Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be Too Intellectual To Be P

[robw]

You're not serious, are you?


"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:M9UFj.921$N_5.302@trnddc05...
> Obama and his handlers had better be spending a lot of time figuring how
> they are going to answer Pat Buchanan's column of 3-24-2008.
>
> However, I bet they drag Al Sharpton out to protest Buchanan's "recist
> remarks," and make fools out themselves, again.
>
>

 

[Steven L.]

Gandalf Grey wrote:
> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be
> Too Intellectual To Be President?

No.
It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.

Stripped of all its verbiage, which Obama threw up as a smoke-screen,
the bottom line was this: Obama refuses to separate himself from Rev.
Wright because he sees Rev. Wright's views as representative of a larger
black community. Which he needs to win elections.

Thus Obama's base is angry blacks. Just like Jesse Jackson's base. And
any candidate whose base consists of angry blacks cannot ever convince
white folks (except for guilt-ridden white liberals) that he can
represent their views.

Obama's one chance to win the election was to prove to white America
that he is not another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He still thinks he
can be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to the black community while being
something else entirely to the white folks. But in today's
YouTube/Internet world, that type of political schizophrenia is no
longer possible.

We all get to see the same videos.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

 

[4000 Dead]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:13:14 -0400, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be
>> Too Intellectual To Be President?
>
>No.
>It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.
>
>Stripped of all its verbiage, which Obama threw up as a smoke-screen,
>the bottom line was this: Obama refuses to separate himself from Rev.
>Wright because he sees Rev. Wright's views as representative of a larger
>black community. Which he needs to win elections.
>
>Thus Obama's base is angry blacks. Just like Jesse Jackson's base. And
>any candidate whose base consists of angry blacks cannot ever convince
>white folks (except for guilt-ridden white liberals) that he can
>represent their views.
>
>Obama's one chance to win the election was to prove to white America
>that he is not another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He still thinks he
>can be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to the black community while being
>something else entirely to the white folks. But in today's
>YouTube/Internet world, that type of political schizophrenia is no
>longer possible.
>
>We all get to see the same videos.

I wonder if Steven L. wears that cone-shapped KKK hood because it is
form-fitting?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ugntp7854uv36@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To
>> Be
>> Too Intellectual To Be President?
>
> No.
> It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.

Oh please, Steven. Go back to offering suggestions that all left wingers
should be used as human shields in the case of a missile attack on the US.

Your essential racism is showing through.

 

[Tim Crowley]

On Mar 24, 7:13

 

[robertrice@rogers.com]

On Mar 24, 11:42

 

[robertrice@rogers.com]

On Mar 24, 11:54

 

[robertrice@rogers.com]

On Mar 24, 11:04

 

[Roy Blankenship]

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ugntp7854uv36@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To
Be
> > Too Intellectual To Be President?
>
> No.
> It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.
>
> Stripped of all its verbiage, which Obama threw up as a smoke-screen,
> the bottom line was this: Obama refuses to separate himself from Rev.
> Wright because he sees Rev. Wright's views as representative of a larger
> black community. Which he needs to win elections.
>
> Thus Obama's base is angry blacks. Just like Jesse Jackson's base. And
> any candidate whose base consists of angry blacks cannot ever convince
> white folks (except for guilt-ridden white liberals) that he can
> represent their views.
>
> Obama's one chance to win the election was to prove to white America
> that he is not another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He still thinks he
> can be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to the black community while being
> something else entirely to the white folks. But in today's
> YouTube/Internet world, that type of political schizophrenia is no
> longer possible.
>
> We all get to see the same videos.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

What was the name of the company you used to work for, where you were a PAID
SHILL?

 

[Steve]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:04:58 GMT, 4000 Dead
<zepp22114000@finestplanet.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:13:14 -0400, "Steven L."
><sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be
>>> Too Intellectual To Be President?
>>
>>No.
>>It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.
>>
>>Stripped of all its verbiage, which Obama threw up as a smoke-screen,
>>the bottom line was this: Obama refuses to separate himself from Rev.
>>Wright because he sees Rev. Wright's views as representative of a larger
>>black community. Which he needs to win elections.
>>
>>Thus Obama's base is angry blacks. Just like Jesse Jackson's base. And
>>any candidate whose base consists of angry blacks cannot ever convince
>>white folks (except for guilt-ridden white liberals) that he can
>>represent their views.
>>
>>Obama's one chance to win the election was to prove to white America
>>that he is not another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He still thinks he
>>can be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to the black community while being
>>something else entirely to the white folks. But in today's
>>YouTube/Internet world, that type of political schizophrenia is no
>>longer possible.
>>
>>We all get to see the same videos.
>
>I wonder if Steven L. wears that cone-shapped KKK hood because it is
>form-fitting?


Obama already played the race card and it bombed... Does Fatty
Jamieson think he can play it any better?


I figure it's time to start considering legal action
against this little stalker.
Zepp Jamieson 2 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6b2db5b2?hl=en&

 

[Tim Crowley]

On Mar 25, 1:59

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4a6fe18-2aa2-49e1-a17d-7f14eebfa3c7@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 1:59 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:04:58 GMT, 4000 Dead
>
>
>
> <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:13:14 -0400, "Steven L."
> ><sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >>> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him
> >>> To Be
> >>> Too Intellectual To Be President?
>
> >>No.
> >>It revealed him as too BLACK to be President.
>
> >>Stripped of all its verbiage, which Obama threw up as a smoke-screen,
> >>the bottom line was this: Obama refuses to separate himself from Rev.
> >>Wright because he sees Rev. Wright's views as representative of a larger
> >>black community. Which he needs to win elections.
>
> >>Thus Obama's base is angry blacks. Just like Jesse Jackson's base. And
> >>any candidate whose base consists of angry blacks cannot ever convince
> >>white folks (except for guilt-ridden white liberals) that he can
> >>represent their views.
>
> >>Obama's one chance to win the election was to prove to white America
> >>that he is not another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He still thinks he
> >>can be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to the black community while being
> >>something else entirely to the white folks. But in today's
> >>YouTube/Internet world, that type of political schizophrenia is no
> >>longer possible.
>
> >>We all get to see the same videos.
>
> >I wonder if Steven L. wears that cone-shapped KKK hood because it is
> >form-fitting?
>
> Obama already played the race card and it bombed... Does Fatty
> Jamieson think he can play it any better?
>
> I figure it's time to start considering legal action
> against this little stalker.
> Zepp Jamieson 2 Mar
> 2005http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6...

Or just put the computer down. you're obsessed with usenet characters.
That's sadder than being going to treck conventions. get help.
______________________________________________________

Canyon's life is completely invested in living in the groups as a soap
opera. He stopped having anything to say about issues long ago.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

<robertrice@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:8ea9128d-594e-4a22-990a-93a822132058@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 11:42 am, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To
> Be
> Too Intellectual To Be President?
>
> By John W. Dean
>
> Created Mar 22 2008 - 11:14am
>
> By way of disclaimer, I do not have a favored candidate in the 2008
> Democratic nomination contest. But I do appreciate the new (or perhaps
> simply long-forgotten) and higher levels to which Senator Barack Obama is
> taking political discourse. His historic speech on race [1] this week, for
> example, was as smart as they come.
>
> There was a time in this country when political debate was actually rather
> sophisticated, but that was long ago (for as mass media grew, the level of
> debate went down). Only time will tell, however, if Obama's powerful
> speech
> was also politically smart.
>
> Obama Speech Was Frank, Direct, and Intelligent - But Was It Pitched to
> Too
> Advanced an Audience?
>
> With his speech addressing race in America, Obama has done something that
> few politicians are willing to do: speak with compelling intellectual
> honesty. Rather than fuzzy-up difficult and troubling questions about
> race,
> he confronted them directly. Rather than avoiding issues that are
> typically
> ignored, he brought them forward for public discussion. Most strikingly,
> he
> did this with nuance, great tact, and conspicuous intelligence.
>
> Many commentators were struck by the level of erudition Senator Obama
> employed in his speech. For example, Newsweek's Howard Fineman asked, "Did
> the blockheads understand it?" Not wanting to sound elitist, Howard
> quickly
> added that of course, everyone is a bit of a blockhead. I do not know if
> everyone understood the speech or not, but I do know that it is a pleasure
> to have a candidate running for the highest office in the land who is not
> only not trying to pretend to be dumb and inarticulate but rather
> willingly
> showing he is, in fact, smart as hell.
>
> Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech was not unlike his insightful and
> somewhat erudite books - Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope -
> with
> one large exception: Relatively few people will read Obama's books but
> many
> have been (or may be) exposed to his historic speech.
>
> Computers have made it rather simple to determine the intelligence or
> grade
> level of a speech by measuring it with the Flesch-Kincaid test [2], which
> is
> found on the Tools/Options menu of Microsoft Word. This widely-employed
> measurement device determines the degree of difficulty of the written (and
> spoken) word.
>
> Enterprising linguists and others have applied the test to a wide variety
> of
> material. For instance, the folks at youDictionary [3] have tested the
> inaugural addresses of presidents. They discovered that no president since
> Woodrow Wilson has come close to delivering speeches pitched at a 12th
> grade
> level. Bush II's first inaugural address was at a 7.5 grade level, which
> ranked him near Eisenhower's second address (7.5), Nixon's first (7.6),
> LBJ's only (7.0), and FDR's fourth (8.1). Clinton's two addresses, by
> contrast, scored at the 9th grade level (9.4 and 8.8 respectively).
>
> I tested Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech and it scores at a 10.5
> grade
> level, which by current standards is in the stratosphere. But maybe he was
> being too smart to win the presidency.
>
> Republicans Have Dumbed Down the Presidency
>
> Hillary Clinton - who is every bit Obama's intellectual equal - is
> increasingly running against his eloquence, and claiming that eloquence is
> all he has and that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief and
> solve real-world problems. During and since the Ohio and Texas primaries,
> I've noticed that Senator Clinton has been showing less and less of her
> own
> conspicuous wonkiness and brain-power, a strategy that seems to be working
> to her advantage.
>
> Senator Clinton's new populism has not become anti-intellectual (yet), but
> she surely knows that her husband hid his intelligence during his
> presidential campaigns, playing up his good ole boy roots rather than his
> Yale/Oxford credentials. Savvy Democrats understand they cannot win the
> White House by appearing smarter than their GOP opponent.
>
> This is not a cynical observation, but rather a factual one. Republicans
> have spent the past half century dumbing-down the American presidency, for
> it has helped them win the White House Colleen Shogan, wearing her
> political
> scientist hat [4], has assembled epigrammatic case studies demonstrating
> the
> effectiveness of the anti-intellectualism of Republican presidents Dwight
> Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
>
> For example, when Dwight Eisenhower ran against Illinois Governor Adlai
> Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956), Eisenhower ignored the fact that he had been
> first in his class at West Point and president of Columbia University.
> Meanwhile, his surrogates portrayed Stevenson as an "egghead"
> intellectual,
> which was untrue but easy to do given Stevenson's remarkably eloquent
> speaking style. (In fact, Stevenson had flunked out of Harvard Law School,
> although he later graduated from Northwestern Law School.) In office, too,
> Eisenhower governed with a "hidden hand," continuing to hide his
> intelligence.
>
> Reagan was seen as an "amiable dunce," and history is still not sure if
> his
> Alzheimer's condition took hold well before he left office. Yet his
> collected letters demonstrate more thoughtfulness and policy savvy, at
> least
> earlier in his life, than many suspected. George Bush reminded Yale
> students
> when visiting his alma mater that "to the C students - I say, you, too,
> can
> be President of the United States." In contrast, rival John Kerry's
> campaign
> (mistakenly it now seems) had taken pains to portray him as highly
> intelligent - yet Kerry's Yale grades were just as weak as Bush's. The
> putative GOP nominee for 2008, John McCain, follows in the Republican
> tradition of anti-intellectualism, as the fifth man from the bottom of his
> Naval Academy graduating class.
>
> Increasingly, conservatives seek to characterize liberals as
> latte-drinking,
> white-wine sipping, Volvo-driving, intellectual elitists with whom no real
> American would want to spend time, for they are too smug and superior to
> truly understand others outside their circle. Conservatives may appreciate
> intelligence but not intellectuals and their kind, and as the Republican
> Party has become more conservative, its anti-intellectualism has become
> more
> pronounced. The reason: It wins elections.
>
> Hopefully Obama Will Not Shift His Strategy toward Playing Dumb
>
> Senator Obama's smart speech on race is true to his campaign theme of
> "change," for he is departing from the contemporary, Republican-created
> norm
> of Forrest Gump presidential politics. Do Americans really want the
> dumbest
> candidate answering the phone at three o'clock in the morning? Of course
> not.
>
> While the correlation between Presidents' successfully leading the nation
> and their intelligence cannot be easily measured, University of California
> psychologist Dean Keith Simonton has examined this question in his study
> "Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership:
> Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives" (partially
> available online [5]).
>
> Using complex statistical and analytical tools, Professor Simonton has
> estimated the IQs of all our presidents. For example, for the last sixteen
> presidents he estimated (and I have rounded his figures) the following
> IQs:
> Wilson (155), Harding (140), Coolidge (142), Hoover (142), F. Roosevelt
> (151), Truman (140), Eisenhower (145), Kennedy (160), L. Johnson (141),
> Nixon (143), Ford (140), Carter (157), Reagan (142), G. H. W. Bush (143),
> Clinton (159), and G. W. Bush (139). With the exception of LBJ, the
> Democrats have provided the country with much higher wattage than the
> Republicans. But clearly, none of these men are stupid.
>
> Let's hope that Senator Obama continues to be willing to publicly perform
> at
> his intelligence level. Perhaps he will trust voters to realize that the
> key
> criterion to serve in the highest office should not be which candidate is
> the person with whom you would most enjoy having a beer. To the contrary,
> presidents should not be encouraging C students to continue to earn Cs so
> they can become president. Presidents should be telling all Americans that
> we can do better - which is one of the core points in Obama's message.
>
> Anti-intellectual Republican presidents have led this nation into a new
> age
> of unreason, as former Vice President Al Gore argued in The Assault on
> Reason (2007) and more recently, Susan Jacoby has reported in The Age of
> Unreason [6] (2008). As Senator Obama campaigns, he can truly change
> America
> by simply refusing to play dumb. That strategy, if Obama continues it, may
> turn out to be not only courageous but also wise, for it is very possible
> that, after so many years, Americans are tired of having their innate
> intelligence insulted by their presidential candidates.
> _______
>
> --
> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
> available to advance understanding of
> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
> I
> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>
> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
> suffering deeply in spirit,
> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
> at
> stake."
> -Thomas Jefferson

My feeling, watching his speech on Youtube the other day, was wow,
this guy's as smart as I am, and even MORE articulate, and
linguistically crafty than I could ever hope to be. It left me
wondering about how long it was in development - we know he was
tweaking it on the night prior up to 2:00am, but I was left wondering
how LONG it was worked on.

____________________________________________________

No question. The country will be turning a real corner from Bush by
electing Obama. It would be great to see the dumbing down of America begin
to come to an end starting with an articulate president.


He'd raise the rafters for the American people as President, with a
strong swing of the pendalum back towards a collectively shared
conception of "American Idealism", and that's definitely got to work
in his favour.

That you would have a President even CAPABLE of writing his own
speeches, to a large extent would be a MARKED improvement over the
kind of discourse you've gotten, and to some extent, what can be
expected from McCain, who's made clear that he's prepared to continue
in many ways, the "tone" of the Bush Administration's "war on terror"
meme.

Obama's always shooting for the great point of leverage, the
"monumental turning point" and may even see his own role within the
framework, as a "bridge", and as a unifying principal in his own
right, which is either very daring, or very arrogant, to assume that
such a thing would be possible - to BE the monument..

I'm beginning to suspect that Obama is an enlightened Christian,
capable of giving anunciation to the "word", because he has the rock,
and therefore can be as confident as he likes, in Christ, while
maintaining authenticity with respect to his communication, a
communication of idealism. That's what I'd like to see come back to
the United States to be honest, but boy some people must just LOATH
him FOR his smarts and his erudite and extremely eloquent and well
crafted oratory.

And he REMEMBERS it all, all along the way, so I'd say that by the
time he faces McCain in the Presidential debates, he'll be ready to
steam roll McCain, with words alone.

The guy has promise. Must be a walking target for some crazed racist
madman like Horatio ****upaton..