The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If anyone thinks Obama's visit to the Wall was anything but a stunt, including the prayer he knew would get leaked... I don't know what to tell you...

hal, do you have any knowledge that would support such a charge? Do you actually know anything about Western Wall and its history? Can you point to any previous incidents where prayers left at the Wall were leaked in this manner? Do you realize that your comment could be seen as quite offensive to many people?

[Faramond]

hal, swing states notwithstanding, if Obama wins the popular vote by 5 points, as he would likely do if the election were held tomorrow, then it's highly unlikely McCain could win 270 electoral votes. The latest daily tracking polls show a small bounce for Obama, so I don't buy that anything in the trip has hurt him.

And I don't believe for a moment that Obama's prayer was a stunt. Obama's character does not justify such a claim, in my opinion. I haven't read the prayer, and I won't, but wouldn't it have been sort of funny if he had prayed to be elected President? Maybe I just like weird humor. I'm sure that's not what he wrote, by the way.

[River]

I read the prayer. Can't say I'm proud of myself for doing it, but the damage has been done and I had the same thought Faramond did. So I looked.

He didn't pray about the election at all.

It's pretty disgusting that the prayer got leaked. The Western Wall is one of the most sacred places on this planet - you have to be pretty torqued in the head to do something like steal a prayer and give it to the press.

[yovargas]

Seriously, hal, I feel like that's one perfect example of the kind of post that doesn't do anybody any good - a blind, personal, stab-in-the-dark attack on a candidates character. Why? Why why why why??? It tells me nothing about Obama though it perhaps says some unfortunate things about you.

[halplm]

He wasn't scheduled to go there. It wasn't part of his plan according to anyone. He just suddenly decided to show up?

You guys can think I'm a horrible person or whatever, I don't care. But there's no way I would believe it was for anything but a political stunt. Seriously, this whole trip is a political stunt, how could anyone believe this wasn't calculated?

As for the prayer being leaked, it doesn't really matter, he knew it would or could be, and he wrote it as such.

Personally, I don't think prayers need to be written or put in a wall, and thus I find the idea absurd, unless he's trying to gain something by it.

If that's offensive to people, then they'll just have to live with it.

personally, I'm sick of Obama trying to be the perfect person for everyone. He's not, and he never will be, and frankly, I find his "world tour" to be disingenuous to an extreme degree. He's parading around as if he's already president, and that's just plain dumb as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, he probably will be, because the republicans couldn't come up with anyone better than McCain... but that just means we're all screwed for 4 years.

My only hope is that inflation skyrockets, so my debts basically go away... so maybe I should be pulling for Obama...

[JewelSong]

Many, many political figures have visited the Western Wall and most (if not all) have left a prayer there.

Hal, it is traditional to put a written prayer in the Wall. Whether you think prayers "need to be" put there is moot, really. People who visit the Wall traditionally do this.

If Obama's prayer and visit to the Western Wall was nothing but a "publicity stunt" then...well, then I guess it has been a publicity stunt for every other politician and world figure who has visited there as well.

[halplm]

yeah, I would guess it has been.

It's my personal opinion of course... but I have a particular disdain for public shows of reverence and faith. i could go off on this, but I gather it's probably not worth much in this thread or forum....

[JewelSong]

I do understand what you mean about public shows of faith....and in most cases I would agree with you.

However, the Western Wall has some particular significance, as Frelga pointed out above and it is a spiritual pilgrimage for many people of ALL faiths.

It may well have been seen as a sign of marked disrespect if Obama had NOT gone there.

And, I think we all need to be careful when accusing another person of not really believing or feeling something based on how they pray or where they pray...or whether they pray at all. Only God knows what is in each person's heart, really.

[WampusCat]

If I were anywhere near the Wall I would go there to pray. And yes, I'd leave a written prayer in the stones. To me, that is no more a "public show" than being seen in church on Sunday morning.

The prayer is not shouted from the rooftop or painted on a billboard, after all. It is privately written and tucked in the wall in a ritual of personal significance. I find it much more distasteful that someone dug it out and published it than that Obama participated in the tradition.

[JewelSong]

I find it much more distasteful that someone dug it out and published it than that Obama participated in the tradition.

"Distasteful" is hardly strong enough for how I feel about this.

"Disgusting" might come closer. For a lot of reasons.

[solicitr]

I agree with Wampus and Jewel. Sorry, Hal, but I couldn't see any devout Christian (which Obama is, I have no doubts on that score) visiting Jerusalem and not praying at the Wall. And it's not like Obama could do it in private, you know? The cameras swarm around him like Princess Diana.

And the newspaper which published the prayer is just low. Low!

[sauronsfinger]

from Hal

Of course, he probably will be, because the republicans couldn't come up with anyone better than McCain...

who do you think would have been a better candidate for the Republican Party?

[Frelga]

It's my personal opinion of course... but I have a particular disdain for public shows of reverence and faith.

Well, I am not fond of them either. Still, what's the alternative? Public shows of cynicism and derision? We've had them aplenty. There's nothing wrong with reverence and faith. What I despise is the public shows of smug preachiness, and the private prayer at the Wall is nothing of the sort.

And I agree with soli, publishing the prayer is only one degree above pulling it out of the wall in the first place, and both are several degrees below pond scum.

I clicked on the link, but couldn't bring myself to read it.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[vison]

It's my personal opinion of course... but I have a particular disdain for public shows of reverence and faith. i could go off on this, but I gather it's probably not worth much in this thread or forum....

Really? Then, how can that signature line appear on all your posts?

I have a great deal of disdain for public shows of that nature, myself.

And while I am about as unreligious as it is possible for a person to be, if I was ever in Jerusalem and ever had the opportunity to put a slip of paper in that Wall, I would. Everyone in the world should, if it made them stop and think for even one second about the past.

[sauronsfinger]

I had a good friend who was an avowed athiest. He happened to be in Israel on business and went to Bethlehem. He visited the church which is built upon the site said to be the Birth of Jesus.

He found himself crying without any reason as he stood in that spot.

Vison makes sense.

[halplm]

It's my personal opinion of course... but I have a particular disdain for public shows of reverence and faith. i could go off on this, but I gather it's probably not worth much in this thread or forum....

Really? Then, how can that signature line appear on all your posts?

I have a great deal of disdain for public shows of that nature, myself.

My sig has nothing to do with reverence or faith. It is meant to be informative.

And I don't think the video is offensive or funny, I think it's scary.

[River]

1) Your sig is only informative in that it is a loud and clear statement of your religious beliefs.

2) You're afraid of satire?

[sauronsfinger]

The Rasmussen Report survey has some figures on the US attitude towards the war. The figures paint a picture that does not work too well for the current position of Senator McCain. You also have to wonder about the charge McCain made that Obama would rather lose the war and win the election. These polling figures seem to show that charge will not register with most voters.
================================

Friday, July 25, 2008
Despite growing confidence that the U.S. and its allies are winning the war on terror, most Americans (52%) still believe it’s more important for the next president to bring the troops home from Iraq than win the war there.

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that only 38% think winning is more important, while 10% are not sure.

Both numbers have shifted only slightly from a month ago, Both numbers have shifted only slightly from a month ago and two months ago. as have opinions on how the two major presidential candidates will handle the war in Iraq.

Another survey this week found that 63% of Americans want the troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That’s up from 58% three weeks ago and up from 61% from a month ago. There has been little change in attitudes towards a troop withdrawal since tracking of this question began last August.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of men think winning the war is more important, but only 30% of women agree. More than twice as many women (62%) say bringing the troops home is more important, while only 39% of men concur.

Voters still see Iraq as one of the biggest differences between the Presidential candidates. Nearly four out of five voters (78%) also continue to believe that finishing the mission is what is most important to Republican candidate John McCain. Nearly as many (76%) say bringing the troops home is primary to Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Voters remain more confident that Obama will achieve his goal by the end of his first four-year term if elected than they are in McCain reaching his in the same time period. Forty-nine percent (49%) believe the United States is at least somewhat likely to win the war under a President McCain, while only 24% think that is likely under an Obama administration. Twenty-nine percent (29%) rate it Very Likely under McCain.

But 66% think a President Obama is at least somewhat likely to bring the troops home in four years, but only 34% think that is likely if McCain is elected. Thirty-two percent (32) say it is Very Likely under Obama.

Obama has traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq on a fact-finding mission in the past week, but most voters believe his mind is already made up on what course to follow in the war.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of likely McCain voters think winning the war is the more important goal for the next president in his first term, while 86% of those who say they plan to vote for Obama say bringing the troops home is more important.

A similar number of Republicans (77%) give the edge to winning, while 79% of Democrats – and 51% of unaffiliated voters -- favor bringing the troops home.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of potential McCain voters think the U.S. is at least somewhat likely to win the war in Iraq if their candidate is elected, and 57% of them think he is likely to bring the troops home in four years. Only 18% of potential Obama voters think the U.S. is likely to win the war if McCain is elected.

Conversely, 78% percent of likely Obama voters think he will bring the troops home by the end of his first term, while only 37% of them think he is likely to win the war. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of potential McCain voters think Obama is likely to bring the troops home, too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center recently released a report criticizing both candidates tax plans. There has been some discussion here in which Obama has been criticized for not committing to balance the budget. This report suggests however, that McCain's plan would increase the national debt by more than one and half trillion dollars more than Obama's plan.

Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion. The deficit is now $9.5 trillion.

link

The Tax Policy Center doesn't examine spending, of course. But does anyone really believe that McCain would be able to reduce spending sufficiently to make up that difference? I'm not being snarky; this is not an area I know a lot about, and I can only look at the facts as I see them. I would be genuinely interested in hearing what folks have to say about this.