Twenty question For Barack Obama.

[jayhawk]

So far, because the mainstream media is smitten with him, Barack Obama has been able to get by running a campaign based on hope, change, unity, love, and rainbows made of cuddly kittens.

However, before we get around to coronating Barack as our new President/Cult of Unity Leader, there are a few questions he should have to answer before America starts drinking his Kool-Aid.

Granted, many members of our esteemed press seem to consider it crass to expect Obama to actually answer questions about unimportant things like his agenda, his character, and what he actually wants to do when he becomes the leader of the free world. That's why he would probably get away with doing what slick politicians like him always do when they're asked tough questions: lie, misdirect, and dodge.

But still, wouldn't it be great if there were some members of the mainstream media that at least had enough integrity to ask him the tough questions in the first place? Ok, you can stop laughing now. Let me put it another way: if there are any Hillary Clinton fans in the press who'd like to help derail Obama so that your preferred liberal candidate can win, start putting questions like these to him:

* You've made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity's sake?

* Along the same lines, John McCain has been behind numerous pieces of prominent bi-partisan legislation. So, if voters are looking for a candidate who can unify the country, wouldn't he be a better choice than you?

* If you didn't agree with Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American views, why did you take your own children to his church and expose them to what he had to say?

* If I may steal a question from Peter Weher, "With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist?"

* Could black voters trust a white candidate to fairly represent their interests even if he attended an anti-black church and was close friends with a prominent white minister who was famously hostile to black Americans?

* John Conyers has said that he intends to "move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations" if you become President. Would you support that legislation?

* Given our budget deficit, how can you justify giving away 845 billion dollars of our tax money to other nations over the next 13 years via your Global Poverty Act?

* In 2004, you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which is designed to keep gay marriage from being imposed on the country by judicial fiat. Do you think the American people and their representatives should have a right to decide whether or not they want gay marriage in their states? If the answer is "yes," how can you possibly square that with your opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act?

* Given that you're pro-partial birth abortion, would you support overturning the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003?

* You claim to support the 2nd Amendment, but why should people believe you when, in 1996, you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"

* Many people believe your plan for Iraq would be viewed as a huge victory for Al-Qaeda in much of the world, would lead to the collapse of democracy in that country, would boost Iran's standing in the region, and would lead to genocide on a massive scale. Do you believe that those things won't happen or do you believe that those are prices we should be willing to pay to leave Iraq?

* You've often spoken about what the positive effects of pulling out of Iraq will be, but what do you think the negative consequences of your choice to lose the war in Iraq will be?

* Given that we're fighting a war on terror, why do you think it's appropriate for you to continue to personally associate with terrorists like William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who bombed buildings on American soil, attempted to murder Army officers, and even today, publicly say that they have no regrets about their actions?

* Can you give a more convincing explanation for why you no longer wear a flag pin and why you famously chose not to hold your hand over your heart for our National Anthem?

* Your campaign has suggested that you should receive half the delegates from the state of Michigan even though your name wasn't even on the ballot. Given that your supporters helped thwart a re-vote, isn't that extraordinarily hypocritical, arrogant, and undemocratic of you?

* Given your past history of using cocaine, which is extremely addictive, would you be willing to regularly take drug tests during the campaign and when you're in the White House to insure Americans that you're not still using?

* You claimed that you "never saw or approved" an "Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire" that had you taking some embarrassingly liberal stands "on gun control, the death penalty and abortion." You chalked up those answers on the questionnaire to an overzealous aide. Yet, it turned out that you were blatantly lying and were actually interviewed for the questionnaire and even sent in your own handwritten notes. So, if you're willing to tell such a bald-faced lie to cover up your liberal positions, why should the American people believe you now when you claim, on issue after issue, to have flip flopped to a more moderate position than you held just a few years back?

* You personally, along with your campaign, have continuously and consistently lied and claimed that John McCain wants to fight a war in Iraq for the next 100 years. However, what he actually said -- and has repeated many times is, "Maybe (we'll be in Iraq for) 100 (years)...We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years, that'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Why have you continued to knowingly lie about this issue and why should voters trust what you say if you're going to deliberately try to mislead them in this fashion?

* After engaging in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko, a man who donated $10,000 from (an) alleged kickback scheme to your campaign, how can voters trust you to act in an ethical fashion in the White House?

* According to an April 23, 2007 article from the Chicago Sun-Times called "Barack Obama and his slumlord patron, "Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers." Do you have any regrets about teaming up with a slumlord to further your own political career on the backs of the very poor people you claimed to be helping?

The two question from that I would have to omit is the about the flag pin and his past drug use. Patriotism is not defined by trinkets worn on your body, but by your convictions. And George Bush had drug and alcohol problems some time ago too.

Still, it is plainly obvious that this guy is getting the kid gloves treatment from the press.

Source.

[Cobol74]

I think all Candidates for office everywhere should respectfully but robustly be challenged about their personality, policies and value systems. This goes for all democratic countries. BTW there are countries that are not democratic that do not have the word Democratic in their title, there are no democratic countries WITH the word Democratic in their title - self evidently.

I agree with Jay, from our coverage it does seem that he has not really been asked the difficult questions - but hey I am a foreigner, with limited media coverage of the election so I could be wrong.

[anti-net]

I agree this does appear to be a sort of childish at the moment with no real polices coming out of it, just bitching between McCain, Clinton and Obama

BUT the race hasn't really started, The Democrats need to decided who's going to be there candidate, I think it'll start to stop looking like such a mess when Hilary works out she's mad.

On that Liberal question, You've got to remeber all this campaigning is playing on party folk, so there going to jump to the left to get the hardcore Democrats on side. Come election I think the Liberalism and conversationalism will tame down a bit and both candidates will return to the centre ground.

[vegasrebel29]

Originally Posted by anti-net

I agree this does appear to be a sort of childish at the moment with no real polices coming out of it, just bitching between McCain, Clinton and Obama

BUT the race hasn't really started, The Democrats need to decided who's going to be there candidate, I think it'll start to stop looking like such a mess when Hilary works out she's mad.

On that Liberal question, You've got to remeber all this campaigning is playing on party folk, so there going to jump to the left to get the hardcore Democrats on side. Come election I think the Liberalism and conversationalism will tame down a bit and both candidates will return to the centre ground.

The left-right political paradigm is a myth.

[Zorg]

So how long would it take for you to come up with 20 equally probing questions for any of the candidates on either side of the divide? Wouldn't be that long, would it really...

[Twerp128]

I see Obama like the late President Kennedy. He is a great speaker and brings up these magic feelings of hope when you hear him. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty he can't really get anything passed. I don't see Obama as much as a unifier as Kennedy though, too liberal and he has a lack of reverence for his country.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Twerp128

he has a lack of reverence for his country.

Why does 'not wearing a tatty America flag pin' mean he doesn't respect America?

That's not sarcasm, I just honestly don't understand it.

[bafranksbro]

Originally Posted by teeb

Why does 'not wearing a tatty America flag pin' mean he doesn't respect America?

That's not sarcasm, I just honestly don't understand it.

It's not just that, it's his wife's comments about how she hasn't ever been proud of her country before and his latest comments. Also his reverend being anti-American, saying "Not god Bless America but God Damn America" not sure how we can have a President who associates himself with so many people around him that are against this country.

The media is deciding this election completely and I don't like it, they decided the Republican nominee and then tried to take him down and they've decided that Obama is going to be the president. They have influenced every bit of the election so far, it's out of control in my opinion.

[Twerp128]

Originally Posted by teeb

Why does 'not wearing a tatty America flag pin' mean he doesn't respect America?

That's not sarcasm, I just honestly don't understand it.

It's not that. I don't like his harsh words and comments toward the country. I've always tried to judge politicians not by their words but by their actions. Obama's record of flip flopping, mudslinging, saying he's middle of the road and then voting far left, and when he can't even show a little reverence during the national anthem.

It's just a little gesture that is a huge sign of respect. Respect to men who died for freedom, respect for those that fight for it now, respect to your fellow Americans, respect for your country and everything it stands for. And I'm all for challenging your country, democracy is great because it is so dynamic. But when you do it, you do it in a civil, professional fashion. I can't respect someone who goes gallivanting around basically whining about your country, your race, your peers. It's not a bad place to live and I got a newsflash for you 'Bama this country is why you can be the way you are and say what you wish.

[anti-net]

Originally Posted by bafranksbro

The media is deciding this election completely and I don't like it, they decided the Republican nominee and then tried to take him down and they've decided that Obama is going to be the president. They have influenced every bit of the election so far, it's out of control in my opinion.

Are they any laws that say the media have to be fair during an election? the as fair as I know BBC do have to be fair, and its part of the Royal Carter that allows the BBC to claim money of Gov't. I'm not sure about the other news outlets, Reuters appears to be quite fair but I think they did appear to side with Hilary for a while.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by anti-net

Are they any laws that say the media have to be fair during an election?

5 minutes of Fox News would tell you this is not the case.

I don't think they have to be fair in the US - they can spin or have bias in some regard. Feel free to correct me, though.

[Twerp128]

Nope and they're all biased, outside of CSPAN or channels that don't comment. Fox is far right most the others are left. NEWS in the US is pretty crap no matter how you cut it.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by teeb

5 minutes of Fox News would tell you this is not the case.

I don't think they have to be fair in the US - they can spin or have bias in some regard. Feel free to correct me, though.

On the flip side, 5 minutes of CNN would tell you likewise. C'mon teeb, you know that....

You are right though, our press can biased any which way they want; it is just that a very high percentage are biased towards left wing politics, but covering it up under the guise of "objective journalism".

[teeb]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

On the flip side, 5 minutes of CNN would tell you likewise. C'mon teeb, you know that....

True, true.

I get the impression though that Fox News is the worst offender in this regard (regardless of right- or left-wingness); although I am sure there are plenty people who think otherwise.

[phuckingduck]

Gonna avoid the main topic, but just answer a question.

The major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, maybe FOX) all have a basic agreement with the government. They were given the OTA signal ranges in return for a promise to provide news and information in an unbiased manner to the people of the country. The cable networks don't need to conform to this, as they don't have to follow FCC OTA guidelines.

CNN is lefty, but I'd say Glenn Beck definitely brings them back towards center. MSNBC has over the past two years tried to position themselves as the lefty answer to Fox. Fox was the network that really changed the game though. Fox brought Murdoch's typical media style to American mainstream. It definitely has a right lean to it, but following the old mantra 'Tell a lie enough times, and people will believe it' alot of people are of the impression that Fox is the only really honest and balanced network. Yeah, and Alan Colmes actually isn't a shill for Hannity. If you want news (although crappy news) watch the nightly news segments on the major OTA networks, and their local affiliates. If you want news in the form of opinion served to you on a fucking silver platter, pick and choose a cable news network. At the end of the day, just remember that the news segments are for profit. Too a much lesser degree for the OTA news, but still. And while this doesn't turn them into huge corporate propaganda machines, it does leave the opportunity for producers and news editors to carve a niche in the political spectrum too which they can cater their news stories. Right or left, they all have their niches.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

Gonna avoid the main topic, but just answer a question.

The major networks (A