Comments on: Like Obama, Groff Strives to Transcend Race

By: urthpigg

urthpigg — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:56:13 +0000

There is no reason why an African-American leader cannot be as good as a European-American leader. There is also no reason why an African-American leader can’t be just as bad as a Euro-American. True equality means that race or gender (or whatever) should have nothing to do with how a candidate is chosen. This country is still not beyond that. According to the corporate news media, many women are voting for Hillary Clinton simply because she’s a woman, not because she offers any real change, which she doesn’t.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:35:34 +0000

“Some” people will accuse this as “playing the race card,” which technically it is. However, this is really just politics as usual. Politicians always plays some card, as useless or inane as it might be. Something akin to McCain alleging he’s the candiate of “change.”

By: Grady Coker

Grady Coker — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:36:25 +0000

I don’t intend to close my eyes and hear Obama. I read an article by him in the Wall Street Journal and nothing he had to say would apply to the aging Americans. It is all about the youth of America. When Obama pops up on the TV I reach for the remote. I would guess that the media and others have already appointed Obama the new President.
I just wonder if I will get to vote in the coming election.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:14:17 +0000

We have not transcended race until it is never mentioned…including the encouraging yet hate-guilt-fomenting “overseer’s whip”.
No mention is made of another black politician, Lt. Gov. Brown ‘75 to ‘79. This evidently didn’t work out so well for Gov. Lamm because he had a different Lt. Gov. for his next two terms.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:31:46 +0000

The media did appoint him. He was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic convention, gave a rousing talk to the folk, and then some idiot commentator said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, we may just have heard the next president of the United States’ and I said, Huh? I resented that when he said it on national TV, and it still sticks in my craw, like some face-candy anchorman is going to choose the next president for us. Obama’s been in the Senate less than one term. We cannot afford a president with such a thin resume. I listened to him briefly the other night, he’s even trying out that Baptist preacher rhythm now, as if he were Jesse Jackson. My pick is Edwards, but if not him, then Hilary. Barack needs another two terms in the Senate to season him properly. This country is in too big a mess for someone to come in who needs on-the-job training. We are at a turning point in human history and we need some highly skilled, mature leadership in the U.S. or we will suffer greatly for the lack. G. Coker’s point is well taken: the 60’s generation is hitting retirement age, yet Obama is relying on the college campus vote. Well, sometimes they go to the polls and vote - and sometimes they’re studying or drinking or snowboarding or whatever. I vote consistently, like it was a religion.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:36:07 +0000

And Peter Groff doesn’t have to strive to transcend anything. He has the wholehearted respect of all his colleagues, and he has made himself a well-deserved reputation for fairness and hard work at the legislature. We can expect him to run a tight ship.

By: noidea

noidea — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:35:50 +0000

Usersuz…
1. Why does Obama need two more terms (12 years in addition to his current term) to be properly seasoned? So three terms is your standard? Why not apply this standard to the candidate that you support (Edwards) who only served one term in the Senate and prior that was a personal injury attorney? Not to mention your second choice in Hillary who has only 1 and a half terms under her belt. She had no major security clearances in her husband’s White House and her so called ‘experience’ is seriously in doubt with any type of scrutiny. What makes them so much more qualified than Obama?

2. It is just like the ’60’s generation to enjoy relative low taxation during their prime earning years, squandering the treasure of the U.S., and then when it is time for them to retire realize that ‘hey, isn’t it time to start taking care of the elderly in our society’?

We need to take care of the elderly and we need to involve every generation in the process of making the tough decisions that will be necessary to confront the challenges that we face. The ’60’s generation (as you draw attention to) aren’t more important or enlightened than the rest of us.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:29:33 +0000

John Edwards has equivalent experience, as does Hillary Clinton. The average person hasn’t a clue what it takes to get a major personal injury suit to court and win it; it’s called complex litigation and John Edwards was the point man on all his lawsuits. This means he investigates, plans, organizes, researches, writes, persuades, speaks, and fights against, in this case, major corporations who field teams of legal talent to stop him. When he describes himself as fighter, he’s not B.S.-ing. Hillary Clinton not only put together a complicated piece of legislation with her health care plan, it’s still not clear to me whether it failed because the timing was off, because the Republican Party went after her with a vengeance (for doing something more than a gracious hostess), or because of flaws in the program itself. She broke trail for us on that one and is not getting the credit she deserves. She has weathered personal and political crises and never buckled. So I feel I know these candidates. All Barack Obama is famous for is giving speeches. I am not saying the 60’s generation is more important than others; I’m saying Barack Obama is pointedly ignoring that segment of the population. Young people may put him in office, but they are not the ones passing legislation, heading up industry or state governments. Those are the people whose cooperation will be required to make the change he talks about.

By: noidea

noidea — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:04 +0000

Usersuz,

I was not saying that Edwards is not qualified, I was just interested in knowing your standard relative to Obama when Edwards did not have the 3 terms that you said that you need to be qualified. I now know that personal injury law makes one qualified under your standards.

With respect to Hillary’s worthiness versus Obama, I now know that the myriad of SELF made crisis that the Clinton’s foisted upon themselves and others makes her more qualified than Obama.

Is it that or is it just “the Baptist preacher” rhythm that you don’t like? What does this mean??? I hope not what I think it does.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:27:49 +0000

Experience (quanity): It’s only relative, and candidates only use quanity, rather than quality. Hillary clearly has the edge with a couple years, but she tries to include her “first lady” experience. I’m not buying. All three top senatorial candidates have similar “quanity” of experience, so no edge.

Experience (quality): We have to look at what they did during this experience. I can speak for either Obama or Edwards, but clearly Hillary voted to empower Bush and his war, over and over again, and refuses to apologize for her vote. Both Edwards and Obama admitted their mistake, and hey, many were scammed by the phony intel. Points for Obama and Edwards.

Substance for their promises: Obama promises “change” but no substance. Even his health care plan involved “negotiating” with health care providers - yeah, that looks promising! Hillary, who attempted a noble attempt at universal health care, no takes money from the health care industry, and ironically her national health care proposal also involves the private health care industry. Edwards, who refuses to take any lobbyist or corporate donations, has a clear and obvious plan for true universal health care, similar to what europenas have. He is the only candidate who has a detailed plan of how he will “change” things; the rest just use the generic word “change.” Match point-Edwards

Only Edwards is pointing out the problem with “corporate america” and his “two americas.” Hillary and Obama merely give “change” speak, and point out what’s wrong, and not specify how they will fix it.

With Hillary - you get Bill, and she’s a woman - but she’s got the most negative factor. Will this work with a Republican congress? Obama is really about transition, image, and leadership. Is this true substance for true change? Edwards is a proven fighter, promises no lobbyist will be allowed in the white house; even the “good” ones. He’s the only one with a plan for America.

Game-set-match - Edwards