Barack Obama Keynote Speech

A great speech - this man could be our first black president. Regarding libraries, and how we should not be separated into two groups (i.e., "red" states and "blue" states), Obama said, "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States." In case you missed it, or chose not to watch, here's the whole thing (should you care to read it!) windy city news


...we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States.

Any thoughts on why Mr. Obama failed to mention this supposed "poking" only applies to non-US citizens, who are already the target of an investigation and only after a court order?

I don't like federal agents poking around my (Red State) libraries. Maybe Mr.Obama should have qualified it with "We, except for Tomeboy, don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States." Maybe he'll be more clear the next time. For the time being, Mr.Obama and I are finding increasing common cause.

Kerry said he wanted to be America's second black>. We can't have to firsts can we :)

Interesting sleuthing, but it really has no connection to the subject at hand (Obama), at least I don't think so.

Perhaps a more accurate rebuttal would be, "We, except for tomeboy and 56% of Americans, don't like federal agents poking around ....."

Roper Center at University of Connecticut
May 3, 2004

Which statement comes closer to your view about the Patriot Act passed after 9/11 (September 11, 2001, the date of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon)?...The Patriot Act gave to law enforcement officials the same tools to fight terror that they already had to fight crime, and it is a necessary step to protect the country from another terrorist attack. The Patriot Act uses terrorism as an excuse to extend the power of the federal government to pry into people's private lives, and it tramples on Americans' civil liberties.

  • Patriot Act necessary - 56%

  • Patriot Act hurts civil liberties - 33

  • Don't know/No opinion - 11
  • I'll clarify it further for you. "We, except for Tomeboy and 56% he found on a Roper Center poll, don't like federal agents poking around..." I get this sense that Mr.Obata caused some uneasiness in some of the more "conservative" quarters at LisNews. It seems almost desperate.

    Sorry, I was just making a little joke (this the smiley emoticon). I recall Kerry saying he wanted to be America's second black president a few months ago. I assumed that Clinton would have been the first black president. I guess I should never had made my comment, or perhaps Kerry never should have made his.

    I see no problem with a black president, in fact I think it would be a refreshing change. Although I think Dr. Rice or Secretary Powell would be better choices (although Powell has said he would not serve). However many outspoken> have called Rice and Powell 'Uncle Tom'.

    Do we want a black president only if he is a Democrat? One would think so with prominent Democrats hurling insults like "Uncle Tom's Cabinet" at our distinguished leaders, and the Revered Jackson and Reverend Sharpton speaking ill of them as well. I guess a self made black man or woman who is not a Democrat can't get anywhere in this country without being insulted and ostracized by the people he or she is working for.

    Too bad I would have voted for Rice or Powell.

    I'd be glad to consider Powell for President. Ms.Rice is a maybe (she has this little authoritarian streak that is unappealing). Jackson and Sharpton? Charlatans of the worst type. You find the same with "white folks" (you need merely look at some of the current administration or the previous one for that matter). You seem to veer really close to oldfashioned racebaiting. You seem nervous, too.

    By "YOU", whom do you mean? I personally don't think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are identical, even though they're both ministers and both urban, both Democrats and both black. But this discussion is getting a bit BEYOND my original intention, which was to share Barack Obama's keynote speech.

    Then I'd have to say Mr. Obama did a good job, having read the whole speech last night. Of course, you may have focused on the one library-centric item he said, which I guess is a good thing to do for LISNews.

    I'm more concerned about other people's misleading statements like "Iraq has a working relationship with al-Qaeda." A conclusion shown to be wrong by both the 9/11 Commission and the recent Senate intelligence report.

    That having been said, since Mr. Obama and the poll you cited dealt with FEELINGS, you may have a point. Although if you asked a polling question of "Do you think it is right for the federal government to see the records of what you've bought in bookstores or checked out of a library, I doubt you'd get a 56% agreement rating." On the other hand, if you phrased the question as "Do you think law enforcement agencies should have access to terrorist reading records?" I'm positive you'd get an 80% agreement with that. It's all how you phrase the question.

    "You" as in he I was replying to (Mdoneil). I do find similarities beyond race, etc. with Reverends Jackson and Sharpton. I agree, the discussion is getting a little beyond your good intentions, Birdie. I just feel a need to respond when I read the usual suspects (the neoCon cadre) and hear the usual high-pitched whine. "Obama made a speech and he's one of them who isn't one of us and we better do something!", which is why we get some poll results about the Patriot Act and some truly bizarre remarks about being the first/second Black President. It was a good speech and I thank you for calling attention to it, Birdie.

    My pleasure Makhno. It was a good speech indeed.

    You feel free to respond Makhno. And feel free to label me as just another suspect of the neoCon cadre here; desperate, nervous or just plain scared. Whatever makes you happy makes me happy.

    But here's another little nugget. While your busy name calling and whining about dissent, I'm dealing with facts that I presumed most of library colleagues would at the very least respect. (You may want to take a peek at Daniel's reply to my "poll results" as an example)

    Obviously you've proven me wrong on that score.

    I'm not sure why saying that I'd vote for any person without regard for the DNA arrangement if they had sound, reasoned principles I support would be race baiting.

    Nervous, hardly. In the overall scheme of things nothing will change much no matter who is elected, it will be unpleasant for some citizens no matter who is elected. Carter didn't ruin the country I would suppose Kerry wouldn't either no matter how hard he might try. I as a conservative managed to make it through 8 years of the previous administration, I'm sure I'll survive the next 4 no matter who is elected. However I am still going to vote for the person I feel will do the best job. There is no reason for me to be nervous.

    Of course I have options that the average American citizen does not. I can work in the EU and I can afford to move. I have to vote so that other Americans who are not as fortunate as I will be safe and secure for the next 4 years. Nervous- no, concerned- yes.

    Its possible he could be the first black president. If he means half of what he says I'd vote for him. Going by what he said about people being equal he must be for a flat tax and against preferences. Those alone are worth voting for.

    We've got two powerful white guys who call themselves black president #1 and #2, Mdoneil mentions it as a joke, and Makhno says he's racebaiting. Hmm. That's really odd parsing.