The kid basically says nothing substantive. We've got to have a public private partnership the wise youth says. Dude, hold the presses. Like wow, now I understand!
No I don't.The statement means nothing without details.In fact it could hint at the line that will be taken to AVOID change, real change in health care.
At the beginning a selling point is that Obama can best beat McCain. At the end he might vote for McCain. My my, I have a bridge to sell you.
It's a planned interview pretending to be a spontaneous interview.
But even if it were spontaneous, the guy doesn't really say anything that would support any side in the debate. Unless you buy his rah rah, and as far as the knowledge subs...

The kid basically says nothing substantive. We've got to have a public private partnership the wise youth says. Dude, hold the presses. Like wow, now I understand!
No I don't.The statement means nothing without details.In fact it could hint at the line that will be taken to AVOID change, real change in health care.
At the beginning a selling point is that Obama can best beat McCain. At the end he might vote for McCain. My my, I have a bridge to sell you.
It's a planned interview pretending to be a spontaneous interview.
But even if it were spontaneous, the guy doesn't really say anything that would support any side in the debate. Unless you buy his rah rah, and as far as the knowledge substance of Obama's fans, one person does not prove anything on that point any more than an interview of a kid with drool breath would substantiate that side of the stereotype.
So to ratilfar and AcesLucky, you overselling of what amounts to no evidence even if taken on its best view, demonstrates the blindness that was referred to above your remarks.

The point I'm making is that the YouTube thing is offered as something substantive and as evidence of knowledgeable Obama fans. It is neither.

What would be?

What could he have said different that would have made the difference in your mind that his answers were thoughtful, honest, and legitimate?

And did you notice that he actually "gave" answers to each question, on the spot? (As opposed to your still not coming up with any to those questions.)

He's clearly a lot more knowledgeable than you want to give credit for. Could your answers have possibly been any better, even after the time to think them through?

And do you have proof that the YouTube is...

read more»

The point I'm making is that the YouTube thing is offered as something substantive and as evidence of knowledgeable Obama fans. It is neither.

What would be?

What could he have said different that would have made the difference in your mind that his answers were thoughtful, honest, and legitimate?

And did you notice that he actually "gave" answers to each question, on the spot? (As opposed to your still not coming up with any to those questions.)

He's clearly a lot more knowledgeable than you want to give credit for. Could your answers have possibly been any better, even after the time to think them through?

And do you have proof that the YouTube is actually extemporaneous?

Ah. Perhaps it was staged, in other words, right?

Were his answers so good as to make you wonder that? If he had babbled his way through, appearing to not know anything, would that have been a better sign of extemporaneousness?

Would that have been more consistent with your expectations?

Instead, the young man seems halfway intelligent so you question if it was staged. That's okay.

We all have certain assumptions about things. But the fact of your suspicion betrays an assumption: that had his answers been stupid, you'd never have thought them rehearsed.

A young black guy appearing intelligent? Red flag! Incongruent with images brought to you by mainstream media.

Nevertheless, you might be right. Perhaps they were. Perhaps he'd actually thought out these differences before meeting the interviewer. Perhaps the interviewer was "in" on it, conspiring to appear intelligent against all expectations. You might be right.

It all does seems a bit suspicious.

Well I think it was perhaps staged for more than one reason.
I never saw one hint of any doubt between the two as to how long the interview would last. Neither ever doubted that the other was on for more give and take.
The kid was with other Obama supporters carrying signs. The camera man seen at the end seemed to be with the group and the interviewer, who is never shown, which is unusual for real interviews could have also been with them.
The kids father is a Pediatrician.
At one point the interviewer seems to jump on the kids bandwagon.
The kid claims falsely to be an Independent.
The kid just happens to be Black but that is never mentioned. At least some of his fellows were Black. Race ...

Well I think it was perhaps staged for more than one reason.
I never saw one hint of any doubt between the two as to how long the interview would last. Neither ever doubted that the other was on for more give and take.
The kid was with other Obama supporters carrying signs. The camera man seen at the end seemed to be with the group and the interviewer, who is never shown, which is unusual for real interviews could have also been with them.
The kids father is a Pediatrician.
At one point the interviewer seems to jump on the kids bandwagon.
The kid claims falsely to be an Independent.
The kid just happens to be Black but that is never mentioned. At least some of his fellows were Black. Race is never mentioned which is as phony as interviewing Hillary and never noticing that she's a woman.
Only one issue was discussed. Very unlikely in a real interview.
And the really big one, I am a distrusting sort of person. I do not take unsubstantiated claims at face value.
Now in this last post you just outright get nasty. Got news for you. Colin Powell is very intelligent. Condi Rice is very intelligent. They both became whores for the Bush Administration, very sadly in Powell's case. Karl Rove is very intelligent. Condi and Rove are professionals. Powell perhaps a victim, but he sure blew it big time. Intelligence and race has nothing to do with it. Of the 3, I despise Condi the most, but that could just be because I've had to see her while Rove operates behind the scenes.
Finally, it doesn't matter how the tape was rigged. The fact is, the tape would never have been put on YouTube if it didn't say what was wanted. Whether a set up was done, or instead it was done by interviewing a hundred different people until one said the words that were wanted in the way they were wanted doesn't matter.The story was selected, it is only one story out of millions that could turn out the same or very differently, it presents only one limited side and magic hope was the only game played.

Okay. What could he have possibly said to make you think otherwise?

The fact is, the tape would never have been put on YouTube if it didn't say what was wanted.

You mean by supporters!

Had he been a blithering idiot, he most certainly would have, except by the opposing sides.

Whether a set up was done, or instead it was done by interviewing a hundred different people until one said the words that were wanted in the way they were wanted doesn't matter.The story was selected, it is only one story out of millions that could turn out the same or very differently..

With this, I certainly agree. I don't think that interview was a one-shot random 'we're going to br...

Okay. What could he have possibly said to make you think otherwise?

The fact is, the tape would never have been put on YouTube if it didn't say what was wanted.

You mean by supporters!

Had he been a blithering idiot, he most certainly would have, except by the opposing sides.

Whether a set up was done, or instead it was done by interviewing a hundred different people until one said the words that were wanted in the way they were wanted doesn't matter.The story was selected, it is only one story out of millions that could turn out the same or very differently..

With this, I certainly agree. I don't think that interview was a one-shot random 'we're going to broadcast whatever happens' kind of thing.

It was sort of like watching Fox news in reverse.

It may be my own bias, but I truly don't think we'd be discussing this if the young man's answers weren't intelligent. In fact it is BECAUSE his answers are intelligent that we're discussing whether the interview was contrived.

And to me, that's a sad commentary.

It emphatically IS possible for a young black man to give reasonably intelligent answers, even if the interview wasn't planed.

Do you disagree with this?

No.Honestly no, and you do seem to be sincerely asking the question.
He sounds intelligent and he is Black. Neither of those things have anything to do with my response.
It was you that made it a question of an intelligent answer. The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.I don't care how intelligent the youth is or isn't; what matters is that he never said one thing Obama ever did that shows why Obama is the candidate to elect. Nor did his public private talk tell me one thing about what that looks like in the real world. At bottom his answer is the same thing, no substance, just t...

No.Honestly no, and you do seem to be sincerely asking the question.
He sounds intelligent and he is Black. Neither of those things have anything to do with my response.
It was you that made it a question of an intelligent answer. The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.I don't care how intelligent the youth is or isn't; what matters is that he never said one thing Obama ever did that shows why Obama is the candidate to elect. Nor did his public private talk tell me one thing about what that looks like in the real world. At bottom his answer is the same thing, no substance, just trust Obama's magic touch.
In the beginning he says that technically all 3 have the same program (except Obama leaves people out) and then the real selling point is Hillary is too partisan but he can reach out; ie magic and I don't think Republicans or Health Insurance people are going to see Obama as non partisan when actual oxes start getting gored.
I simply said what I meant and mean. He doesn't really say anything substantive and one intelligent, knowledgeable person does not a nation of knowledgeable Obama supporters make.
And again, it doesn't matter how intelligent the next salesman for attacking Iran is, it's not their brain I care about, it's the damage they intend and do they REALLY have valid reasons to cause that damage. To cite an example of my approach.

The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.

So you're seeing it as a political contrivance and nothing more? (A made to order ad spot appearing to be of a genuine impromptu interview?)

If that's the case, I can respect that and it might even be true. Candidates "bate" the audience with accomplices all the time.

But I'm curious, what could he have possibly said to make you think it was a genuine answer, supposing that it was.

For example: tell me exactly what McCain's medical insurance plan is, in the "win you over" detail that you expected from a quick interview of ...

The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.

So you're seeing it as a political contrivance and nothing more? (A made to order ad spot appearing to be of a genuine impromptu interview?)

If that's the case, I can respect that and it might even be true. Candidates "bate" the audience with accomplices all the time.

But I'm curious, what could he have possibly said to make you think it was a genuine answer, supposing that it was.

For example: tell me exactly what McCain's medical insurance plan is, in the "win you over" detail that you expected from a quick interview of this fellow?

Since you haven't answered yet (and I've asked), my guess is that you can't give an answer any better than this young fellow.

So why the red flag, when there is no possible answer he could have given that would have changed your mind?

He was asked the "differences" between these candidates on medical insurance, and he gave them.

The interviewer asked nothing about "just trust Obama's magic touch". You brought that to the table all on your own.

I'm merely suggesting (as part of my own particular bias) that your assumptions might be rooted in the fact that the fellow unexpectedly gave reasonably good answers to the questions that were asked.

But more importantly, were his answers false? Take away the biases, mine, yours, age, gender, race, ...

Were the differences he described, true or false? I think that's the essence of the clip. Those are the differences upon which votes can be hinged. (Not the person who gave the answers.)

And I think that's partly what you're saying, too, correct?

Sorry, I just am not a believer.
Only a 'believer' would vote for Obama, there is no rational reason to do so.
If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."
You see something real like that, not hype about audacity of hope which when you think about it, is repackaged evangelical preaching ie the think positive school of sal...

Sorry, I just am not a believer.
Only a 'believer' would vote for Obama, there is no rational reason to do so.
If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."
You see something real like that, not hype about audacity of hope which when you think about it, is repackaged evangelical preaching ie the think positive school of salesmanship.
You ask whether his answers were false. How should I know. He said Obama's plan was voluntary. I have no idea what that means in the real world. I mean voluntary has never been outlawed so it's nothing new. Clinton says you have to do as much as possible to include everyone in from the get go, and I think that sounds right. Leave it TRULY voluntary and nothing would come of it. So what's Obama's definition of voluntary?
And so on.
One thing that Obama has said that is either pure stage acting or foolishness bordering on the insane if he did it, is his posture about talking with America's enemies. One need go no further than the betrayal of Arafat at Camp David and the vicious hell the Palestinians have suffered as a result to see what happens when one foolishly sits down to negotiate with someone out to screw you.

If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."

Excellent. Now compare that to what you know about McCain, or Clinton. Any compare remotely with the type of answer you're looking for?

Easily, no. (Remember, I've been asking all along if you knew anything about the others' plans.)

Do you thus have the s...

If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."

Excellent. Now compare that to what you know about McCain, or Clinton. Any compare remotely with the type of answer you're looking for?

Easily, no. (Remember, I've been asking all along if you knew anything about the others' plans.)

Do you thus have the same disdain for either of the other candidates? In other words, do you use the same measure for them?

If so, doesn't look like you'll be voting!

As far as talking to our enemies...

Perhaps we should examine "why" they became our enemies. Hint. It wasn't anything "they" did! We (in America) have a tendency to export our own brand of terrorism. We just label it differently.

And when they fight back, we label them terrorists. But that's a bit off topic; sorry.

It's just that more of the same ain't gonna cut it. The world is getting tired of it. I know I am. And right now, any change is better than the folly of this current administration. And I think a lot people feel that way.

To the first part. I may very well be deciding not to vote. I do not like any of the candidates but I might vote for Nader. In 2000 voting for Nader I would have considered a wasted vote. Today, my vote is wasted no matter if the one I vote for gets elected unless Nader was elected.
I would vote for Hillary over Obama. I don't trust either one of them, and they both are wrong on a key issue with me, but she is real, he is a complete unknown quantity who is good at making speeches but can hardly talk to judge by a conference call he had with Jewish leaders to express his loyalty to them. In fact, it sounded like he could have been reading answers typed on a screen if the typist was a slow one...

To the first part. I may very well be deciding not to vote. I do not like any of the candidates but I might vote for Nader. In 2000 voting for Nader I would have considered a wasted vote. Today, my vote is wasted no matter if the one I vote for gets elected unless Nader was elected.
I would vote for Hillary over Obama. I don't trust either one of them, and they both are wrong on a key issue with me, but she is real, he is a complete unknown quantity who is good at making speeches but can hardly talk to judge by a conference call he had with Jewish leaders to express his loyalty to them. In fact, it sounded like he could have been reading answers typed on a screen if the typist was a slow one.
There is no rational reason other than hype to vote for Obama and if my judgment of his character is correct, if he gets elected, very many people supporting him are not going to end up happy.
On the second part, I agree with who and why we have many of our enemies and with the unfairness of the way the USA treats others and many times its own people, and I agree with the need for us to talk. Which the US has done in the past. Bush is the one that created this insane atmosphere that Obama is now trying to exploit for his own personal political gain because many naive people will be charmed by his claimed willingness to sit down and talk.
The problem is that negotiating on behalf of a country is not the same thing as negotiating for yourself. Do it for yourself and you only get yourself screwed. Do it for a country and you can get a whole lot of people paying the price for your over estimation of your skills at negotiating.
That is what happened to Arafat at Camp David although to be fair to Arafat, he was betrayed by Clinton, but he should never have trusted Clinton in the first place. A wise leader gets a very good picture of what will and will not result before he puts his countries future on the line. There can be tons of talks in private and that is very desirable.