Whenever I visit this thread it makes me think of Beatlemania.
I imagine Doris as a pimply faced teenage girl squealing hysterically at her pop idol Barak.
Nice thought, but it's not wholly up to Obama, even if he does have pure intentions. A future Mr Keonfxqcnhrkquov or Won Hung Lo might just mess up the party, or indeed factions inside the US.I imagine I'm sitting back smiling as I watch the poll results in November, almost two years after first seeing him and knowing instantly that this man could change the world.
I Imagine a future of international peace and cooperation.
...
"A leading communications expert explains how the tactical use of words and phrases influences what we buy, who we vote for, and what we believe, in a volume that encompasses sections ranging from "The Ten Rules of Successful Communication" to "The 21 Words and Phrases for the 21st Century."
so often in this book, you'd think that Republican pollster Luntz would have taken his own advice to heart. Yet in spite of an opening anecdote that superficially attempts a balanced tone, the book as a whole truly reads more like a manual for right-wing positioning. Even in the sections where he is less partisan, Luntz's advice is not particularly insightful.
For instance, his first chapter, on "Ten Rules of Effective Language," starts by instructing readers to use small words and short sentences in their communications. The least effective section in the book is the chapter on "Personal Language for Personal Scenarios," where Luntz advocates manipulative strategies for getting out of traffic tickets, boarding airplanes at the last minute and apologizing to one's wife with the "miracle elixir" of flowers. The most readable and redeeming feature is the two case studies, where Luntz demonstrates his skill as a communicator by identifying real-world communications successes and failures. Unfortunately, by the time nonpartisan readers reach these chapters, they will have already lost patience
"A leading communications expert explains how the tactical use of words and phrases influences what we buy, who we vote for, and what we believe, in a volume that encompasses sections ranging from "The Ten Rules of Successful Communication" to "The 21 Words and Phrases for the 21st Century."
so often in this book, you'd think that Republican pollster Luntz would have taken his own advice to heart. Yet in spite of an opening anecdote that superficially attempts a balanced tone, the book as a whole truly reads more like a manual for right-wing positioning. Even in the sections where he is less partisan, Luntz's advice is not particularly insightful.
For instance, his first chapter, on "Ten Rules of Effective Language," starts by instructing readers to use small words and short sentences in their communications. The least effective section in the book is the chapter on "Personal Language for Personal Scenarios," where Luntz advocates manipulative strategies for getting out of traffic tickets, boarding airplanes at the last minute and apologizing to one's wife with the "miracle elixir" of flowers. The most readable and redeeming feature is the two case studies, where Luntz demonstrates his skill as a communicator by identifying real-world communications successes and failures. Unfortunately, by the time nonpartisan readers reach these chapters, they will have already lost patience
Nice thought, but it's not wholly up to Obama, even if he does have pure intentions. A future Mr Keonfxqcnhrkquov or Won Hung Lo might just mess up the party, or indeed factions inside the US.
Not everyone *wants* peace, particularly the US military/industrial complex.
1. "All those men have their price." (His opinion of his fellow parliamentarians)
2. To the Earl of Bath on their elevation to the House of Lords:
"My Lord Bath, you and I are now as insignificant men as any in England."
Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, KG, KB, PC (26 August 1676 – 18 March 1745), known before 1742 as Sir Robert Walpole, was a British statesman who is generally regarded as having been the first Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Walpole, a Whig, served during the reigns of George I and George II. His tenure is normally dated from 1721, when he obtained the post of First Lord of the Treasury; …… Walpole continued to govern until he resigned in 1742, making his administration the longest in British history.
Soon after Walpole returned to the Cabinet, England was swept by a wave of over-enthusiastic speculation which led to the South Sea Bubble. The Government had established a plan whereby the South Sea Company would assume the national debt of Great Britain in exchange for lucrative bonds. It was widely believed that the Company would eventually reap an enormous profit through international trade in cloth, agricultural goods, and slaves. Many in the country, including Walpole himself, frenziedly invested in the company. By the latter part of 1720, however, the company had begun to collapse as the price of its shares plunged. Walpole was saved from financial ruin by his banker, who had earlier advised him to sell his shares; other investors, however, were not as fortunate.
In 1721, a committee investigated the scandal, finding that there was corruption on the part of many in the Cabinet. Among those implicated were John Aislabie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), James Craggs the Elder (the Postmaster General), James Craggs the Younger (the Southern Secretary), and even Lord Stanhope and Lord Sunderland (the heads of the Ministry). Craggs the Elder and Craggs the Younger both died in disgrace; the remainder were impeached for their corruption. Aislabie was found guilty and imprisoned, but the personal influence of Walpole saved both Stanhope and Sunderland. For his role in preventing these individuals, and others, from being punished, Walpole gained the nickname of "Screenmaster-General".
An article last January from the UK's Daily Mail newspaper, "A drunk and a bigot - what the U.S. Presidental hopeful HASN'T said about his father...": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431908&in_pge_id=1770
ahh, lol
Taylor Mali runs rings around him
PS - you'll like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU&feature=related
At the risk of perpetuating being off topic, I'd completely disagree with your comment that a boy must respect his father. Don't you think it would be completely inappropriate for any child to attempt to feel respect for an abusive father? There are plenty who fit this description.I so admire the way Barack's mother always gave him positive feedback on his father. This is not the norm for divorced mothers!
A boy must respect his father, as he grows, for a healthy self concept.
Feeling a bit infantile about the whole Hillary/Barrak schmozzle?
http://www.miniclip.com/games/street-fight/en/
The Hillary versus Barrak fight game.
Barack Obama's March 18th speech on race in America was game-changing, and very likely will be remembered as historic. Here's why.
In electoral politics -- particularly presidential politics -- people don't vote based on the issues or positions of the candidates. They vote based on their assessment of the qualities of the candidate. Their votes have much more to do with their assessment of candidate character than on 10 point programs.
The videos of the sermons delivered by Barack Obama's former pastor, Reverend Wright, presented problems for his candidacy because they caused voters to question three key candidate qualities that are central to Obama's narrative as to why he should be president.
Most profoundly they caused doubt among white voters as to whether Obama was "on their side" -- the threshold question of all politics. Ironically, the potential that he might completely disown Reverend Wright, raised the same question among African Americans.
Second, voters want leaders who have strongly-held core values. They don't want leaders who tell them one thing but believe something else -- or even worse, have no core values except their own desire to be elected. The Wright videos caused voters to question whether, as they believed, Obama was indeed committed to the core values of unity and hope that have been the central themes of his candidacy.
Third, voters want leaders who are strong, effective leaders -- leaders who can respond to crisis with cool, decisive, effective action. The videos had put Obama on the defensive for days. In politics, when you're on the defensive, you're losing. The crisis put Obama to the test. How, they wondered, would he respond?
With his speech in Philadelphia, Obama passed all of these tests of character -- and more.
His speech made it clear to all who listened that he was absolutely "on their side." He demonstrated a knowledge and empathy for both sides of the racial equation. His speech rang true to African Americans who grew up in the segregated America of the '50s and '60s. But it also rang true to white ethnics who have had to struggle for everything in life and whose jobs are now being outsourced to Southeast Asia.
Rather than a posture of moral superiority, he affirmed the legitimacy of both sides' anger and called on Americans to unite against the forces that have historically stifled the aspirations of both groups and fanned the flames of hatred and division.
He reminded everyone that as the son of an African father and a white mother from Kansas, he is the personal embodiment of an America where everyone is on the same side.... etc
But Obama's speech gave us insight into two other critical qualities as well.
Obama talked to Americans as adults. He presented a serious, no-holds-barred discussion of race in America. He showed he trusted the voters. Voters don't want leaders who patronize them like children -- who pander or sloganeer. They want leaders who treat them with respect.
Finally, Obama demonstrated once again the power of inspiration. He showed us again that inspiration can overcome fear. When leaders inspire us they call on us to be more than we are; they call on us to be the best we can be. Obama didn't lecture or moralize. He declared his commitment to lead America to overcome racial division and hatred -- to be all that we can be.
In the end, it is his ability to inspire us -- to call on us all to be part of something bigger than ourselves -- to sacrifice for our common future -- that has the potential of making Barack Obama a transformational figure -- both in America and on the world stage.
WASHINGTON, March 22: The Bush administration is involved in a new political storm following revelations that State Department contractors had improperly reviewed private passport files of three leading presidential candidates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.The scandal may further hurt the incumbent Republicans in an election year.
I like itEditorial: Investigate passport-file breaches
March 24, 2008
Dirty tricks? Say it ain't so. Better yet, prove it ain't so.
Right now, it's hard to believe that the three State Department employees caught snooping into Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport file were just gawkers. That's the administration's story. At least for now.
But Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton revealed that her passport file had been rifled in 2007. And Republican nominee John McCain's file was accessed earlier this year. The Justice Department needs to investigate these breaches. The State Department's integrity is at stake. If the files of such high-profile people are fair game, how can anyone trust that their privacy will be respected?
The curious-employee scenario would be easier to believe if President George W. Bush had a more admirable history when it comes to snooping and politicizing government. But his laundry list of questionable activities is long.
The National Security Agency illegally wiretapped Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail without warrants. The Justice Department abused national security letters to snoop into private phone records. And the White House stands accused of politicizing the Justice Department by firing U.S. attorneys who refused to mount politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats or to go easy on Republicans.
We've been down this road before. In 1992, during President George H.W. Bush's tenure, someone snooped in then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport file. Has someone been rooting around in confidential files this political season in search of information to use against political rivals? The suspicion is inescapable.
PS I'd love to know how long they spent looking at McCain's file - (ok next!)
compared to Obama's file - or Clinton's file for that matter
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?