to the point now he is not taking the $40 million in public campaign funds so he can raise all his money in private from whomever wants to give him lots of lovely money.
Mind you so far he has gotten over $200 million mostly from small donations according to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7463813.stm

After hearing Obama’s decision to break a deal with the McCain campaign, dealing with public funding, I can say with much surety that this is a guy that cannot be trusted.

Spidey, name me a politician since Tommy Douglas who can be trusted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

Your asking the wrong guy.

woodchip wrote:I agree about your view on volunteers. OTOH, decisions such as what happened should not be made by them. Obama has a core, experienced staff that travels with him who "should" be making the decisions. Local volunteers are for logistics/setting up venue etc...not for these kind of decisions.

Also lets not slide by the secrecy issue in the OP. I would find even more troublesome the desire to keep from the public eye his back room dealings, especially when the meeting is already public knowledge and the reporters are knocking on the door. Was barring the reporters another issue of blaming the "volunteers"?

I'm sure the experienced staff were making the decisions. In one of the origional AP reports it said that such and such group was chosen, and then the staffer told those ladies, who were part of such and such group, that they couldn't take part.

I got the impression that this staffer was told to just go get them, where in they ad-libed.

Regarding the second point, sure I can agree with you there. All meetings should be open. I understand it though: Obama has the impossible task of not appearing black, and not appearing that he is out of touch at the same time.

A televised meeting with the African-American civic leaders for Obama would be like walking a tight-rope in a hurricain.

It would of shown courage....but it would of also let Sean Hannity go on auto-pilot for the next 6 months.

I think it's really silly and naive to think this was just one instance and that it was brought about by some local college student volunteer!
Obama's campaign manager and other paid staff will oversee everything the public sees during the whole campaign from every backdrop he's photographed in front of down to any facial expressions he makes that don't look just right.
The only connection to some innocent unpaid local volunteer is that is probably exactly who Obama's handlers used to stop the Muslim looking citizens from being seated behind him so the campaign will have some plausible deniability if the deed was ever exposed.

As for his deciding to not take public funding, I don't think he ever really said he wouldn't take it. He said many times he is in favor of public funding and wished that that was the way things were done but he always carefully spoke in generic and hypothetical terms. Basically he acknowledges the merits of limiting the funding to a public source but realistically he always knew the minuet he thought he would raise more than he'd lose by refusing them that he would go private. Every politician makes that exact choice/calculation because, so far, every one who has been nominated has been a politician instead of a principled statesman. I really thought Obama was going to break that mold but he's just another poseur.

When I said he wasn't qualified it wasn't simply because he had the Muslims removed from the photo op, it was because he elected to behave as just another politician instead of the statesman he pretends to be. The no-Muslim photo op was just one of many hack moves he's made lately and like I said, if he's going to run as just another politician, then we judge him on his record as a politician and that record is very weak and leaves him unqualified and quite unremarkable in my book.

I predict by election day he will have stepped into the democrat party candidate mold too far and by doing so will have lost a lot of independent voters because of it.
The repub's will have a field day portraying him as just another Carter which is exactly what he is without his fresh outsider image.

Gore, Kerry and now Obama...the three stooges who couldn't beat anyone!

Gooberman wrote:It would of shown courage....but it would of also let Sean Hannity go on auto-pilot for the next 6 months.

Sean Hannity is a shrill little wiener of a republican toady, let him harp all he wants! If it's about Obama standing up for principle Hannity's whinging will quickly turn off his own listeners. On the other hand, right now Obama's giving Hannity plenty to use against him trying to work both sides of the fence on every issue!

If Obama would show the kind of courage you talk about he would win so many people over it isn't funny! He got his instant popularity by feeding off that very desire. I'm talking about a lot of normally conservative voters. The black vote is a tiny percentage of the electorate and most of them will stick with him regardless of just about anything he does! He can afford to be bold and brave...he needs to be bold and brave if he wants to win because that's the kind of guy all Americans want to be our leader! If he just tries to be the democrat candidate who happens to be black he brings nothing of substance to the fight.

Will wrote: Obama's campaign manager and other paid staff will oversee everything the public sees during the whole campaign from every backdrop he's photographed in front of down to any facial expressions he makes that don't look just right.

Exactly! Apply this logic from the other side of the Isle.

Why do you think that they would actually have bigotry as a part of his image? That's not micro-managed, thats not paying attention to the details.

That is extreamly careless.

Why would they invite this live hand gernade apon themselves?

Which is more plausable Will.

1. Some college student freaked out when they saw the headress and acted on their own.

2. The Obama campaign has an active bigoted policy regarding Muslims.

Before you anwser, what do you want to bet that I can find previous photos of Obama with people wearing head-scarves in the background?

Will wrote:If Obama would show the kind of courage you talk about he would win so many people over it isn't funny! He got his instant popularity by feeding off that very desire. I'm talking about a lot of normally conservative voters. The black vote is a tiny percentage of the electorate and most of them will stick with him regardless of just about anything he does! He can afford to be bold and brave...he needs to be bold and brave because that's the kind of guy all Americans want to be our leader!

I agree with you there. Unfortionately we don't go to the polls with the politican we want, we go to the polls with the politican we have

Gooberman wrote:...
Which is more plausable Will.

1. Some college student freaked out when they saw the headress and acted on their own.

2. The Obama campaign has an active bigoted policy regarding Muslims.....

You left out the correct answer which is:

The Obama campaign isn't bigoted but they don't want to create photo's for the republican supporters to use to remind their voters that they need to come out to vote against the Muslim friendly guy!

Obama's campaign will have a long mental list of what they do and don't want to feed the enemy just like McCains campaign will. But one thing is for sure no local volunteer gets to put anyone in the backdrop without the paid heavywieght handlers letting it happen!
In one instance they asked a couple of nice clean cut light skinned black guys to pose behind Obama and the black guys said they were with friends. the handlers asked if they also looked like they did but there was one who was wearing a headdress and at that point the campaign worker stopped her from being seated....
That isn't just some local guy on his own, that was pre-set calculated policy. The girl confronted the handlers after the fact and the policy was described to her along with some other lame excuses offered by another worker after the fact about how it was for her own good!?!?
Lame.
We understand the motive from a campaign perspective but it is lame from a leadership perspective. this is the guy who thinks he can talk his way to a solution in the middle east?!?! WTF?!?

If it was a black person that was disrespected that way Obama would be labeled an Uncle Tom in a flash!
If America is going to have a black President he needs to be non-militant but at the same time non-apologetic...that's who Obama was a few years ago when he caught all our eye's and ears...now I'm afraid he's drinking the party kool-aid and he's doomed.

“As for his deciding to not take public funding, I don't think he ever really said he wouldn't take it.”

He made an announcement, it’s on his website, and in doing so, broke an agreement with McCain.

I think the guy is a lightweight, and will be in over his head if elected.

You left out the correct answer which is:

The Obama campaign isn't bigoted but they don't want to create photo's for the republican supporters to use to remind their voters that they need to come out to vote against the Muslim friendly guy!

That doesn't make any sence. There are already such photos with people in headscarves in the background. What, is the republican machine going to create a You-Tube compilation or something?

Gooberman wrote:

You left out the correct answer which is:

The Obama campaign isn't bigoted but they don't want to create photo's for the republican supporters to use to remind their voters that they need to come out to vote against the Muslim friendly guy!

That doesn't make any sence. There are already such photos with people in headscarves in the background. What, is the republican machine going to create a You-Tube compilation or something?

Sure they will, it's probably already there! And they will need fresh pics and videos and soundbites of anything Obama says. If they just keep showing the one or two photo's of him in traditional Somali dress or whatever then the tactic starts to implode, seem weak and then the whole suggestion that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer dies out.

I bet you never see McCain pose in front of a bunch of senior citizens that remind the voters of just how old he is either. And you can bet his handlers have that on their list of do not allow!

Spidey wrote:“As for his deciding to not take public funding, I don't think he ever really said he wouldn't take it.”

He made an announcement, it’s on his website, and in doing so, broke an agreement with McCain.

I think the guy is a lightweight, and will be in over his head if elected.

If he actually promised then changed his mind it works against him. He does get some credit with me for stopping the influx of lobbiest funds though...well at least he says they stopped it...I don't know for sure.

woodchip wrote:I suspect if Obama's name was Roger Jones, he would have no problem with Muslims being in a picture with him.

I suspect you're right. Then again, I suspect people wouldn't try to paint Roger Jones as a radical muslim.

woodchip wrote:NY Times is running a article of Lord Hussein tighting control over access and his image.

Real mature, there.

By the way, it's tightening, just so you know.

I'm sorry, that was childish and didn't add anything to this conversation. I just feel compelled to point out unabridged zeal when I see it!

Kind of like the whole obama/osama thing, huh

Mmmone thing I find ironic is that everyone's saying he does/doesn't want to be associated with muslims, when the issue the aide has was obviously that the people were dressed like Iraqis. I'm just hoping most of you never try and become politicians.

Woodchip wrote:Thats just it Foil. Obama does not want people to even use his middle name as it will be seen as a possible link to Muslim extremism.

Suuure, and it has absolutely nothing to do with that people don't call each other by their middle names... I'm sure you're totally on the ball there, Dch.

TIGERassault wrote:Suuure, and it has absolutely nothing to do with that people don't call each other by their middle names... I'm sure you're totally on the ball there, Dch.

I know of at least a dozen people that go by their middle names and not their first names, so your off the mark there Tiger.

...But Obama doesn't.

As far as I'm concerned, the name-calling (which includes everything from woodchip's admitted intenionally demeaning use of Obama's middle name, to people I recently heard calling McCain \"old and ugly\") is just moronic.

Honestly, I've almost given up that anyone votes on the issues anymore. I rarely hear people say anything whatsoever about what the candidates stand for; most of the time, all I hear and read are personal shots, conspiracy theory, and campaign spin.

[Note: I'm not an Obama supporter - I'm just tired of some of the asinine reasons I've been hearing/reading people use as partisan political ammo, or even to rationalize who they're going to vote for or against.]

Foil wrote:.....Honestly, I've almost given up that anyone votes on the issues anymore....

Have you noticed that since the invention of television we haven't elected one single ugly president? Before TV we had plenty and most of them were really good people too!

Foil, here's the biggest issue. There is absolutely no qualifications to be POTUS other than how well you can spin yourself. To be a CEO of a major company you would have to demonstrate some ability to run a company. To be a general grade officer in the military you have to come up thru the ranks and demonstrate ability before progressing on. President of the America only requires good spin.

You could call John McCain John McClane, after the Die Hard character...

...but this could be used positively or negatively I guess...

Dakatsu wrote:You could call John McCain John McClane, after the Die Hard character...

...but this could be used positively or negatively I guess...

After what McCain went thru in Vietnam, I don't think he has to be named after any movie character. Perhaps the opposite is true tho.