Obama Speaks to Huge Crowd in Berlin

Barack Obama spoke to a staggering crowd — estimated by German authorities to be in excess of 200,000, about his dreams of becoming the next world leader. Barack said that humanity must build a “world that stands as one” with, presumably him as its new leader. Obama said he was not speaking as a candidate for President of the United States but as a citizen of the world.

His soaring oratory held the crowd of over 400,000 spellbound as he demanded other walls be torn down when he referenced the Berlin wall. Specifically he said that walls between old allies cannot stand.

Many compared his remarks to the crowd of 1 million captivated Germans to previous speeches by Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. Barack told the assembled masses, “”¦people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time.”

The crowd, estimated at 2.5 million strong, was especially excited when Barack spoke of a world without nuclear weapons and when he called for steps to counter climate change.

The crowd, thought to be as large as 4.5 million by German police spokesperson Bernhard Schnodrowski, really became enthused when Barack mentioned that Europeans often view America as “part of what has gone wrong in our world” and that in America there are “voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future.”

Pundits and citizens of the world agreed that this was Obama’s most meaningful, soaring, lofty, grand, all-encompassing speech yet and that it would galvanize the world to support his humble candidacy to the Office of President of the United States.

Prior to the speech in Berlin, where crowds were estimated to be in the range of 5 to 6 million, his campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism, with official Obama posters. Jerusalem Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfield confimed, “These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police.”

Yes, we can.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 02:17 | Posted in Measure 37 | 36 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • JesseO

    Meanwhile, John McCain spoke to a crowd of what his campaign estimated as 12 Ohioans.

    Police spokesperson Bob McClatksy said, “Well, not counting the Senator, his secret service detail and me? There were four people. Or maybe just three.”

  • Richard Brown

    At least McCain was campaigning on American soil. I electing a President not and self atoned world leader.

    • Crawdude

      It will depend on turnout like most years, who can get the people to the polls.

      As for our sometimes Preidents 29% approval rating; I think you have to wonder why congress’ is polling 10 points behind that?

  • Steve Plunk

    The arrogance is jaw dropping. The narcissism is nauseating. The immaturity frightening. I cannot believe this candidate actually has adult supporters in the United States. Serious people can see straight through the empty suit and see the nothingness inside.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Serious people can see straight through the empty suit and see the nothingness inside.

      This would be why

      1 – With gas over $4 a gallon.

      2 – Huge bank failures and a massive mortgage mess.

      3 – A war supposedly most don’t support.

      4 – An incumbent president with abysmal poll numbers

      5 – An second string opponent, McCain, who has the campaign charisma of Bob Dole and is detested by his own parties base.

      6 – A media that is so tilted towards his candidacy even The Daily Kos might admit there was a leftward tilt.

      Obama is virtually tied in the polls.

      Frankly I would be a little worried if I were Obama’s people. Lets face it, after the rock star Europe tour and a press totally in the tank for him what more can he do to gin up support? I mean what? He’s all of a sudden going to get some really great press? I mean short of simple referring to him as Mr. President, or God its not like Obama can get better coverage from the media. What did McCain do while Obama was on the world tour? As near as I can tell, I think McCain maybe tuned up his lawnmower and possibly checked the oil in his car this past week. After this Obama is still essentially tied? Lets face it, I don’t see a lot of room for Obama to go up in his campaign coverage here. I don’t see much more room, for McCain to go down. If its tied now, imagine if Obama makes a few more of his famous gaffs, or if McCain actually wakes up.

      • David

        Rupert wrote:
        > Obama is virtually tied in the polls.

        That’s not true. Look at the polls at RealClearPolitics. Obama has had a 3-6 pct pt lead for several weeks now.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Of course its true. 3 to 6 points = virtually tied. Sorry

      • dean

        Rupert….these would be gaffs as in: Iraq shares a border with Pakistan? Wait, that was McCain. As in the Surge started a full year before our extra troops (i.e. “surge”) actually arrived in Iraq? No, that was McCain as well. As in al Queda is working with Iraqi Shiites, whom they have been blowing up by the thousands and consider to be infidels? Nope, that was McCain. As in, I don’t know anything about economics? McCain again…but not a gaff. Truth. “Bomb bomb bomb Iran?” Just a joke folks…heh heh. The problem may be that McCain IS wide awake, and what you see and hear is what you get.

        To top it off, McCain only ended up eating bratwurst because his initial schedule would have had him standing over the top of an oil spill telling us why we need more off-shore drilling. Bad photo op that one, so they moved him 1500 miles north.

        As for the polls. I would rather be where Obama is (ahead) than where McCain is (behind). Obama is leading in Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and is tied or slightly behind in other states Bush won against Kerry. McCain leads in the south and Great plains, not much of anywhere else. He is about 100 electoral votes behind, and is going to be out spent and out organized.

        It ain’t over till the fat lady sings, but she is warming up in the dressing room. “Oh solobama oh.”

        But it still a closely divided electorate, and is unlikely to end up as a blow out either way. Plus we have the first ever African-American major party candidate, relatively unkown, definitely untested, with a name that sounds like a terrorist. Long way to November.

        • Josh Reynolds

          Dean

          I agree with you as for the polling but I will remind you that John Kerry was leading George W. Bush by 2-4% the Monday before election day. I also believe the press could hurt Obama when their headlines continue to be things like “Obama Rocks Berlin.” Rocks? This is not the kind of press he needs when he is trying to persuade the 60 something woman that is a Hillary backer. Unlike the youth, the 60 something woman is the person that will definately vote.

          • dean

            Josh, I totally agree with you on the first part, but I know some rocking 60 year old gals (front end of the baby boom…who would have thought?) Also, the under 30 vote was huge in the democratic primary, and many expect it to remain so in the general election. That age group is very large in numbers and they are ready to vote. Nevertheless I agree that Obama could be hurt by too much public swooning. People want charismatic leaders who can inspire us, but something short of messianism, if that is a word.

          • Josh Reynolds

            Hey, I know some of those same women too. I feel bad for McCain in that 8 years ago was his time and frankly this country would be in a much different state if he were elected then. By the way, to all those people who believe Obama does not have enough experience, do you all remember George W. Bush 8 years ago? He was, without a doubt, one of the most unqualified candidates we have had. That election was all about his father losing to Clinton.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Obviously you didn’t read my post before commenting. Par for the course.

          My point was, with all McCain has going against him, and all Obama has going for him to be virtually tied at this point is ridiculous. If you care to address that fine. If not what in the world is your point in responding to me?

          Or is this another one of those Dean flubs, like when you argued with me about portrayals in the media, and then admitted you had no knowledge of any of the media I was commenting about?

          • dean

            Rupert…so touchy. I did read your comment, and was responding directly to it. Both candidates have a lot going against them. In Obama’s case his skin color, lack of national experience, funny name, and his former pastor are major handicaps. In McCain’s case, George Bush, the entire Republican party, his age, and his cavalier attitude about the economy and war are against him. Time will tell which one carries the larger albatross.

            And…they are not “vitrually tied.” Virtually tied would be a 1 or 2 point margin that was shifting. A steady 3-6 ponts translates to a 52.5 to 47.5 (mean) margin of victory. That is not shabby, and if the polls hold Obama will win by over 100 electoral votes. Given the margin of the last 2 elections, I would take that if I were him. True landslides are quite rare in American politics.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Rupert…so touchy.

            How am I touchy? Consistently calling you on your failure to address the issue when you respond to me is touchy? Get real, you simply did the usual Dean flailing around, throwing up a bunch of irrelivancies hoping something would stick. I simply called you on it. That’s not touchy, that’s just simple maturity. If you can’t address the point I am making, why respond?

            >Virtually tied would be a 1 or 2 point margin that was shifting.

            Sorry dude, when you are within the margin of error, which 3-6% is, that is by definition virtually tied.

            >A steady 3-6 ponts translates to a 52.5 to 47.5 (mean) margin of victory.

            Not when you are a Democratic candidate with the advantage. I cannot remember a presidential election where the Democrats standing in the polls wasn’t overstated by at least this much come election time. A steady 3-6 point lead has quite often translated into defeat for Democrats. Personally I think Obama will win. The fact that it looks like it wont be a landslide, given the conditions and the press is what is astonishing.

            >True landslides are quite rare in American politics.

            Actually that is incorrect, at least when it comes to presidential elections, which is what we are talking about. I don’t know where you come up with this theory as the electoral college system almost seems designed to assure landslides.

            Nixon, McGovern, landslide
            Regan, Carter, landslide
            Regan, Mondale, Landslide
            Bush, Dukakis, Landslide

            At any rate, it doesn’t much matter, as you are still unable to address the point I made. I will reiterate for the third time. With an election environment any candidate couldn’t hope for in their wildest dreams, why isn’t Obama doing better?

          • Chris McMullen

            “why isn’t Obama doing better?”

            As Dean the Marxists would say: “because if his skin color.”

      • John in Oregon

        Right on Rupert. Let me expand your points a bit.

        > *1 – With gas over $4 a gallon.*

        And a Democrat policy of Hoarding natural resources by blocking access.

        > *2 – Huge bank failures and a massive mortgage mess.*

        And the Democrats rush through a bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with a porked-up bill and no debate. A smoke screen to hide a largely Democrat scandal, with names like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, major embarrassments for the Dems.

        > *3 – A war supposedly most don’t support.*

        And recent poles toping 50% support and rising, showing Americans prefer to win not surrender, while congressional Democrats pigeon hole a bill to count every soldiers vote. Hey, they can fight why do they need to vote?

        > *4 – An incumbent president with abysmal poll numbers.*

        And a Democrat congress with single digit approval numbers and a lame duck Republican president with approval numbers three times as high.

        > *5 – An second string opponent, McCain, who has the campaign charisma of Bob Dole and is detested by his own parties base.*

        No way to add to this in a succinct way.

        > *6 – A media that is so tilted towards his candidacy even The Daily Kos might admit there was a leftward tilt.*

        And a Democrat media where the New York Times publishes an OpEd by the Democrat nominee and rejects a McCain (r) OpEd rebuttal to the Democrat nominee.

        A rejection where, as was done in the Democrat nominees OpEd, the NYT Editor demanded that the McCain (r) rebuttal be edited to include the Democrat nominees timeline for withdrawal.

        A once great newspaper with bond ratings one step above Junk Bond ratings and Wall Street expecting another downgrade.

        • dean

          John O…do you really believe $4 a gallon gas, arrived at after 7.5 years of an oil man’s administration, and after 12 years of a Republican Congress, has anything to do with Obama, who has only been in teh senate a few years?

          The rush on the bailout bill was perhaps due to the consequences of fiddling while the entire financial structure of what is left of the housing market melted down like the wicked witch of the west. And since most Americans have most of their money in their houses, that is a risk nt worth taking.

          The war is nearly over John. The Iraqis are pointing us to the exit, stage left (Obama) or right (McCain), doesn’t matter. Time to bring the troops home and let them heal up before we attack Iran (if McCain is elected).

          Yes, Bush scores higher than Congress as a whole, but not higher than the individual Congress people who make up Congress. And the same polls show a generic democrat beating a generic republican by a substantial margin.

          McCain is not 2nd string. He is a war hero, a senate leader, one of the most popular politicians in the nation (not saying much I admit) and is the Rs best hope of hanging onto a thread of national power. Don’t knock him. He is all you have left.

          Wasn’t it McCain who called the media his base? Is the privately owned NY Times obligated to publish McCain’s piece under some rule I’m unaware of? Its not like they are the only media outlet in the nation. McCain has lots of options to get his nonsense out there for people to read, and already has done so.

          Every print newspaper in the nation is slipping financially. The NY Times is no exception. A receding tide strands all boats.

        • John in Oregon

          > *Wasn’t it McCain who called the media his base?*

          That was silly of McCain wasn’t it? Even tho McCain said it at a time when the Legacy Media was attempting to manipulate the Republican primary, he should have known better. While the media short term goals were favorable, (to McCain) the long term goals were unchanged. A parana doesn’t change its stripes.

          > *Is the privately owned NY Times obligated to publish McCain’s piece under some rule I’m unaware of?*

          Of course they are private. Of course there is no “obligation” under law. BUT of course they willingly accepted the obligation as expressed in their masthead, “ALL the news”. Of course its standard journalistic practice to run OpEd ad point, counter point. And of course being privately held is no special shield to criticism for lack of NYT ethical behavior.

          > *Its not like they are the only media outlet in the nation. McCain has lots of options…*

          True, the NYT isnt the only media outlet. Thanks the work of Arthur Sulzberger Sr (back in the old days of the Times as a great news paper) the New York Times is a news distribution resource for smaller outlets across the country.

          That the New York Times would condition access to that resource upon a McCain policy change used to be called attempted bribery.

          > *Every print newspaper in the nation is slipping financially. The NY Times is no exception. A receding tide strands all boats.*

          Why don’t we test that with facts?

          LA Times, Boston Globe and New York Times. Left liberal news bias, hemorrhaging circulation and money.

          Washington Post. Left liberal news bias, loosing circulation and very sound financially.

          Investors Business Daily. Neutral news and growing.

          And in the highly competitive New York City market the NY Post and NY Sun are doing just fine thank you as the New Your Times circulation falls. The Wall Street Journal poised to take the market.

          Soo feel free to keep telling your self the NYT junk bond status is unimportant.

          > *The war is nearly over John. The Iraqis are pointing us to the exit, stage left (Obama) or right (McCain), doesn’t matter. Time to bring the troops home and let them heal up before we attack Iran (if McCain is elected).*

          Isnt it funny how, when months ago, I spoke here of the sea change in Iraq, the mass Iraq rejection of extremism, you, said NO, the war was lost. A position consistent with Obama, Reed, and Pelosi.

          Ironic isnt it that the Anbar Tribal Chiefs honored our fighting men and women with the title Al Ameraki’ (Tribe America) and Obama said the “surge”, our men and women, would make things worse.

          The politics of BBC, Der Spiegel, and the New York Times mistranslation aside, it was Obama that said;

          The counter insurgency surge would fail.

          The counter insurgency surge would make things worse.

          The counter insurgency surge was a total failure.

          Then voted against the counter insurgency surge.

          Harry Reed failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

          Obama credits the Anbar Awakening, as he says, in spite of our man and women in uniform.

          Ordinary Americans, Democrat, Republican, and Independent prefer to win.

          Dean you said > *[D]o you really believe $4 a gallon gas, arrived at after 7.5 years of an oil man’s administration, and after 12 years of a Republican Congress, has anything to do with Obama, who has only been in teh (sic) senate a few years?*

          Thank you for highlighting Obama’s inexperience, it is relevant to your question. Yes I know the Democratic party policy of hoarding began with Jimmy Carter when he changed the name of the eastern National Strategic Petroleum Reserve – Alaska to ANWAR. Also please remember it was William Jefferson Clinton that vetoed new production.

          Here is where Obama’s inexperience maters. Obama could have chosen to *change* direction in favor of production. Instead he chose the Democrat Party millstone of hoarding and blocking production.

          It was Obama that said $4 and $5 gas was fine with him, he just thought it would happen later. Later, like say around or after the November elections.

          As it is the Democrat Party has the opportunity to put up or shut up and chose to roadblock.

          > *The rush on the bailout bill was perhaps due to the consequences of fiddling while the entire financial structure of what is left of the housing market melted down like the wicked witch of the west. And since most Americans have most of their money in their houses, that is a risk nt (sic) worth taking.*

          If your thesis holds water then why was it necessary for Speaker Pelosi to lock out amendments and block floor debate?

          Where is Henry Waxman grilling Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick over financial improprieties? Ohh wait, scratch that, those are Democrats.

          *Don’t look at the Political Party behind the curtain.*

          Sorry but you did bring up the Wizard of Oz metaphor.

  • JessseO

    Um, there are American voters who live in Berlin. And at least Obama was born on American soil, unlike McCain.

    • dean

      McCain goaded Obama into the trip, thinking it would diminish his stature. Looks like he needs a plan B now.

      Steve…he does appear to have adult supporters. More than McCain according to just about every poll so far. And the US President is often referred to as “leader of the free world,” so people in other countries have a lot at stake in our elections.

      • Steve Plunk

        McCain didn’t goad Obama to go to Europe. He was questioned about his knowledge of the facts on the ground in Iraq.

        My statement about “adult” supporters was tongue in cheek. I don’t see the fawning rock star treatment as something coming from mature adults.

        While other countries may be influenced by our elections they can’t vote and should not influence the outcome. I heard Obama had a fund raiser in Berlin after his speech, isn’t that illegal?

        The word is out he also attracted the big crowd in Berlin the same way he did in Portland by arranging a free rock concert before his speech. No concert, no crowd. Pathetic.

        • dean

          Rupert…I’ll reiterate for the 3rd time: dark skin, lack of national experience, funny name, problem pastor. Not accepting these reasons or disagreeing with them is your perrogative, but stop claiming I did not respond to your question. And I’ll add: McCain is probably the best known, and one of the most trusted politicians on the national stage, and is a war hero during a time when we are in 2 wars.

          On “margin of error.” My understanding of polling statistics is that If I’m running 4 points ahead, and the margin of error is 4 points, that does not mean I am statistically even. It is simply an expression of confidence in the extent to which the sample represents the larger population.

          So if Obama is at 48% and McCain at 44% with a 4% margin of error, that means there is a high confidence Obama is between 44 and 52, AND that McCain is between 40 and 48. But the statistical likelihood is still 48 to 44, Obama over McCain. And as you approach the high or low end, it is statistically less likely.

          And when you have multiple polls reporting the same thing, the confidence level he is actually ahead, not “virtually tied” is much stronger. You can cling to virtually tied if you want, I don’t care. Come November 1st if Obama is running 3-6 points up in multiple polls I will bet you a large sum with even up odds that he will be the winner. And if you are foolish enough to take that bet, I’m happy to concede this argument for now.

          Steve…McCain certainly goaded Obama to go to Iraq and see the facts on the ground. Its true he did not include Europe in his suggested itinerary. It turns out that Obama’s knowledge of the facts and logical next steps appears to coincide pretty well with the Iraqi government’s knowledge of the facts and desired next steps. I imagine McCain is wishing he could have a do-over on this one. He appears to have squandered his trump card very early in the election.

          I agree with you that fawning is immature behavior. But being stirred by a good speech and delivery is not immature. Reagan stirred Americans to hold our heads up and it worked (not for me, but for many others). Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt did the same in their days. People need confidence in themselves, and they need confidence that government leadership is aware of what is going down and is ready to tackle the big problems of the day. Obama has struck a chord on a broad theme of bringing us together to get past problems we have been stuck with for a long time, from race relations to energy to health care, and I think people in general are ready for that.

          Like I said, when you get down to specific policies, he is a mainstream democrat and the majority of Americans are supportive of every major initiative the dems have on the table. From a policy standpoint McCain has little to work with. Dump social security? Stay in Iraq for an indefinite period? Tax your health care benefit package? Not.

          Yes…it is legal for Obama to raise funds from Americans in Germany, and there are many there, including a lot who wear uniforms. They also get to vote.

          If you think he is attracting big crowds via rock concerts, then maybe McCain should try that idea. I wonder what the Beach Boys are doing these days? Or maybe he can ressurect Elvis.

          • Chris McMullen

            So much written, so little said.

          • dean

            “Because if his skin color” what? If his skin color were darker? Lighter? You seem confused.

  • Jerry

    Let’s not forget, too, that this great, great man cancelled his previously arranged visit to see troops who were wounded. I guess he was too busy denouncing the US.

    • Eddie

      Now now Jerry. Be fair. All credible reports tell us that he cancelled the visit to the wounded troops at the hospital in Germany in order to go shopping.

      See? he’s worried about the world economy enough to cancel a trip to visit men wounded serving our country in order to do his part to boost the EU economy. What a man!

      It does appear that he visited Iraq twice on this trip, though. The long visit was three hours long… I’ve been to longer staff meetings.

  • Jerry

    If what he bought was made in the USA then maybe – but what are the chances of that?

    You are correct to point out, though, that shopping and helping the global economy, even in a very small way, are more important to this guy than visiting men and women who serve our country.

    Perhaps one reason for the cancellation is that he was worried that the soldiers would not have fawned over him like the rock concert crowd did. There would be no warm-up concert in the hospital, would there?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Rupert…I’ll reiterate for the 3rd time: dark skin, lack of national experience, funny name, problem pastor.

    LTR and this time your own stuff. Ok, now that’s pretty funny. Your first reply you launched into some babble about McCain’s gaffs for good knows what purpose. You barely touch on this stuff in the next to last sentence. This was supposed to be a rebuttal? Um, well, ok, that’s pretty weak, and not really sure how it rebuts anything I said. Or are you simply listing both candidates weaknesses and are trying to say Obama’s weaknesses are clearly so large that the ideal coverage and election conditions only raise him a few points above McCain. What the hell are you saying anyway?

    Well, lets go with what we’ve got and try and form an argument for you with it.

    Ok, so, the reason why Obama, with the huge advantage he has, isn’t doing as well as he should in the polls, is because

    dark skin – Wow, I guess America is racist – are you a racist yourself or do you simply pass judgment on others? I haven’t seen a whole lot of polls indicating race is hurting Obama. I’ve seen plenty that indicate blacks will vote for him solely because he is black. I mean that’s racism, but kind of in the opposite direction of what I think you were saying. Oh wait, is this maybe just simply Democrat Behaviour Rule #1 – never miss an opportunity to imply racism in others?

    lack of national experience – ok, Ill agree with that.

    funny name – Do you seriously vote for a candidate because of their name or how funny it sounds?

    problem pastor – More like Klan member pastor – I frankly think that’s a big one. Lets face it, if Obama had been anything other than a Democrat, the press would have crucified him over that one. It will definitely come back to haunt him, as it should, in November.

    >On “margin of error.” My understanding of polling statistics is that If I’m running 4 points ahead, and the margin of error is 4 points, that does not mean I am statistically even.

    Sigh, this is so tedious.

    Dean Obfuscation technique number one.

    Word switching

    LTR

    Give it up. Do you honestly think I am going to now fall for this technique of substituting “statistically even” for “virtually tied”?

    Look, if you are within the margin of error in a poll, it is not at all incorrect to say the candidates are virtually tied. This is especially true with the 1 – 4 point spread we see in the polls now ( Fox news and Gallup ). If you want to yammer on to the contrary, fine. I do not expect you to ever admit you are wrong. Especially on an issue involving writing or word usage. You simply are incapable of it even with the most astonishing of blunders. I do expect the word switching technique, which you used here. Its so lame. I really mean it when I ask, as I have in the past, has this word switching thing that you do ever won you an argument? Do most people seriously fall for it or is simply a graceless way of avoiding admission that you were in error?

    • dean

      I honestly have no freaking idea what you are blathering about. Word switching? Whatever.

      “Virtually tied” means nothing unless we are living in a virtual world. “Statistically even” actually means something. I was trying to put some math to your non math, but whatever. Let’s just make the bet when the time comes and go from there. The political odds makers have it at 2 to 1 for Obama based on the polls you think are signifying virtally tied by the way. And the latest Gallup tracking has him up 6 points, not 1-4. You can have your Fox poll. I’ll go for even up on that bet.

      Yes…there is still racism in America directed at dark skinned people. I said it. You believe otherwise, fine. You want to believe my acknowledgement of the existence of racism makes me a racist…fine, think whatever you want about me. The exit polls during the primary were pretty clear that there are a lot of whites, democrats in this case, who are not voting Obama because and only because he is dark skinned. Even if we assume statistically (or virtually) that Republicans and independents are no more racist than Democrats, we still have racism that affects voting approaching 25% in some parts of the country.

      African Americans supporting Obama in large numbers is not racism directed against the old white guy. Old (or young) white guys or gals not planning to vote for Obama because he has dark skin is racism. Why the difference? The first is ethnic pride, the second is ethnic fear and loathing. Now if some Irish American supports McCain simply out of Irish pride….no problem. That is not racism against Obama. Many conservative Greeks supported Dukakis because he is Greek.

      Yes…I am saying Obama’s weaknesses are significant and affect his poll numbers and ultimate margin of victory, should he hang on and win. Your earlier post made it seem he has all these advantages, so why is he not crushing McCain? It’s because he has disadvantages that partly cancel out the advantages. Duh.

      His name is an issue, and has been made so consistently by the likes of Rush Limrod, Ann Coulter, and many other right wing commentators. A significant percent of Americans think he is Muslim? Why? If his name was Bill O’Conner this would not be the case. It is a Muslim sounding name and we are at war with Muslim terrorists. It would be like being named Wolf Blitzer and running for president just ast WW2 broke out. Not an asset. A definite liability.

      Yes…tedious is something we can agree on.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >I honestly have no freaking idea what you are blathering about. Word switching? Whatever.

        You’re kidding right? Ok, Ill explain it to you, I said virtually tied was perfectly appropriate. You then tried to switch it to can argument about “statistically tied” with this sentence. That really is that hard to grasp, or is this a different graceless attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong?

        Yep Yep Yep – look, 1-4 points apart when the error margin is 3% means “virtually tied” is totally appropriate. Get used to it.

        >African Americans supporting Obama in large numbers is not racism directed against the old white guy. Old (or young) white guys or gals not planning to vote for Obama because he has dark skin is racism. Why the difference? The first is ethnic pride, the second is ethnic fear and loathing.

        OK, I now have figured out your other sideline. you are psychic. You can determine motivations in people you don’t know and have never met. What astonishing abilities.

        As far as motivation, nice try but incredibly logically flawed as racism does not have a motivational component to it. It simply means making a judgment about someone based upon race. As an example, I could certainly show pride for the “black race” with the statement:

        “Those blacks sure can dance and sing well, no one can dance and sing like a black man”

        Any ethnic fear in that statement? Any loathing? Nope, not a bit, and yet, it is racist as hell.

        How about this one?

        “I need a lawyer, I’m going to take my ex husband for everything he’s got. Jenny, do you know a good lawyer? I mean a real good one, like a Jew, one who really knows what he’s doing?”

        Any fear? Nope. Loathing? Nope In fact the expression establishes the ex wife has quite a bit of respect for what she assumes is the achievement levels of Jews in legal matters.

        And we can keep taking steps down the logical ladder your statement constructs. Blacks give preference to someone who is black when deciding on who should be president? Fine how about the store owner who gives preference to whites when deciding who to hire? Racial pride when electing a president? Racial pride when hiring? Interesting where your train of thought leads one when you start finding ways to excuse racism by one group.

        >It’s because he has disadvantages that partly cancel out the advantages.

        Poor Poor Obama, he has all these mean old rotten disadvantages. Hmm, I wonder if it could also be that a lot of people just simply dont like his policies. Oh well.

        • dean

          Rupert…to start, African Americans vote about 90% Democratic in just about any national election. So the mere fact Obama is a democrat will win him that vote.

          Try and put yourself in the shoes of an African American for just a moment. Your ancestors were probably brought here in chains. Were slaves for 200 plus years. Then were Jim Crowed or ghettoized for another hundred years. All that time white guys ran the show; Presidents, Governors, Senators and on down the line to policemen. You couldn’t vote. You could not own land or a home in most communities. You had the worst schools, were denied access to public universities, couldn’t serve in the military except maybe as a cook, and if you looked crosseyed at the wrong white person you could be beaten and lynched. Obama’s own parents marriage would have been illegal in half our states. At long last, after a major civil disobedience campaign that cost a number of lives, you gain basic civil rights and can vote. But it does not help much because you are still part of a small, very poor minority with few resources or prospects.

          So after all this time, finally, an African American is running for the highest office in the land. Improbable, but actualy happening right now. You don’t think that is a profound moment for African-Americans? You think they have to believe that Obama is superior to McCain racially to get behind him and vote for him?

          No…I’m not phsychic, and I don’t need to be. Dimly awake to the human condition and American history is good enough on this one.

          Its only your own train of thought that led you to these strange places down a logical ladder to a basement of your own construct Rupert. Don’t blame it on me.

          You started things off by listing all of Obama’s advantages, with no attention to his disadvantages, which are obvious to everyone else. Then you belitlte his disadvantages, as if he is wallowing in them, which I have never seen him do. His policies, which I listed, are mainstream democratic. A majority of the American people is in favor of every single one of them. If this election is only on policy McCain has zero chance.

          • dean

            Rupert…you may want to look at this from Gallup:

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/108712/McCains-Age-Seen-More-Problem-Than-Obamas-Race.aspx

            McCain’s age appears to generate more negative bias than Obama’s race. 12% of pro McCain voters appear to view Obama’s race as a negative, while 37% of pro Obama voters view McCain’s age as a negative. So maybe “ageism” is trumping “racism” in this election. Fascinating. As a relentlessly aging white guy I am concerned.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Try and put yourself in the shoes of an African American for just a momen

    I’m Scotch Irish. It’s not exactly a stretch. Your next point would be what?

    How about Jews? They had it pretty bad. Racism is ok for them as well?

    Is it ok for me to hang a sign on my store front, Irish only? Sure sounds like racial pride to me. Guess it would be ok with you.

    Tell you what, try to put yourself in the position of a logical person for one moment. Try to see the world through the eyes of someone who condemns racism when he sees it.

    I honestly am beginning to think your every thought is based purely on emotion, and not thinking things through. That’s why you have the ability to hold the somewhat distasteful racial beliefs you do. Its ugly, and obviously this would be a far uglier world if your excusing of racism were more prevalent. If it somehow works for you, fine. Id keep it on the down low if I were you though. I certainly don’t have a lot of tolerance for those who think its ok for some to be racist but not others.

    • dean

      Rupert…my advice is to take the stairs up and out of your personal basement on this issue. You seem stuck and I can’t unstick you. Have a nice day.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Excusing racism always gets one into a logical knot. Obviously you have recognized this.

    Hopefully you are now reconsidering your thinking. The world would be a better place, or at least a little less ugly, if more people with your views would re-think them. If nothing else, in this one instance at least, it seems you are admitting you were wrong. For that I can give you some credit.

    • dean

      Rupert…I’m afraid to even ask this, but I have to take a crack at it. Did you actually mean that being Scotch-Irish conveyed disadvantages to you that are akin to what African-Americans experienced? Or did I misunderstand you once again?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)