Kraniak_the_Maniak's Blog

Why is mentioning past associations "clinching"? In the case of Obama, it's almost all we have to go on. He seems like a decent guy with honorable impulses, so no reason to believe he's a Manchurian candidate as some seem to want to imply. But at the same time, it's a legitimate question to wonder who he will surround himself with if elected. There are a lot of people out there on the angry left who believe America is fundamentally "bad" and an evil player on the world stage. I don't consider them unpatriotic...just wrongheaded. And I don't want them to have positions of influence. Based on his past, it's not unreasonable to wonder if Obama might not have that type in his administration.

While we're at it, why would raising age and health be a "low blow"? It strikes me as perhaps not a deciding factor, but certainly something voters would legitimately want to think about...especially depending on who McCain's running mate is.

John McCain and the Republicans, as always will do all they can to villify a fine man. Their strength is playing to the fears of voters; black man, Muslim, unpatriotic, inexperienced. Of being partially black he is guilty as charged so of course there will be that element of our society who will consider that to be enough to scare them regardless of any other terrors the GOP can scare up. I must agree with NewYawker that the issues of age and health are fair game, as is the question of who the candidate surrounds himself with. I remember in 2000 hoping against hope that although Bush was not my candidate, he would surround himself with diverse voices who could help lead him to the light. Needless to say, he failed miserably in this. I am afraid that with Senator McCain we will get 4 more years of failed policies, mangled civil rights, and take another step toward the stone age. I think the NeoCons will finally have to admit how badly they've bungled things once President Obama wins in a landslide.

bye-byeMl says:

"I don't understand why you don't use his name, but instead you use "Black". What do you mean by that?"

Well, unless you know something I don't, there's only one black person in this race and it's not McCain, so I don't think it was really so hard to know who I was referring to. Would the Republican party be so self-destructive as to issue official public statements that Senator Obama is Moslem or that he's unpatriotic (both lies). I hope you know how this game works. They use their apologists, surrogates, and mouthpieces like Faux News and Rush Limbaugh to spread these insinuations and falsehoods. Do you know that many Faux viewers still thought, even years after the invasion, that Saddam was behind the attacks of September 11th? The Republican Party officials never made this their official line but they sure didn't step in to set the record straight when Faux News was trying to make everyone believe it. That's just one example. Remember the warning color system for terrorist attacks; yellow, red, etc? What happened to that system as soon as the GOP was finished scaring Americans into thinking an attack was just around the corner in hopes of getting Bush re-elected. That's right, it's now as hard to find as WMD or Bush administration integrity.

As far as "stirring up racial issues" - what country do you live in? Are you telling me that you don't believe anyone in this country will refuse to vote for Senator Obama based on his race alone? Many of the lies being currently spread, such as the whopper that Senator Obama refused to sware

One other item for byebyeMl, just to set the record straight:

You said - "They haven't used the racial issue either, but your own party has...ie Hillary and Bill."

Why do you assume I'm a Democrat? They are not my party; I don't have one. I am an independent and don't rely on a party to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about the issues.

"As far as "stirring up racial issues" - what country do you live in?"

How many are going to vote for him because he's Black? Funny he calls himself that since he has a White Mother.

The best is that if you're not a Democrat based on what you wrote, then what are you? I ammused that faux new, landside, and other words you used is from a Liberal Democrat.

bye bye,

Let me educate you on one point at a time. First, your defense of Faux News (by the way, I didn't know that you were on Fox News; which program?).

A study done in 2003 by the University of Maryland yielded the following results:
Looking at misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their “primary news source” incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more — 17% — of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total.

Does this sound like some GOP propoganda was being spread?

If you need to pigeon hole me, I am fiscally conservative but socially progressive. It's pretty tough to find a candidate with those credentials these days, but McCain is definitely neither. My social views make it imperative that we elect someone more progressive in social policy this election. By the way, I don't know what you meant by "looking at the independent website." I didn't mean I belong to some party called "The Independents". When I said I don't have a party, that's what I meant. Just because I hate what the current administration has done to my country doesn't make me automatically a Democrat. Bush will go down as the worst President in the history of this country and unfortunately it will take us years to recover from the damage he's done.

You mentioned that you fly twice a month and so still see the terrorist warning system (yellow, red, etc.). I think you would agree that that is a little different from having it scrolled across the bottom of the screen at Faux "News" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Maybe it was just a total coincidence that it was lost in the shuffle after the election.

As far as Obama being or not being black. In this country you can have as much white blood in you as you want but if you have physical characteristics of an African-American, you will be defined as black. Just as you could be 99% black, but if your features are white, you are defined as white. I don't see what difference it makes one way or the other, but many of my fellow Americans do.

Innocent Puppet: re; Fox News..yeah, but the majority of CNN viewers believe global warming is an uncontroverted (and uncontrovertable) fact.

Innocent_Puppet.... Seriously? Elect someone more progressive in social policy? Since when is it the function of government to lay out and set forth social policy? I don't think this should be on any government's agenda, but definitely not the Federal govt. This should be the last place on earth you look for your social policies. *Possibly* at the local levels (State, city,county) but even then I would be extremely hesitant on giving the power to set forth a social agenda to any elected official. Anyone who believes this is a good idea is a fool.

Black or white doesn't matter. What does matter (in this country anyway) is you are judged by the company you keep. With Rev Wright,Pfleger,Ayres,etc.,Obama has touched the thoughts of many who think he will have this type of crowd surrounding him in the Whit House.