Reading About The Obama, Is Like Reading the Onion

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
Damn, this is too weird:

Obama avoids stain of Chicago's political scandals - Yahoo! News

Obama avoids stain of Chicago's political scandals

By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer
2 hrs 58 mins ago
CHICAGO – On the campaign trail, Barack Obama liked to boast that he was a tough survivor of the bare-knuckled world of Chicago politics. But the president-elect also has steered clear of most of its scandals, navigating a careful middle ground that has left him relatively unscathed in a city synonymous with corruption.

Obama's awkward link to the seamier side of Chicago politics was thrust into the spotlight Tuesday when federal prosecutors charged Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich with trying to auction off the president-elect's vacant Senate seat.

There was nothing in the 76-page FBI affidavit to suggest Obama had done anything wrong, and on Wednesday, he called on Blagojevich to resign. But this latest in a series of Illinois political scandals also raised questions about whether it's possible to avoid completely the taint of patronage and payoffs that are so common here.

Obama has managed to remain mostly — but not entirely — untarnished by local political corruption. Some analysts and former legislative colleagues cite various reasons: his skill, brains and character, his reform-minded base and his path to power, which did not involve climbing through the ranks of the Chicago Democratic Machine.

"Rather than being above the fray, I think he has sidestepped the fray," said Don Rose, a longtime political strategist. "It's a tightrope-walking skill."...

They are of another world, a world that has now been opened to not only the US, but indeed, 'the world.'
 
The Article Posted: "There was nothing in the 76-page FBI affidavit to suggest Obama had done anything wrong, and on Wednesday, he called on Blagojevich to resign.

Obama has managed to remain mostly — but not entirely — untarnished by local political corruption. Some analysts and former legislative colleagues cite various reasons: his skill, brains and character, his reform-minded base and his path to power, which did not involve climbing through the ranks of the Chicago Democratic Machine."

Annie: They are of another world, a world that has now been opened to not only the US, but indeed, 'the world.'

I'm starting to think your respect for the rule of law, is far down the ladder of priorities compared to your loyalty to partisan party politics.

Why are you saying "they" are of another world; an obvious attempt to link Obama and Blagovich together, when your own article says the exact opposite. That there is no linkage.

And Obama called him and asked him to resign. Did Sara Palin call Ted Stevens and ask him to resign? Did George Bush tell Liddy to resign when he was indicted? No, they didn't.

You appear to have profound "respect" for Fitzgerald, when he arrests Democrats. But you appear to backpedal and downplay cases where Fitzgerald prosecuted republicans, like Libby.

How does the world look through partisan glasses?
 
I'm starting to think your respect for the rule of law, is far down the ladder of priorities compared to your loyalty to partisan party politics.

Why are you saying "they" are of another world; an obvious attempt to link Obama and Blagovich together, when your own article says the exact opposite. That there is no linkage.

And Obama called him and asked him to resign. Did Sara Palin call Ted Stevens and ask him to resign? Did George Bush tell Liddy to resign when he was indicted? No, they didn't.

You appear to have profound "respect" for Fitzgerald, when he arrests Democrats. But you appear to backpedal and downplay cases where Fitzgerald prosecuted republicans, like Libby.

How does the world look through partisan glasses?


Wrong--

Obama has managed to remain mostly — but not entirely — untarnished by local political corruption.
 
This is going to more fun than Bill Clinton's presidency. Willy was slick, whether delivering a speech, providing an interview or defending himself in court. Only Slick could come up with, "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

But Obama is only slick with a teleprompter - without one he is bumbling idiot. He simply cannot think on his feet.

Only a complete moron would deny he talked with a corrupt governor of his own state about the main issue of the corruption, when his number one advisor was just on the tele blabbing about him having talked with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption. And now we learn that the media actually reported about the meeting with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption.

We have an adminstration of bumbling clowns. Every day there will be new incredible revelations of hilarity. This is going to be the funniest four years in politics... :clap2:
 
Last edited:
That tightwalk can't last forever.


I agree.

He has the choice to either turn that tight rope into a weak thread or a well constructed walkway.

I don't think it will take long after 1/20/09 to get a flavor for his direction.

And the excuse of Bush cannot last forever.
 
Clinton walked that tight rope and is now worth $100 million. Obama is even slicker than Bill and has Hillary Clinton on his team. He'll not only walk that tight rope, but he will have unchecked power for at least 2 years and will likely become the wealthiest President in history.
 
The question is and I have to ask this of myself, why are we so determined to bring down Obama? Why were the Democrats so determined to bring down Bush, why were the Republicans so determined to bring down Clinton? I don't get it... the guy was elected by the widest margin number of votes for any non-incumbant with the same level of voting we had in 2000 and 2004 and we want to find as much dirt on him as possible AFTER the election and bring him down.

Why?

Why can't we all just accept the will of the voters, let Obama make his decisions, and if he screws up we'll yank him out of office in 4 years and put in Hillary or a Republican. But it's not about waiting 4 years for him to screw up... it's not about his economic policies or his social policies.. there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
 
Clinton walked that tight rope and is now worth $100 million. Obama is even slicker than Bill and has Hillary Clinton on his team. He'll not only walk that tight rope, but he will have unchecked power for at least 2 years and will likely become the wealthiest President in history.
I disagree about Obama being slick (see my previous post).

To add to the idiocy of this situation, Blagojevich basically gave Obama a get out jail free card, saying the mothereffer only offered "appreciciation". But Obama being the genius that he is, decided to lie and pass on Blagojevich's generosity.

These events raise some questions. When was the last time that Obama spoke to Blagojevich? What about anyone on Obama's team. Blagojevich is adamant that he wanted a quid pro quo in all of the tapes. He must have demanded of Obama or someone on Obama's team for some kind of reward for appointing their favorite to the senate seat. Why didn't they report the request for a bribe to the authorities? Why didn't they report it to Obama and warn him off from speaking to Blagojevich?

Obama is in deep doo doo. Now will all of these questions just remain in the bloggosphere or will they be persued by the prosecutor? I guess we'll have to wait and see...
 
Last edited:
The question is and I have to ask this of myself, why are we so determined to bring down Obama? Why were the Democrats so determined to bring down Bush, why were the Republicans so determined to bring down Clinton? I don't get it... the guy was elected by the widest margin number of votes for any non-incumbant with the same level of voting we had in 2000 and 2004 and we want to find as much dirt on him as possible AFTER the election and bring him down.

Why?

Why can't we all just accept the will of the voters, let Obama make his decisions, and if he screws up we'll yank him out of office in 4 years and put in Hillary or a Republican. But it's not about waiting 4 years for him to screw up... it's not about his economic policies or his social policies.. there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
Here, read these lists and then tell me he deserves a chance:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-will-be-blackmailed-possibly-many-times.html
 
The question is and I have to ask this of myself, why are we so determined to bring down Obama? Why were the Democrats so determined to bring down Bush, why were the Republicans so determined to bring down Clinton? I don't get it... the guy was elected by the widest margin number of votes for any non-incumbant with the same level of voting we had in 2000 and 2004 and we want to find as much dirt on him as possible AFTER the election and bring him down.

Why?

Why can't we all just accept the will of the voters, let Obama make his decisions, and if he screws up we'll yank him out of office in 4 years and put in Hillary or a Republican. But it's not about waiting 4 years for him to screw up... it's not about his economic policies or his social policies.. there is a very DEEP hatred of Obama on the far right and by some members of his board and many other boards. I want to know why.
And then read this list and see how he will destry the economy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/65561-obama-is-a-liberal-period.html
 
It's not hatred. It's a lack of trust and a lack of agreement.


I have to agree and honestly, this is one of the reasons I speak out even more about Obama.

I wish I could count how many times in general, here, other boards, in personal life that I am asked fair questions about him, only to be shouted down and told to stop the hate.

Excuse me, but, questioning his policies, his past voting records, his comments has nothing to do with hate. It is my right as a citizen. Furthermore, the more I am treated like this, the more I will ask and the broader my questions will become. Just to piss those accusing me of hate or racism off.

In my case my voter card clearly states "no party affiliation" that is not a typo, it is fact. When I asked the same questions about Hillary, McCain, Palin and all the others, I was never treated that way or attacked.

Even the times Obama was clearly caught in double talk or a lie, I would present it, with factual proof and still be called racist or venting hate. Well the more they did, the more I prodded them.

Now oddly enough, as I wait to judge the man based on what he does as president, it is his own backers and party which is concerned and venting negative concerns about him.

Interesting, isn't it.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jon
This is going to more fun than Bill Clinton's presidency. Willy was slick, whether delivering a speech, providing an interview or defending himself in court. Only Slick could come up with, "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

But Obama is only slick with a teleprompter - without one he is bumbling idiot. He simply cannot think on his feet.

Only a complete moron would deny he talked with a corrupt governor of his own state about the main issue of the corruption, when his number one advisor was just on the tele blabbing about him having talked with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption. And now we learn that the media actually reported about the meeting with the corrupt governor about the very issue of the corruption.

We have an adminstration of bumbling clowns. Every day there will be new incredible revelations of hilarity. This is going to be the funniest four years in politics... :clap2:

You are the idiot.
 
Clinton walked that tight rope and is now worth $100 million. Obama is even slicker than Bill and has Hillary Clinton on his team. He'll not only walk that tight rope, but he will have unchecked power for at least 2 years and will likely become the wealthiest President in history.

This kind of crap cracks me up.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law, but chose to do community work instead of corporate law where he could have easily made millions.

Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. They couldn't be more different.
 
This kind of crap cracks me up.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law, but chose to do community work instead of corporate law where he could have easily made millions.

Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. They couldn't be more different.
Bush graduated from Harvard Business School
 
L O L .... so true. A persons diploma and degree don't mean as much as people want them to. Plenty of morons graduated from very 'good' schools.
 
L O L .... so true. A persons diploma and degree don't mean as much as people want them to. Plenty of morons graduated from very 'good' schools.
i just think it is so hypocritical that lefty morons call Bush a moron and stupid and then turn around and claim Obama is so brilliant because he graduated from Harvard when Bush got his MBA from Harvard
 

Forum List

Back
Top