Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Inquirer Daily News

Can We Handle The Truth?

One of the editors poked me with a stick yesterday; he wanted me to write about Barak Obama's speech in Philadelphia. As a result, I spent about three hours last night flopping around in bed like a fish on a dock.

Can We Handle The Truth?

0 comments

Obama One of the editors poked me with a stick yesterday; he wanted me to write about Barak Obama's speech in Philadelphia. As a result, I spent about three hours last night flopping around in bed like a fish on a dock.

It's not that I had ignored the speech. It was impossible to, seeing how everywhere I looked in the newsroom, people were watching, whether gathered around a TV, or plugged into their computers. But I was working on something else - a piece about the unmeritorious way that Pennsylvania picks its judges. Every time I started talking about judicial elections and the lack of minority representation, the conversation worked back to Obama's speech, in which he condemned the offensive remarks of his former pastor, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then went on with naked honesty to say things about how blacks and white see America.

"The most honest political speech I have ever heard," two people told me that day. Same exact words.

I went to sleep convinced that Obama had taken the third rail of American politics -- race -- and turned it into a balance beam from which he pronounced the most difficult truths.

And about 1 a.m. I woke up thinking we are not ready for the truth. I don't think we're ready for Obama. I thought we were. I was naive.

When my wife and I would talk about the Democrat candidates for president I kept telling her that her Hillary was unelectable. I'd recall the eight hours I spent in a room with her in 1985, as she sat in for her husband the goveror and talked to a dozen education reporters about school reform in Arkansas. I was blown away by her brilliance. And then I'd tell my wife that Hillary is just what the opposition wants. No one would energize the base like another Clinton to hate, and we'd be caught rehashing the past when the need to fix the present is so urgent.

Obama is the unelectable one, my wife, the reconstructed Southerner, would reply. Despite lip service, she argued, in the privacy of the voting booth too many white people will not be able to pull for a person of color. A few months later, I'm coming around to my wife's position.

After Obama's speech I went blog hunting, and the headline on the Politico site left me dismayed: "GOP sees Rev. Wright as path to victory." They look at Obama. They see his angry pastor.

"It was a speech written to mau-mau the New York Times editorial board, the network production people and the media into submission," said GOP consultant Rick Wilson, who was behind the 2002 ad that tied former Sen. Max Cleland, a Vietnam war-wounded Democrat from Georgia, to Osama bin Laden. "Beautifully calibrated but deeply dishonest." It didn't take long to spin poetry.

Hate was all around. In the words of the Clinton volunteer at a Philadelphia phone bank who told an Los Angeles Times reporter that he was voting for Hillary because "I love the Lord and I don't want a person named Al-Barack Hussein Obama to be our next president."

In the work of an aide to John McCain who was suspended on Thursday for spreading on the Internet a race-baiting YouTube video that mashes Obama's words with those of Rev. Wright, Malcolm X and the Public Enemy song "Fight The Power."

And in a posting on the BooMan Tribune, a liberal Philadelphia-based blog. The writer, an Obama supporter, had scored a seat at the National Constitution Center for Tuesday's speech, and afterward was walking through The Gallery when he sat down and searched for a wireless signal for his computer.

"An elderly white woman sat down next to me and was silent for a little while. Then she said, "That's where my tax dollars go."

I looked up at her, not knowing what she was referring to, and asked, "Excuse me?".

She nodded at a group of young early-20's black people (some with a baby carriage) walking by, and repeated herself. The people she was referring to were nicely dressed and appeared to be enjoying themselves as they window-shopped in the mall. I think I just mumbled something like "Mmmn" and returned my attention to my laptop. Then the elderly woman said, "Do you know that Hillary is coming here today?"

I nodded, "Yes. I just came from seeing Obama."

She frowned at this news and then said, "I'm very excited to see Hillary. She knows how to deal with (she swept her hand around to indicate the mall crowd) this." I excused myself.

Part of me wonders whether this anecdote was a bit of bloggy stagecraft to advance the Obama cause. But you don't have to make up something like this. It's everywhere.

It reminded me of what I heard covering Europe and the Middle East from 2000 to 2003. The Kosovars blaming the Serbs. The Serbs blaming the Americans. The Palestinians blaming the Jews, the Jews blaming the Palestinians. Each nation intoxicated by its own victimhood. Drying out is difficult when it feels so right to have been wronged. You don't have to go about the hard work of moving forward that Obama talked about in Philadelphia.

I listened again to the Obama speech Friday morning as I walked the dog. As he explained the resentments harbored by both black people and white people -- the two separate realities -- I remembered the last time I said something to set off a minor racial incident at work. I was talking to a cherished colleague, who is black, and she was mourning the number of minorities who lost their jobs at the paper during last year's layoffs because they were among the most recent hires.

At least it will be easier for them to get jobs, I said. I was trying to say something helpful. I wound up saying something hurtful. What made me think it would be easier? she asked. She didn't make eye contact with me again for days. I insisted to myself I was right. Wait a year, then we'll see. In fact, it has little to do with numbers, everything to do with perception. Each convinced we were right, each a little buzzed on our victimhood. At least we're starting to talk about this.

not4clinton
Posted 03/21/2008 12:54:16 PM
I live in Kentucky. Yes, I know people here who wouldn't consider voting for Obama regardless of his politics.   They won't vote for him for one reason only, his skin color.  I was raised to believe the opportunities in America are endless.   I'm a 58 yr. Native American female and I know first hand about bias in various forms.   I refused to believe I couldn't rise above both the racial and gender prejudice I experienced along the way. 

To say our country isn't ready for a black president is self defeating.  The country is ready and like any growing experience sometimes there is discomfort along the way.  As many know its getting through the hard times in life that makes us stronger. Its time we learn from all those energized young people who are wise enough to grasp the inspiration and opportunity Sen Obama is giving us and elect him as our next president.   




Jay
Posted 03/21/2008 03:23:01 PM
It's a shame we're not ready for this. We're not ready for a president who is going to make us think. Say nothing, evoke no response, get elected. 
That's the message we send to our leaders, and then we complain that those in power are weak-willed and unable. 
We get what we ask for.
ktlin
Posted 03/21/2008 03:25:16 PM
I am from Illinois and also thought that maybe some don't want the truth.  Obama has had to deal with the truth all his life and realizes that he has to deal with the truth while running for president.  He has been all alone in front of everyone of whom many are waiting to take pot shots at him for any misstep. But in the end everyone who hears him speak will realize at some level that it is he who is speaking the truth and many of us are still in the state of denial.  Once we get past that then we can look candidly at Obama and Hillary and truthfully know which candidate has been tested and ready to answer a 3 AM call.  They may not like it but they will still know.  
Tiffany
Posted 03/21/2008 03:37:57 PM
It saddens me to say this, but I'm starting to believe that it might be true that America isn't ready for a black president.  Based on the reaction that I am seeing on many blogs, etc., it is beginning to seem as if mainstream Americans were ready for Obama when they believed, on some level, that he wasn't really black.  Now, when they see him deeply ensconced within a congregation whose leader said a few things that a.) they despise, and b.) confirms their deepest suspicions about what black people really think, they are running away from him in droves.  

It doesn't matter that Obama himself doesn't agree with those statements; after all, he heard statements that were (allegedly) akin to those statements, and he stayed in the church (it also doesn't matter that, number one, we don't know what they were, and number two, that Wright said MANY things over the years that were positive and uplifting).  It doesn't matter that there is truth in some of Wright's statements (even if they are expressed in a way that mainstream America doesn't want to hear) -- for instance, America IS run by a white power structure, and unless I miss my guess Hillary Clinton HASN'T ever been called the "n" word.  The fact that people find that statement offensive is so mind-boggling that I can barely respond to it.  
Finally, it doesn't even matter if many Americans who criticize Obama for not leaving the church have questions of their own to answer about their continued allegiance to their own churches which have made mistakes that are INFINITELY more egregious than anything that Wright ever said.

The only thing that seems to matter is the fact that now, Obama is quite firmly the 'black' candidate, and America won't vote for a president that it believes is actually black.  I am firmly convinced that the only black who can succeed in a presidential election is one who is genetically black but culturally white.

Maybe America will prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope.


Lieut
Posted 03/21/2008 03:47:33 PM
Whether America is "ready" to elect an African American President is a moot point.  Obama simply isn't qualified to be President.  He is remarkably naive on many national matters, particularly the American military.  His endless rants about "hope" are already wearing thin with many Americans.  It takes a lot more than "hope" to effectively lead the United States.  And for a guy who talks about "change" every chance he gets, isn't it AMUSING that Obama is now calling for a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION of the State Dept. snooping on his passport information?

Democrats have been whining for congressional investigations into just about EVERYTHING for 7 1/2 years.

Same old stuff in a different package.
brian
Posted 03/21/2008 04:45:10 PM
"Part of me wonders whether this anecdote was a bit of bloggy stagecraft to advance the Obama cause..."

Why would you add it, then?  It does come off as a way too convenient encounter from a blog that I've never heard of before.  Sounds like something Scott Templeton from The Baltimore Sun (from the last season of The Wire) would make up. I mean, what is the old lady saying?  That HRC is going to get blacks to stop procreating and wasting time at the mall?   
Andy
Posted 03/21/2008 04:52:40 PM
I'm ready for Obama!  Hillary is a corrupt back-stabbing liar and McCain is worse.  Barack, despite what you have written, is capable of motivating people who are FOR him and not merely people who are AGAINST the alternative.
Carolyn
Posted 03/21/2008 05:00:50 PM
oh please, please, please someone tell me why someone so morally compromised as "GOP consultant Rick Wilson", who slandered Max Cleland with the worst of lies for political gain, is able to publicly speak his venom virtually without censure.  Compare this to our treatment of a man who is trying to lead the people who want to take this country to a higher ground. It is not Mr. Obama who is being judged.  We are.  If we allow the dirty tricks people to ONCE AGAIN manipulate us into the lowewt common denominators of stupidity & prejudice, we will surely get what we deserve.  We don't have to go along with this; we can ignore & censure the creeps & liars & weasels.  We can make our leaders accountable for REAL issues, not follow the manipulators over the cliff once again.  We can begin the work to repair our democracy.  We can take our government back.  Yes. We. Can.
an observer
Posted 03/21/2008 05:09:02 PM
I was unaware that so many Americans live in the blissful state of ignorance.
c-note
Posted 03/21/2008 05:13:15 PM
Wow.  Calling Hillary "brilliant" should automatically disqualify anyone's opinion as ridiculous, but Mr. Rubin continues on to basically make the case that Senator Obama's beneath the surface prejudices, combined with the open displays of dislike for the country he intends to lead (i.e. his spiritual advisor being an America-hater, his wife only being proud of this great nation when her husband’s campaign gained traction, and educating us all on how we are bread to be "typical white people") are not the issue – it is us who are the issue because WE are not ready for such "truth".

Mr. Rubin should be grateful to have employment and the insulation of being in the written media world, so addressing him is worthless.  This is to anyone over the age of 26 that is actually considering pulling the lever for Senator Obama.  I just have one question: Please enlighten me as to what experience he has that makes him qualified to lead the most powerful and influential nation on the face of the Earth - to be responsible for being the executive of a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $13.8 trillion?  

In making your case, please avoid the following:

Avoind pointing to others behavior/experience to make your point, i.e. "well so-and-so didn’t have experience" or "so-and-so had experience and he was a bad president" – the tools of a weak mind like Mr. Rubin’s – please focus on the Senator specifically.

Avoind using totally abstract and subjective things like "hope", "change" or "the future" unless you can support them with hard facts as to HOW those things will be accomplished.

I’m interested to hear some substance and not just eloquently delivered rhetoric…

c-note
Posted 03/21/2008 05:52:55 PM
Oh, and Tiffany, I didn’t really take offense to Mr. Wright saying that America is run by a white power structure, or that Hillary was never referred to as one of the worst slurs in the English language – both are probably true.  And I realize that based on your stunning naivety you may not be capable of critical thinking, but do you think, perhaps, that the offensive part of what Mr. Wright has said was maybe that AIDS was "created" to kill off people of color?  Or maybe it was that "GD America" thing?  Or maybe even it’s the fact that Mr. Wright bestowed an honor on Louis Farrakhan, one of this country’s most outspoken racists?  Or, maybe it’s that this is not just a church affilitation for the Senator (as you take your swipes at Catholics)…I don’t recall a presidential candidate referring to a pedophile as his "spiritual advisor for over 20 years" that would enable you to excuse away the Senator’s association with an admitted racist and America-hater.  Nah…I’m sure you’re right about the Hillary thing. 

I think my favorite Tiffanyism would be when you so brilliantly state that that "Wright said MANY things over the years that were positive and uplifting".  Simply brilliant.  So, I guess that if the disgusting David Duke had a litany of "positive and uplifting" statements, it would make his vile venom okydoky right?  Or if Bull Connor had a simply wonderful philanthropy for the poor, that it would make him not so despicable?

I truly hope that you are simply young and naïve.  If not, then by all means please keep repeating to yourself "gas on the right, brake on the left" so as to limit your effect on us all to only a random mindless blog entry.    

Joel
Posted 03/21/2008 05:54:12 PM
Obama missed the opportunity to demonstrate his credibity when he failed to repudiate the irreverant reverand for his rascism and bigotry.  He needed to denounce Wright and his remarks in no uncertain terms.  He can still love him like he was "his crazy old uncle", but he needed to be stronger in his criticism of Wright.  Instead of trotting out the tired old excuses for the rev, based on slavery, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, Obama needed to drop the eloquence and take Wright to task. If he can't stand up to Wright, how can we expect him to stand up to the likes of Achmadinijad.

He blew it and it will probably cost him the election.
Mike
Posted 03/22/2008 01:43:48 AM
Only someone who didn't hear the speech would say that Senator Obama never 'repudiated' Rev Wright because he did. The first 5 minutes of his speech was directed right at Rev. Wright. Are you sure that you were in the same room I was? I was there too ... with a veterans group.
Lis
Posted 03/22/2008 02:42:12 AM
People, use your noodles and think about this for a moment...diplomacy in action.  Senator Obama is able to motivate people to come together despite their differences by finding common ground that outweighs those differences. Senator Obama also practices what he preaches, as demonstrated by both his speech and his actions when it comes to the now all-the-sudden famous Rev. Wright.  What Mrs.Clinton fails to realize is this...reality.  You want a candidate who can actually work well with other countries, ESPECIALLY the ones who look at us now and laugh at our government and our people. We are in a big mess.  We've managed to demolish Iraq, kill off thousands of innocent civilians not to mention our own military, leave too many without basic necessities that we too often take for granted here, and then turn around and say Go Hillary?!!!...She's part responsible for the mess we are in now!..and you think she can demonstrate diplomacy and expect to be received as a diplomat at the same time to the very people's land she helped demolish??? That's laughable. I'm sure it's laughable to the rest of the world as well.  She can't even be "diplomatic" enough to reach out to Mr. Wright...and ask him herself to please explain so that she may try to understand....she did nothing, but hope that it would help boost her canidacy. She chose divisiveness over diplomacy...and her supporters are proud of it! If she can't practice diplomacy here in her own country..(oops, i mean the people's country), she sure as hell isn't prepared to do so to those foreign to us...and the truth be told...many of those countries far exceed the mistakenly perceived "hatred" of mr. wright.  don't be stupid now. This is common sense!! 
Andrew E. Greenberg
Posted 03/22/2008 09:57:42 AM
Mr. Obama has the ultimate American story. He represents the best in this country and he recognizes that only in the United States would he be in a position to make this run. He is a true patriot. His speech, which did include a strong repudiation of the stupid comments of a pastor who is really a relic of the past, actually taught us something. I can't remember when a national political figure did such a thing. It was a majestic moment. The notion that Obama cannot be elected is belied by the evidence. He has won many more states, many more delegates and many more votes than Mrs. Clinton. He was just endorsed by a very important figure, Bill Richardson, and continues to build his superdelegate tally. Hang in there - don't worry - do what Mr. Obama did when he received his 3 am telephone call - maintain your poise - be calm and recognize that in the end, not just intelligence, but class, decency and hope will prevail in this race.          
Douglas
Posted 03/22/2008 10:00:01 AM
While some people may not vote for Obama because they perceive him to be a "Black" man, they should consider this - he could just as easily say he is "White".

Suppose Obama did not visibly associate himself with "Blacks" and had mostly "White" associates (family, friends, church, etc).  Would we still be having this discussion?

Note: I use quotations for black and white because they, in my view, are terms used to divide rather than identify.  As a "Black" man, my skin is brown and as I've never seen a "White" person rather I've seen individuals with pale skin that is not even close to white.
ktlin
Posted 03/22/2008 10:00:37 AM
Good point about Hillary being divisive?  From the very moment she stepped foot on the national stage years ago she was denigrating someone.  The first time was when she said she could have stayed home and baked cookies.  She also said when she got to the White House that she was surprised at how negatively a lot of people responded to them. That was long ago and should have been her clue to change her attitude and strategies right then and there.  However, in Iowa she badmouthed Mississippi and it cost her.  Before Fla and MI she said she knew their votes wouldn't count without batting an eye and then suddenly when she needed them she was trying to get them riles up so they wouldn't be disenfranchised. And of course she was saying it was Obama's fault??? We saw the before and after.  Bill tried to get away with badmouthing Jesse Jackson and Obama in SC.  I think looking back that was the defining moment of this campaign and he thinks he was mugged about that.  He won't accept one ounce of accountability for saying Obama would not win because he was black.  That is what he said period. When Hillary calls our president pathetic and half of the country sides with him does she not know that she has alienated half the country against her?  She hasn't figured that out.  For a while everything was anti-Bush.  Do we not know already she would disagree with everything Bush has done.  That is not the problem.  Her mouth and what she says which leads to devisive is the problem.  In fact in one of her rallies she was MAKING FUN of unity and harmony.  I think HIllary lives in her own little dream world where she thinks she and Bill are smarter than everyone else.  SURPRISE!!!
Mary
Posted 03/22/2008 10:06:58 AM
Divisiveness is part of a bigger picture. I don't think it so far out of the realm of possibility that the Government prefers us to be divided as a people.

As long as we are a divided people, we are distracted; allowing the Government on all levels to gradually strip us of our rights and continue to transform this country from a world leader into a serfdom, beholden to banks and corporations.


Zach Sawyer
Posted 03/22/2008 10:52:18 AM
It's not Obama's skin color....it's his judgement or lack thereof in belonging to a racist hater's church and his liberal voting record. 

Colin Powell would be elected in a heartbeat.
Rick
Posted 03/22/2008 12:03:44 PM
Can we handle the truth 
?  Maybe, it's time to find out.

candace
Posted 03/22/2008 01:11:32 PM
I concur with you, C-note, about one thing and one thing only -- "Calling Hillary 'brilliant' should automatically disqualify anyone's opinion as ridiculous."  I guess you cut English class the day double negatives were discussed, or perhaps yours was a Freudian slip and you're simply a narrow-minded bully wannabe.  Only a truly weak-minded person would attempt to shut down a conversation as important as the election of our next president by threatening those with actual thoughts with his "bully club."  
JJ
Posted 03/22/2008 01:42:31 PM
Truth:  "Ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience."

For those of you not ready for the truth, there's always Canada.


rosie
Posted 03/22/2008 01:48:32 PM
I am African immigrant, my husband is African American.  As a black male in this country, he has many perceived and real injustices relating to how he is treated, especially at work.  Initially, I was inclined to disbelieve him, think he had a chip on his shoulder, etc. I am not naive but I really felt that America's past didn't necessarily weigh in on her present as much, that if you just pulled yourself by the bootstraps, blah blah blah...
But the longer I live in this country and in my line of work (Human Resources) I see a lot of things that unfortunately confirm his and many other african Americans' opinions about race relations in the US.
Right from the beginning, I backed Obama. I had already read his first book and was sure he had the integrity, coalition- building and inteligence it takes to lead this country.  My husband initially was on the fence, because he was afraid to believe white America would give him a fair chance.  As Barack won in places like Iowa, he, like many AfricanAmericans, started taking notice.  As an African who grew up in Africa, it is no big thing for me to see black people in authority, running governments, etc.  Initially I was upset with AfricanAmericans for not getting on the Obama bus.  Why did they have to wait for Whites to believe in him first before they decided to take a chance? Now, I actually am thankful for the way things worked out on the campaign trail.
If Obama had started out as the favored-by-blacks black candidate, he would never have made it this far.  It does appear there is a huge segment of America that due to the inbred nature and history of racism in this country, covert and overtly on display, wold have immediately as a gut reaction, tuned him out, gone for Hilary or maybe even more would have voted for John Edwards.
Now that he is an established entity, who conveniently seems to be aligned with an "angry black, miliant preacher", all the old fears and prejudices of the slave owners, passed on to their descendants, are coming out in full color.  "There is going to be a negro uprising. We have to keep them in their place. They are subservient to us, here to further our interests and if one of them is in charge, our interests will be eroded."  But these sentiments are cloaked in more politically correct ideas like "is he going to be patriotic enough, is he really a christian, Aren't the New Black Panthers endorsing him?" etc.
The bottom line is obvious: not everyone is ready for a black president, especially one who is not embarrassed of his heritage and is not going out of his way to be white/assimilated.  But there are many who are ready and who have committed themselves to this cause.  Not because Barack is black first, but because he happens to be brilliant and a visionary first.
Thanks to their commitment earlier on in the primary process, we do have a fair shot at having at least a Black nominee.  But in order for Barack to win, we will need to address the media distortion (forget bias) and patently blatant attempts to discredit a good man.  It will involve white America turning off some TV stations, or at least not swallowing everything they hear/see hook, line and sinker.
Research, think objectively, ask questions.  People think they know.  White Americans tend to think they are culturally superior, that their decisions/lifestyle should be everyone else's (eg, why didn't he leave the church, why doesn't he denounce Wright? How about honor your father and mother and paying homage to them just by virtue of the fact that they are in a place of authority over you?)
 At the end of the day, much as America is a melting pot, there are some people who can not melt, as long as they have their skin color, features, traditions they uphold and they are not understood because there have been systems in place that make it almost impossible to traverse the gap.
My two cents, for what they are worth.
Christine
Posted 03/22/2008 01:59:23 PM
Mike writes:
"Only someone who didn't hear the speech would say that Senator Obama never 'repudiated' Rev Wright because he did. The first 5 minutes of his speech was directed right at Rev. Wright. Are you sure that you were in the same room I was? I was there too ... with a veterans group."

Senator Obama did not repudiate Wright.  He rejected the more venemous statements that were made by the minister, and which have been exposed to the public over the past days.  However, that he is doing so only now with the glare of the kleig lights on him is particularly telling.  And it is not enough, because the words of the sinister minister are only the tip of a larger iceberg.

Trinity United professes Black Liberation Theology which is impregnated with anti-semitic and anti-white sentiments.  Google Black Liberation Theology and you will find information on James Cone, a founder of the philosophy, who approves the term the white man is 'devil' employed by Malcolm X and repeated by Louis Farrakhan.

Jeremiah Wright may have done good things for the black community in his lifetime.  But he has done so by perpetuating a lie, that the only reason black people cannot achieve in this society is due to systemic racism.

Barack Obama clearly does not believe in this philosophy, because as a half-white man, that would mean he hates himself.  He does not. However, the fact that he never left this church and found another one for his impressionable daughters is a reason to seriously rethink your support for this man.

Obama has said that 'experience' alone is not the hallmark of a good president.  He has repeatedly stated that 'judgment' is equally important.

He gets an "F" on both counts.


c-note
Posted 03/22/2008 03:45:30 PM
Poor, poor Candace.  Focusing on the construction of one sentence as opposed to the real issue – what qualifies a junior senator with only two years in the Senate (one of which he spent running for president), who has never been an Executive of anything (please don’t feed me the Harvard Law Review) to be the leader of the free world?

Instead of making your case, you focus on my grammar.  That ain’t displaying the most bestest edumacation now is it?  That’s the best you can do?  In this "conversation as important as the election of our next president" as you state, you cannot come to the party with anything more that my double negative?  And since when does asking what a candidate’s qualifications are, qualify as "bullying"?  When you can’t refute the message, personally attack the messenger…maybe my schooling wasn’t so bad if that is what you learned at yours.

Who can’t handle the truth?  The truth is that the Senator has consistently demonstrated his naivety regarding foreign policy – i.e. it’s a GREAT idea for the leader of the free world to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, and the new Castro, and all of the other murderous dictators, subsequently providing them new found legitimacy as statesman as opposed to the dictators they are.  So despite thousands of years of fighting in some cases, the senator will simply will them all into peace and into ceasing their oppression of liberty and freedom (especially for women) with his eloquence and his fantastic diction?  That is not only silly, it’s dangerous.  

And he now has demonstrated an even more concerning lack of judgment in his choice of "spiritual leaders", and his keen ability to "bring us all together" by labeling that all "typical white people" have been bread to be racist.  If your idea of "bringing us al together" is simply the same old, tired blame white people bit that has been so played out by the Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s of the world, then the senator is certainly reading from the correct playbook.

It is clear who cannot handle the truth….and it is not the clear thinking Americans who realize that it wouldn’t matter if Obama was black, white, yellow, blue or some random mixture of colors, he is still categorically unqualified to be the President of the United States no matter how great an orator he may be.

Steve
Posted 03/22/2008 03:48:42 PM
1)  The only Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress, a "white guy" is a co-chair of Obama's campaign

2)  Colin Powell has been advising Obama on foreign policy for years and is thought to be close to an endorsement

3)  Obama's economic advisor is a phd graduate from MIT that teaches at the conservative Chicago School of Business, the home of Milton Friedman.

4)  Obama's foreign policy team includes realists who have won pulitzer prizes for their work

5)  Bill Richardson is not just a "war hero," he is a diplomat with more experience than anyone reading this article and he endorsed Obama  

6)  Obama won Iowa which is over 95% white

7)  75% of Americans, polled recently by cbs, state that they were very satisfied with Obama's repudiation of Rev. Wright from his speech

8)  Obama picked 5% back up in national polls off Hillary's gains from when the Wright videos first began playing after his speech

9)  Obama's speech on race was instructive for more than it was about race, it showed his nuanced position on the economy, foreign  policy etc.  This is the theme of his candidacy right here for all those that missed it: if you draw a line in the sand and call bad guys "axis of evil" and refuse to work with them; if you demonize the right calling them crackpot conservatives or the left calling them late sipping liberals (uhum, HRC); if you listen only to liberal economists or conservative economists... you are not helping this country in any way, you are hurting it.  Everyone on Obama's team of advisors has this perspective and is brilliant and cares about results more than ideology.  Republicans have good ideas.  Democrats have good ideas.  And both have terrible ideas.

10) Has anyone run a correlation between past Presidents experience and success?  My point: one of three of the greatest Presidents of all time was a one term Senator from Illinois: Abraham Lincoln.  

One of the most experienced: Richard Nixon.

Please think for yourself and put facts and reason above ideology, Obama does it, and he is trying to push the country that he loves more than anything back on the right track.  Bill Clinton talked about the bridge to the 21st century, the bridge has been burned by the mistakes of not just the current President, but his ideologically driven team of insiders and special interests.  Obama is best equipped to build this bridge, rather than spending 4 years trying to get back at Republicans for screwing things up.  Let's Move Forward!

God Bless America, God Bless our veterans, listen to our veterans... please support Obama. 

Sincerely,

"White Guy" for Obama.
L.H.
Posted 03/22/2008 04:09:50 PM
To Christine...Liberation Theology "Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950's when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots." It has nothing to do with Malcom X (who by the way was a great leader in my mind. Ratical times, '60's' call for ratical measures sometimes when fighting injustice). Black Liberation theology is the same thing just through the plight of "poor" black people versus just poor people in general.

It's funny how people who profess to be Christian and "real" Americans are so quick to "hate" others and are so quick to want to "repudiate" someone for saying something that you may not agree with.  I don't think that's what Jesus taught.   These same people who whould've walked out of the church or joined a new church are the same people who have probaby been around or have people in their family or at their church that have said offensive things, but yet they haven't repudiated them or left them out in the cold.

The Bible itself is full of contradictions and have been used to justify some of the worst genocides and terrostic acts in world history, but yet, I don't see millions of Christians walking away from it and repudiating it. 

People are entitled to their own opinions, the David Dukes of the World, the Farakahn's of the world, the Rev. Wrights of the world, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Scarbourough all with past and/or present ties to past and/or present political candidates.  By this measure, we wouldn't elect any candidates with Religious beliefs at all if we have to make our decisions based on what their religious affiliates have said in the past that we don't agree with.  Which begs the question as to why we hold such high-regard for candidates who are religious.

And lastly, many preachers and theologians, both black and white have come out in defense of the term Rev Wright used, "God Damn America." For those of you who knows anything about Christianity and other religions based on the same premise(God Damns' you for your sins), so the Rev wasn't saying "God Damn" America in the same way that we every day people would use the words, he's saying that God has Damned America for the way it treats it's own people and yes, he was speaking about Black people.  It's a play on words. Be it right or wrong, his thought process, it's not America hating rhetoric, it's Religious Damning rhetoric that's been used throughout history with Religion to scare you into submission. C-note


not4clinton
Posted 03/22/2008 04:19:03 PM
It occurs to me that Hillary has given her own Swiftboating present to the Republicans if she becomes the nominee. 

From the Washington Post fact checking "Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Bill Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down." 

The WaPo gave her 4 pinnochios for this story.

Now imagine John McCain, a real war hero running his Commander In Chief ad against Clinton. He'll have a field day with this! I mean John Kerry got sunk on his factual military experiences by the swift boaters. This will surely be Hillary's gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans! 
One Love
Posted 03/22/2008 04:29:37 PM
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free!"

I may be wrong (and I hope I am), but based on much of the recent commentary here and elsewhere, it looks to me as though America is still quite comfortable in the mental confines of its racial shackles.
L.H.
Posted 03/22/2008 04:31:26 PM
Oh I forgot...
C-Note...At first you appear to be a thoughtful person who reads the full quote within context of the entire conversation before making a decision one way or the other..However after your last post, I see that my judegment is lacking regarding you.  

You know very well that Obama did NOT say that white people have been "bread to be racist."   To say so would be speaking ill of his dead mother and grand parents. He is half white you know. 

His exact statement responding to a question about his grandmother and what he said about her was that he doesn't think she harbors ANY racists beliefs, "But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, well there's a reaction that's in our experiences that won't go away and can sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it."

Similar to what the lady in the hallway said to the blogger on the floor after coming from seeing Obama, who was excited about Hillary coming to town.  It's the same thing.  They may not be racist, but there is a reaction..She had a reaction to the black people in their 20's who were window shopping..Her reaction was to assume that they're on welfare or something..her tax dollars at work.  

This makes him even more of a uniter, because he recognizes this and thinks that it's that mentality that we have to work on that we have to change.  On the flip side, with Black people who think that every white person is a closeted racist is thinking that's been "bred" in us, through historic lenses that need to be addressed.  

Let's have an honest conversation and the first thing that has to happened to have an honest conversation, is to admit that there are certain fears and pre-judgements that we have amongst blacks and whites as it relates to the different races.

Kyle
Posted 03/22/2008 04:46:25 PM
I  believe  that a pendulum swings … that there is a ying and a yang .. and I guess you could say a black  and a white.  

For the past 8 years  (pardon me .. 7 + a few months .. it just feels like 8!!) this country has been under the so called leadership (perish the thought) of one of the most divisive, unintelligent not to mention, inarticulate,   individuals to ever reside in the White House in recent years (the last 45 or so that I can think of). I would hardly call him presidential. In fact, given his heritage and the populace most responsible for putting him in office (think of neck color), it would hardly surprise me if he mutters some of those "Typical White phrases" behind the reverent doors of our nations most famous address.

Indeed he has led us down the road of alienation from the rest of the world in terms of respect and financial prowess. We have pretty much become the laughing stock of nations who used to respect our opinion and world stance, on all matters around the globe, much less where we were at least feared by those who did not. The latter understood that a disapproving U.S. eye would most likely isolate its interaction from the rest of the free world. 

The U.S. Dollar, the currency upon which all others are based and traded against, the one that has reigned supreme during modern history .. has plummeted … is at an all time low against the Euro (been to Europe lately). While the currant administration may not have been the total cause for this downfall, its policy’s certainly have contributed to its decline. 

While intelligent, being as polarizing as she is, who’s to believe that HRC would not further have that effect on those within our sphere.  She does not have that affable charm that seems to envelop "Bill" no matter where he goes or what he steps in. Experience of the kind she so dearly touts, no matter what time of day, has at best been at arms length. Sorry, but that’s not quite the same as being there. For all intents and purposes, Barack has more governmental experience than Bill did when he took office and practically as many years in the senate as Hillary. Certainly enough to understand what makes the mountain move … or doesn’t for that matter.

Obama is the most brilliant politician to come along in modern time without any obligation to the standard power structure as we know it. It is obvious by now that he isn’t afraid to tell the truth and willing to walk into the face of controversy … head on. A pillar of calm within turbulent waters. He is not really black (think parents), he is not really white .. he sees and understands the hypocrisy and hardened edges of both races. He is being viewed with open curiosity if not outright respect from Nations abroad. This alone will give him entrée to reestablishing a now highly tarnished U.S. presence on the global stage. 

There isn’t a single person that can walk into this office we call the Presidency of the United States and know absolutely everything. However .. to intelligently assimilate information from those around you and negotiate from a position of awareness is critical to leadership on any platform, much less the one the this country commands … or at least used to. Can anybody seriously think of anybody better qualified to play that role on that stage … at this precise moment in time ? 

I think not … It would be nice to see the pendulum swing from the dumbest to the sharpest in one full swing !!!

Thank you ...
longyard
Posted 03/22/2008 05:09:03 PM
I was pretty sure this would be an "incendiary" site right now.   I'm from overseas, but I am loving the politics in America right now.  America finally gets an opportunity to elect a person of high character, who the rest of the world leaders are emulating, and since they can't find fault with him, they go find somebody else and filter it back somehow to Obama.  This is great.  I guess I can pretty much bet there's not a chance in the incendiary fires of the USA that we are going to see a worthwhile leader in the largest, most powerful country in the world.  Oh well.   Back to watching Clinton tv, spittin on the campfire in between verses of Jimmy Cracked Corn.   

Seriously - isn't it wonderful how Jeremiah Wright has been defined as "a radical pastor". If you want a radical pastor, try the original Jeremiah.

The most notorious quotation referring to "America's chickens coming home to roost", which so exercised Charles Krauthammer and others, was repeating a comment made by former ambassador to Iraq Edward Peck, who'd made the remark on Fox News the day before. I don't think he was forever-after called a "radical ambassador".

Wright is no more radical than all the pastors throughout America preaching that if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to burn in Hell -- now that's radical. Of course preachers are going to criticize the problems in their society, like Jeremiah did, and you have to consider the Bushs' America" as well .... So you can find a few occasions where Wright took it too far, if you trawl through every sermon and take comments out of context -- big deal. Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican -- why is it so surprising that one of his friends criticizes American foreign policy, or their world-beating imprisonment rate?

It's been pretty funny to see commenters here and in the press complaining that Obama was "supposed to be post-racial", and now he's let everyone down. Obviously what is meant is that Obama was supposed to look black and act white. Now suddenly it seems he's too black to be post-racial. But if you want someone to help with the racial divide in America, don't look for someone who's never been inside a black church.

Overcoming race doesn't mean everyone becomes white. It means people meet in the middle. Black people getting over their anger is part of this process, and if you can think of anyone better than Barack Obama to help with that, I'd like to hear who it is.

I love this crowing like Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments, saying "Where's your messiah now?" in his Lower East Side accent. Obama was obviously never a messiah, just a gifted politician with great intelligence, a good speaker who isn't afraid to trust his own judgments over that of pollsters and focus groups, someone with a history of bipartisan legislation, who isn't part of the lobbying machine. None of that has changed because of the sudden focus on his membership of the Trinity church, which of course he has always been proud of, and written about many times before.

If Obama loses to McCain, he'll be back in four years. This will be a distant memory by that time. In the meantime, good luck with another president who doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, and admits himself that economics isn't his strong point. McCain is one of the better Republicans out there, so things could be worse. But America needs to change course, and McCain isn't the president for that. Congress will go to the Democrats, and they'll probably have four years of gridlock, filibusters and vetoes, a busted budget and a busted military. By then they might need the real Second Coming to save their bacon.
Philly Dave who lives in Atlanta
Posted 03/22/2008 05:09:34 PM
I listen and read all of these negative things about Obama. Republicans, you crack me up. You sit and say Obama isnt qualified to be president, yet your Republican President bush has put this this country in the worst situation ever. Lets not fool ourselves, no one really knows why we are in Iraq. Our troops are dying over a senseless war. Our economy is in shambles, and the dollar is becoming as worthless as a Peso on the 4th og July. Republicans, you guys are fanics. We could put a donkey on the Republican ticket and and you would vote for it. Why dont you admit Bush has messed up this country and we as Americans need a change. So if Obama talks about"Hope", instead of being fanic hardheads, just listen to the message, verses Bush's message saying everything is great. 
james
Posted 03/22/2008 05:23:38 PM
Barack Obama supporters are like a cult - espically the white ones.  The white ones will go so far as to support him just to prove they are not racist.  Why so much about race and nothing about gender?  I am a man, but last I checked woman were still a protected group?!?!?!?!?

Barack Obama and his cult-like supports have made this about race, becuase it was his best marketing campaign in lue of experience or qualifications.  

Go Hillary!  Stay in St. Thomas Barack!
c-note
Posted 03/22/2008 05:32:18 PM
L.H. – Your judgment was not lacking – I certainly welcome an intelligent, and fact based conversation about race relations…one that points out all the things that make the individual races and ethnicities uncomfortable, but are still true.  It is a conversation though, in which once the facts come out, the R word (racist) get tossed at people faster than HRC changes her position on an issue.  Too many white people still unwilling to look beyond skin color, and too many black people unwilling to look in the mirror.  If we get beyond labeling and name calling, we might actually make some progress. (see some recently written books by Juan William, Larry Elder and Wayne Perryman for informative and thought provoking reads).

I appreciate you not throwing the typical rhetoric and personal attacks at me as is the tactic of many of the supporters of both HRC and Obama.  Although you do reference a story by Mr. Rubin that could have been made up for all we know.  We could all tell stories about what we once heard someone of any color say about race that would "prove" our point, but does that truly move us forward toward a better understanding and a more successful partnership of all the races?

As for the senator, all you need to do is look at the posts by people like Kyle who claim that "Obama is the most brilliant politician to come along in modern time without any obligation to the standard power structure as we know it"…such subjective and unsubstantiated rhetoric is all that the senator seems to have as to why he should be elected.  I’m sure Steve is eminently qualified to make such a grandiose claim.  Oh, sorry to Steve who points out how people AROUND the senator are qualified, but fails to mention how the senator HIMSELF is qualified beyond a well delivered speech and winning a "white" state’s primary.  Typical.  By the way Steve, President Lincoln ran several business in his early years (many of which actually failed – but taught him lessons per his own admission), and that was BEFORE he became a lawyer and ran a successful law practice…yes he was actually in charge, not just giving eloquent speeches as to what people who run their own business feel like, as the senator so often does.

Please note that I did not quote the senator about being bread to be racists, I paraphrased and thus my opinion is certainly up for debate.  But the fact remains that the senator is no more a "uniter" than he is an eloquent orator following a president who is anything but.

I’m for lower taxes, personal responsibility, not being attacked by terrorists and having the freedom to raise my family and provide my children with opportunity.  If anyone cares what the people in France think about the U.S., or if anyone truly believe that the government OWES people healthcare, a job, a pension, and a place to live, please pull the lever for Obama…or move to France with Kyle.  I’ve traveled to 8 countries in Europe in the past five years…amazing places to visit…have fun living there.

Eagles Fan
Posted 03/22/2008 05:32:46 PM
Ok, everyone who is posting here, take a step back...

the country is about 50-50 donkeys/elephants, and the donkeys are split almost down the middle over one good candidate and one candidate with a good husband...

so half of the people here criticizing Obama would never vote for him anyway, though many republicans do support him.

For every non-fact based tirade against Obama here, there is at least one if not two that eloquently support why he should be president.  That is good.  That is more than good.  There will always be a fight between ignorance and intelligence.  

I am actually happy to say that the intelligent arguments here outweigh the ignorant ones.  That's a start!

It will always be hard for reason and sound judgement to triumph against deep seated ignorance and hatred.  Remember, people were certain the world was flat by their "gut instincts" until proven by exploration and science that it was round.

But it gives me hope, yes hope, that so many people are willing to take up that fight (reason v. ignorance), it is the one most important to win.

"If faced with voting between your fears and your hopes... always vote for your HOPE!"

-- Bill Clinton

(born in Hope, Arkansas, 2004 election, Democratic National Convention, speaking on behalf of John Kerry.  Bill was right then, not now. You can find this quote on youtube).


roofingbird
Posted 03/22/2008 06:39:38 PM
The truth.. My truth is that the dialog over race, gender and ageism was ongoing from the beginning of the campaign. Blogs and media bias were everywhere. Despite the anguished screams of those stuck into the 19th century, I thought a consensus of inclusion was developing. I would have supported either democratic candidate, though I preferred Senator Clinton due to platform differences.  As events have unfolded however, I have been forced to further decide. His speech was brilliant and politically motivated. A liberal, I found myself the next day agreeing with Thomas Sowell. So many were deftly demeaned. This has been a pattern from the beginning, more easily seen in debate texts, then observed.  He hijacked painful emotions of racism on both sides and deflected questions about himself. In essence, he used, then stepped on his pastor’s head and adopted community. 

The timing was suspect, coordinated with the Clinton 11,000 page document release. He has yet to produce equivalent documents of his own. He first dissembled and then confessed that he had known from the beginning that he would have to discuss The Trinity Church. The list of inequities and hurled insults is growing.

His tax donations to Trinity, The Black Caucus,  and Care, part of whose  mission statement is the mitigation of discrimination, is telling. I do not begrudge his choices, I understand them. Racial equality is important to me as well. Prioritizing one’s goals and building a power base is important. He is a politician after all and in that he has very well succeeded. He speaks "power to power" and others listen.

However, he does not speak person to person. He has divided, he wants us to look at what he has chosen. Now this man, whose color I did not see, asks me to decide on honesty. He has placed me in his mother’s fold, in his denigrating words of "Needlepoint Moralities". I must react, and I choose inclusion.

For my sweet biracial granddaughter, and my smart, songstruck, biracial stepdaughter, who taunted, grew up in that ward from which he sprung, and the rest of my rainbow family, I affirm my choice of Hillary Clinton.
c-note
Posted 03/22/2008 06:39:59 PM
Ah…more typical behavior.  According to Eagles Fan (I am ashamed now to call myself one) those who vote for Obama are enlightened (or are reasonable as this person puts it), and those who don’t are ignorant racists.  It is typical for those who have no factual ground to stand on to resort to claiming the moral high ground and personally attacking those that disagree…so sad and yet so common.

Please take note, I have asked those supporting the senator to please provide some facts as to what he has done in his own life that qualifies him to be the most powerful executive in the world.  I specifically said to avoid the subjective and abstract rhetoric, and to avoid pointing to others like Bush, Nixon, Lincoln, Columbus, Clinton(s) etc.  For any critical thinkers out there, read the posts following my request and you’ll see nothing but the abstract and subjective, and the pointing out of other’s records to justify the senator’s lack of one.

Oh…and did Eagles Fan actually refer to Bill Clinton as a "good husband"??  If they had said a good politician for a husband, than not even the craziest of the right could disagree.  But good husband?  Ignorance and lack of intelligence comes in all shapes and sizes…and I guess even as Eagles Fans.

longyard
Posted 03/22/2008 06:53:15 PM
 I can probably get you a free download of Dueling Banjos?
Fergus
Posted 03/22/2008 07:23:10 PM
Roofingbird, I just can't resist responding to your quip which is prefaced, no less, by affirming phrases such as "The truth is" and "the facts are" and then without any regard for these facts continue on a diatribe: tha aside, as to any of Obama's 11,000 unreleased pages, I am sorry to report that he was, in fact,  never first lady and therefore has no schedule to release, so it can be fairly ascertained that he never gathered them in the first place - much less, had second thoughts about releasing such. 

What is more puzzling is that anyone would find offense to Pastor Jeremiah's remarks, but all seem immune to the thought of 4 more years of the tacky scandals such as where the cigar was dipped before Clinton smoked it, and Hillary's legal advice to Bill to ask Ken Starr to define the word "is" before abling an answer.  Oh well,  each his own poison, huh...
Mike
Posted 03/22/2008 07:24:13 PM
I'm a 54-year-old white man who is voting for the first time, just to vote for Obama. The reason I didn't vote the previous 30-plus years? I was told that's where the "jury duty" list came from and I just could not be bothered with jury duty.
Well, jury duty be damned, I'm voting for Obama but I'm really voting for myself.
I pay $400-a-month for health care and I see this man as the one person who can move the morass in Washington that has prevented us from getting free health care.
It's a complete joke that we are the ONLY of the 28 industrialized nations without free health care and the reason is the Washington lobbies.
Hillary had her chance when Bill designated her to be in charge of instituting health care when he was elected.
The Republicans have had their chance.
This man deserves his chance.
truth betold
Posted 03/22/2008 07:35:27 PM
First off Barack is the same as any liberal democrat.  They talk of being of reaching across the isle and being bi-partisan. 

Well the fact is that Obama's voting record is the most liberal since he has been in the senate according to the National Review He is to the left of Ted Kennedy.

Thus his actions do not match his rhetoric. If he reached across the isle it would only be to give the republicans the bird
truthbetold
Posted 03/22/2008 07:42:25 PM
oh and furthermore for obama to say that his grandmother is like the tpical white person in that she is afraid of black people is an outrage. Could you imagine if a republican said that obama was like a typical black person making excuses for another black person's misdeeds, ie jermiah's racist anti-american rants.
fergus
Posted 03/22/2008 08:05:23 PM
um, cool truthbetold.  do you have any idea what the President's job is?  I'm not sure if you know why you are here.   

Maybe you haven't gotten the memo, but HRC isn't really an option - she may be on the ballot for the primaries, but that's only because legally she has a right to continue this primary even when there's no chance of getting the primary nomination.   Everyone has done the math.   So really you can blaspheme all day long, the choice at the end of the day will be Obama/McCain.   
50centsaday
Posted 03/22/2008 10:18:17 PM
WOULD AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY BE GUIDED BY BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY?

Americans care and worry about whether a candidate’s religious faith would guide their decisions as President of the United States.

A Time magazine poll (NPR online, July 12, 2007) found that approximately 40% of voters believe President Bush’s use of religion has divided the country.  

Until his withdrawal as a candidate for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney was constantly dogged with questions concerning his Mormon faith.  Would that faith, much maligned by voters, bloggers, commentators, and the media, play a role in his political decision making?

Romney answered these questions emphatically in a Florida speech on his religion.  Romney said, "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion."

Obama has not spoken that emphatically about his own black liberation faith.  In fact, Obama told a South Carolina audience (AP story on MSNBC.com Oct. 8, 2007), "I think there’s nothing wrong public servants expressing religiously rooted values."

The International Herald Tribune online edition posted an AP story (Dec. 17, 2007) where Obama was asked on a campaign stop in Algona, Iowa if he would allow spiritual and ethics advisers to guide him as president.  Obama replied that "It is important for me to have people that I trust, that I can talk to.  Obviously, part of that is my religious life, my spiritual life as a Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ."

According to Politico.com (Dec 27, 2007), the Christian Science Monitor published an opinion piece where Obama told the writer, "I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Would Rev. Racists Wright play a role in an Obama White House? 

roofingbird
Posted 03/23/2008 12:45:07 AM
longyard..
If you thought it a quip I apologize, The article lead in was the topic. However, I don’t believe I ever that what the truth was or the facts are. I only tell you my truth. If you think my offense is what Pastor Wright may have said, you are mistaken. He has a right to his viewpoint and it is not unfamiliar to me. I do take offense that Senator Obama did not prepare the public prior to his speech, had him on his spiritual advisory board until last week and yet called him a man of another age. I do take offense that, as people sometimes do, he lied by omission without proactively confronting and resolving the conflicts he states are his with his Pastor. In Senator Obama’s case, his family has sat in that pew for 20 years.  What has allowed this? Denial? Ageism? Arrogance? Usury?

Senator Obama had 8 years in the Ill. Senate: Here is an old link to illustrate:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8STLEOG0&show_article=1&catnum=0
To my knowledge none are yet released, but if someone knows differently I would like to know. Senator Obama has called repeatedly for Senator Clinton to release documents. Since the initial release of the 11,00 pages, pressure, including from President Clinton, on the National archive has grown to release more, but the Clintons have no control over this. Senator Clinton has released 20 year so of tax records and will release all of her post white house returns next month. Senator Obama has released one year and declines to release more. See this link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/the-obama-tax-a.html
The call for transparency has been one sided.

As to tacky scandals, I have no doubt they will continue somewhere.  J. Edgar is reincarnated and shimmying in his dress! With all our newfound strength in illegal wiretapping, we have just caught ourselves a Governor! Who needs Bin laden? More interesting to me are  the motives, reasons, and accusers behind these scandals. I try to view a scandal in the context of it’s time.
WhyWeCan'tWait
Posted 03/23/2008 12:53:06 AM
I don't think it matters rather Obama wins or not. I think God has done what he wanted, and that is to get Our attention.  We have turned so selfish that we will allow this country to go down even though we claim we love our children.  We refuse to look at the issues because we are so focused on looking at each other. Obama tried to show us a better way!  That is why He was created, and he been like one crying out in the wilderness. The young have heard, and many who yearn for sanity, but too many would rather the thieves who are raping this nation to continue their wicked ways.
Eagels Fan, Phillies Fan
Posted 03/23/2008 01:39:16 AM
C-note:

I used the word "good" husband because if Hillary's last name was not Clinton, oh wait is it Rodham?, she would not be on the ballot.  If you truly think she would be running without the Clinton brand name you  must have your head examined.  Of course Bill was not a "good" husband in that he was faithful to his wife.  I thought Bill Cliinton did a h#ll of a job as President and was the last good President this country had.  So yes, I think baring his last name is an asset.

I do not know about you but living in a "free" "democracy" it is a shame that we may embark on a bush-clinton-bush-clinton Presidency.  That should be more cause for pause than it is.  What is next Jeb Bush followed by Chelsea Clinton?

C-note, judging by your name I am guessing you are perhaps interested in money.

If so, out of the three remaining candidates, you would truly be the greater fool if you believed HRC was best for the economy.  

I do not know if you understand economics, but perhaps if you do, you  should visit the webpage of Austin Goolsbee, the phd economist that is the lead economic advisor of Barack Obama.  

He is the one well versed in tax law and  one of his specialties is simplifying the tax code.  It is Mr. Goolsbee's policy that would call for retired citizens who make less than a certain wage to no longer have to pay taxes.  Mr. Goolsbee has a phd from MIT and is a member of the board of the Milton Friedman foundaiton, who won the nobel prize in econommics.  He is a professor at the University of Chicago.

Now, c-note, can you  please tell me the economic advisors of Hillary Clinton?  And to assume HRC will follow the same economic policies of Bill is shear folly as she has publicly repudiated NAFTA very publicly, although she used to be a bit of a fan.  

Additionally, the last great fed chairman that the federal reserve has had is Paul Volker.  Mr. Volker endorsed Barack Obama a long time ago.

So anyone voting for economic reasons need only cast their vote for one man: Barack Obama.

Finally, other than flopping on health care reform and following Bill around the world can any of these HRC supporters who are interested in "solutions" instead of words please tell me something, anything, that she did while in office?  And I mean elected office in New York where she never lived but moved to simply to attain office.  At least Barack ran for State Senate and Senate in the state in which he worked his b()tt off to help poor people.  That is a bit more respectable.  

To each his own, I am voting for the person most likely to restore the value in the dollar and this citizen's faith in our economy.


Mike Schmidt
Posted 03/23/2008 01:52:59 AM
http://inquirer.typepad.com/blinq/2008/03/can-we-handle-t.html?cid=107986686#comment-107986686

George Will discussing Goolsbee
Randall Cunningham
Posted 03/23/2008 02:02:28 AM
"Whereas Mr Obama's economist is Austan Goolsbee, a brilliant Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD at Chicago Business School ...Mrs Clinton's campaign boasts no professional economist of high repute."

Jagadish Bagwhati, university professor, economics and law, at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in the Financial Times

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/
Abba
Posted 03/23/2008 02:18:55 AM
I don't understand why the black people have much hate. They seem to always believe that they are owed. Obama want the american to move on, and actually the people should move are black.

I really don't understand people said that they were inspired by his speech. inspired what? tell me.

I don't think Democrtic can win the general election. They seem to me that they just want attention, not the problem solver.
Abba
Posted 03/23/2008 02:33:15 AM
Black benefited most during the clinton times. Without clinton, bill richardson would be nothing. But now these people are all against clinton. They are biting the hand which feeds them. Remeber a person lacking of appreciation will always be small person, nothing different from anamials.

I come from asia, and lived here now for more that 20 years. I strongly believe the america is a land of full opportunities, but you have to work hard to earn these opportunities. Look at india, chinese, koear people here. When they come, they almost have nothing. But because of their hard working, they are achieving much more than blacks. Please remember, you will gain nothing if you only talk.
Abba
Posted 03/23/2008 02:34:25 AM
Black benefited most during the clinton times. Without clinton, bill richardson would be nothing. But now these people are all against clinton. They are biting the hand which feeds them. Remeber a person lacking of appreciation will always be small person, nothing different from anamials.

I come from asia, and lived here now for more that 20 years. I strongly believe the america is a land of full opportunities, but you have to work hard to earn these opportunities. Look at india, chinese, koear people here. When they come, they almost have nothing. But because of their hard working, they are achieving much more than blacks. Please remember, you will gain nothing if you only talk.
G Davis
Posted 03/23/2008 03:17:05 AM
Obama has a line he uses in his stump speech which goes something like:

1 person stands up for change, pretty soon 10 more stand up with them, then 100 more stand up with them, then 1000, then 1,000,000, then a country, then a world.

Can we handle the truth?  If enough of us stand up by ourselves, yes we are.

It's up to each of you individually to make a stand to rid this country of the putrid politics of folks we've seen in this campaign.

Who knows when this chance will come again.  Vote hope, not fear.
c-note
Posted 03/23/2008 03:47:54 AM
FYI Eagles Fan, HRC is a joke, I agree.  As far as I'm concerned she has less experience than Obama because if you truly examine her record, she has never earned a position on her own…everything is from her husband.  Ironically she got everything from him except fidelity…oh, and charm and personality also.

I do appreciate you not attacking me personally as is typical of the left (the money thing aside – it was a college nickname…nothing to do with money because we were all poor in college, except for Paris Hilton…oh yeah, she didn’t go).

I am in fact somewhat familiar with Mr. Goolsbee and I do agree with his support of free trade and tax simplification.  The problem is that he isn’t running…Senator Obama is.  And because of his very short time as a senator (a problem in and of itself with me) it is hard to get a read on him.  However, in just a short time, he established himself through his documented votes as being to the left of Ted Kennedy…that’s not easy to do in only two years.

Combine that with the fact that he has stated he believes in income redistribution (taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor") and any problems that exist now will surely get worse.  

When it comes to taxing the truly rich, with our progressive income tax system (a central theme in Marxism by the way) being the way it is, most are uninformed, and what is in place can miss the mark as the truly rich utilize every available loophole in order to avoid those taxes (see tax shelters, Michael Moore or John and Teresa Hines Kerry – the Kerry’s paid less than 10% in taxes the year he ran for president due to trusts and the like).  Our system punishes achievement with higher taxes.  Despite all the rhetoric, under the current tax system, the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected while the bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.

Until we move to a supply-side tax or a flat tax of some kind that eliminates the complicated tax code, taxing the "rich" only discourages investment and risk taking, and encourages moving money out of the U.S. that could have been reinvested here.  For prime examples see communism in Russia, or socialism in the EU which has an unemployment rate almost double that of the U.S.

And please keep a simple fact in mind – a tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so, by definition, they cannot receive a tax cut.  Because it is Senator Obama that wants the keys to the cash register, I can never give him my vote in good conscience due to his dangerous foreign policy plans, and his socialistic plans for the economy.

Sorry for the length but I like fact-based debates and you at least kept things on a non-personal level…and I’m a huge Phillies & Eagles fan so you can always find common ground no matter your political beliefs right?

justjimmy
Posted 03/23/2008 04:27:22 AM
Best source to see records is actually the government's senate.  You can pick a legislative session, or by senator, or by vote yea or nay.  I have done this time and again to check the facts about what one of our candidates did or didn't do, and found that someone on a blog did not check before repeating -- and then, rumors trail through these blogs that have nothing to do with facts.  Besides, it is interesting reading.  
Anybody but Obama
Posted 03/23/2008 05:33:24 AM
Is America really going to let Obama set them back? America should be appalled at Obama's attempt to send us all back 50 years.

There are so many problems in our country that need color blind President to work on. We don't need to invent new problems based on race(as Obama says), America is better than that. The real question is, "Do poor people get treated differently than more affluent people?". And the answer is YES they do. We should fix that. Being American should mean that I am very happy about what my country does for me, and what I can do to make my country better.

What we need to focus on(rather than some racial phantom) is:
+universal healthcare for every American, period
+Increasing the Quality of living for all Americans
+Reducing the gap in pay between CEO/Worker
+Having labor laws that give us 2 months of vacation(yes they already do this in Europe)
+Making Americans focus more on their families and communities
+Making our environmental impact less(this way the "have nots" quit trying to take us out with terrorists)
+Raising the level of our children's and adult's education everywhere
+Increasing our part as a nation in the Global economy and relations

Is America ready for a purplish-green president? That is the wrong question because it's irrelevant. The real question is, "Will America choose the best candidate for President?". And the answer needs to be YES we can.

Don't pick a candidate that is trying to lie to make up for his mistakes. One that is taking our country back into the pits of HELL to cover up his own misjudgments in who he should follow. What I'm saying is don't buy the America-bashing baloney that Obama is spewing.

We are better than Obama America. And we deserve someone who cares about real issues instead of making up new ones.

Obama brought some great stars to his speeches, and that's great, but it's not going to change the issues that are truly important.

Vote Professional. Vote against Barack.

Anybody but Obama  



Teresa Davis
Posted 03/23/2008 06:50:54 AM
You seemed surprised that many White people are not prepared to vote for a Black person? If wasn't the Wright video it would have been something else. I'm glad Obama ran so that this country that want's to tell other countries how to run their business will be out there for all the world to see what a bunch of hypocrites the United States of America really is.
Seed of Change
Posted 03/23/2008 07:25:13 AM
Obama's hate message towards America:

1.  America did not initite mass murder of Jews, Europeans did

2. America did not initiate mass murder of African's in Rowanda and all over Africa.  African's did.

3. America did not initiate mass murder of muslims in Bosnia, Europeans did

4. America did not initiate mass murder of muslim Palestenians in Jordanian west bank, muslim's killed each other

5. America did not bomb Japan first, we were bombed first

Audacity of Obama to blame the American people for racism and hatred is unbelievable.

Obama funded hate message for 20 years.  American's did not

Obama subjected his children to hate message, most American's don't do that

Obama embraced a hate monger for 20 years and called him spiritual leader, America did not.

Where was Obama hiding his "anti-racism" speech for 20 years?

If Obama's speech was well written, because his excuse for supporting hate was in the making for 20 years.
sheila
Posted 03/23/2008 08:49:02 AM
Obama's race speech was nothing but a cover-up for his lies about not knowing Wright was a radical and racist. In that speech, in one line, he said "Yes" he had heard him make those types of comments while sitting in a pew. Brilliant speech? yes. It completely covered up the fact he is a LIAR.
Don't lecture me on racism when you are so blatantly living it yourself. Go away, Barack Obama.
scott
Posted 03/23/2008 09:32:23 AM
to jay -- why do we need a *president* to make us think?? i think all the time -- about politics, books, ideas etc -- and i couldn't care less who the president is. there's ample (mostly free) material for everyone who wants to think -- libraries, internet -- so what's stopping them? that's another question, sure, but again -- thinking and growing intellectually is free and available to everyone, so why do we need a president or any public figure to get us to do it? take care.
Mollie
Posted 03/23/2008 10:49:22 AM
I'm 67 years old and have not been this excited about a candidate since JFK. To see some of the people that comment here, makes me think they are from the right. Most of the sites have people on them that are from the Hillary and McCain camp[aign writing there nasty comments. They make it look like Obama has no chance, guess again ! I am also white.
Toni
Posted 03/23/2008 01:01:40 PM
It is not that this country is not ready for a black president.  We are not ready for an experienced black man who is also a hypocrit.  I'm not even talking about the preacher or the sermon I am talking about Obama's lies.  I'm talking about his affiliation with Rezko.  It's just been a short time since the press has decided to actually take a look at this guy and look what they've found in that short time.  I had never even heard of him until January.  Do I want someone I barely know to be president?  The answer is definitely NO.  It's time for us to get behind Senator Clinton. 
Patryck
Posted 03/23/2008 01:02:45 PM
Truth is relative. I am not speaking of selective relativity, I am talking truth. Think about the things that people know to be true that are not based on any empirical knowledge. You may beleive that people will not be willing to vote for hillary because she is anyhing but white when in fact, that may be the only reason some folk won't vote for her. This race thing works both ways you know. 
lingopole
Posted 03/23/2008 01:34:12 PM
OBAMA made the speech only when he was caught by the press.  His speech is meaningless.
There are more Americans who are scared of Obama than those who dislike Clinton.
Phyllis/ PA
Posted 03/23/2008 02:42:19 PM
Obama scares me.  Why?  He claims to be a unifier but instead he does the complete opposite.  Instead of simply accepting the fact that Rev.Wright gave sermons that were hateful and join another church,  Obama choose to give a speech on race relations in America.  Consequently, Obama has caused  race to again raise its ugly head.  
Before Obama's speech, the county still had racial problems.  However, thanks to MLK the country has moved forward and was continuing to do so.   Because of MLK, flames that once roared were reduced to only a spark   Now, I fear that Obama’s  speech has opened wounds instead of healing them  

Eagles, Phillies, Sixers Fan
Posted 03/23/2008 03:40:53 PM
C-note

"It is important to disagree without being disagreeable."  Barack Obama

Sir, I respect your last commentary and pushback of my assertions.  A healthy debate of issues based on logic and reason is something that rarely happens in the political arena.  

I believe our tax code is incredibly too  complex and I too favor some form of flax tax.  

The George Will article on Goolsbee is very instructive: he says taxing the rich at higher rates is essentially taxing education: as higher education and increased skills has been the main reason the "rich keep getting richer" while the middle class does not.  Goolsbee thinks the most progressive and important way to help amend the income gap is very simple: get the lower and middle class better technical skills: whether through higher education or some sort of technical training.

If you listen closely to Mr. Obama he credits his success mainly to his higher education. In almost every speech he talks about the necessary pre-condition for a more "equal" society being better education for those disadvantaged.  So, I do believe Obama and Goolsbee's positions really are not that different.

Bill Clinton had the humility to listen to Allan Greenspan school him on the importance of cutting the budget and reducing the deficit to allow lower interest rates to stimulate the economy.  I am in no way a Greenspan fan.  But my point is the best leaders listen to others on issues they are not as qualified in and trust this "team of advisors" (a la Lincoln).

Obama's solution to reducing illegal immigration?  Work with Felipe Calderon to make Mexico better off to reduce the incentive for immigrants to cross the border.  

Simple, pramatic solutions rather than "radical liberal" solutions to problems.

In any event, c-note, I appreciate the tone and substance of your comments.  

If everyone evaluated candidates on their leadership ability, policies, team of advisors, and the special interests with special access to politicians... we would not end up with Presidents like George Bush.    Is it really a shock that a president from an oil company and a vp from a defense company used a terr()rist attack as an excuse to start a war against Iraq that they wanted to fight years before?  And outlined in the "Letter of the New American Century?"

And for what it's worth, if McCain was not such a hawk on Iran, etc. I would vote for him over Hillary in a heartbeat (though of course he would be second choice to Barack).  

My best friend is from Tehran, Iran.  He loves America, his middle name is Mohammed and he has never read the Koran.  And frankly I would not care if he prayed five times a day.  When he visits Iran all of his relatives implore him to bring his cousins back with him because they want their sons and daughters to be able to get normal jobs and live normal lives, in a wonderful place called America.  They love America.  I don't want to burn that good will and I think we can easily turn Iran into an American ally.  Their is a profound difference between wacky leaders and the people who suffer on these terrible demagogues.

But if it was not for that... McCain beats Hillary on almost every other issue in my eyes.

In any event, C-note, nice to have a healthy dialogue without being reduced to silly name calling.

Keep it up.


Eagles fan
Posted 03/23/2008 03:42:31 PM
whoops,flat tax, not flax tax, though any other tax system than what we currently have may be superior
alee21
Posted 03/23/2008 05:32:01 PM
I wish Obama really is some who can transcend race. Sadly he is not. Don’t get me wrong, I am Asian and would love to see someone from a minority group in the White House. But just not Obama. With every day passing, he strikes me more and more as someone who benefited from Affirmative Action, yet denounces anyone as racist who has the gall to point that fact out. How can we have someone like that in the White House?

Obama's speech is no more than a politically expedient tactic. The instigating event had less to do with race, and everything to do with Obama’s judgment and misleading (or if you will, untruthful) statements about his relationship with Rev. Wright.  Obama was clever in making it into a race issue. In fact that is what the Obama camp has been doing throughout this campaign season, which is to play the race/victim card whenever possible. And then turn around and accuse the Clintons of racism, double talk and the latest, McCarthyism.

Obama is not the right person to take the helm. He is untrustworthy, untried and inexperienced. You just don’t know what you will find next. He is not a uniter, he is not a voice of the future. I resent the fact that he seems to be constantly reminding us subliminally that the only way to absolve our sins is by voting for him.
Jesse Jaynes
Posted 03/23/2008 05:47:14 PM
Anyone who votes for someone who disenfranchises the people of florida and michigan are nuts. Barack Obama doesn't want a revote why not ask yourself,they couyld have a revote and both candidates stump the state of florida and michigan both,whats obama afraid of does he think he would still loose.And to think he goes along with jeremy wright,oh yeah he can say all he wants that he doesn't necessarily agree with wright,but who really knows.I am a democrat,but I am going to vote for John Mc Cain,why because I don't care for obama and the way he thinks,he could have just as well disenfranchised the voters of pennsylvania think about it and you want to vote for him,go get your head examined.
Angela Lee
Posted 03/23/2008 05:56:35 PM
The only reason we may not be ready for the truth is if we arbitrarily decide we aren't ready to deal with it.  How self-deafeating is that?  What a way to let ourselves off the hook by just announcing we aren't ready to deal with it!  How juvenile is that?  When do we plan on growing up - or don't we?  Is it worth the price of throwing away the future of our country in order that we not have to face that which is within ourselves?  Would we rather cast our arbitrary vote along racial lines instead of admitting all we hold in common - the need for decent jobs with proper benefits, the opportunity for an affordable education for our children, basic healthcare, proper housing, affordable utilities, and to live in peace.  Do we think that only one race suffers from lack of these things?  Or is it that we would rather cut off our nose to spite our collective face, rather than vote for the good of us all?  I hope Pennsylvania shows that we are made of better things.
POLpursun
Posted 03/23/2008 06:18:42 PM
I suspect that those positively disposed to the admonition to disagree without being disagreeable would prefer that the analysis which informs their conclusions be undergirded by supporting data and information which is as objective as possible in lieu of being distorted by any specific agenda and/or ulterior motive. 

Whatever one's ultimate position on any of the specific circumstances involved here the following, I opine, provide fuller input data/information. There are two video clips which provide context to what Jeremiah Wright had to say re two of the sound bites played ad nauseam.

The first is a link to an article, in which is a link (at the end of the penultimate paragraph) to the video.  Here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erikka-yancy/more-fox-lies-jeremiah-w_b_92850.html

The second is a link directly to the video. Here it is:
http://baldeagle08.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/cnn-msnbc-cbs-abc-fox-news-lied-about-pastor-jeremiah-wright-see-911-sermon-in-context/
djstates
Posted 03/23/2008 06:49:46 PM
I resent Obama's comparing Ferraro to Pastor Wright in his "Union" speech.  BHO got his start in politics as a state legislator representing a black district.  She made the comment a couple of days after the Mississippi primary where BHO carried 90% of the black vote and only 30% of the white vote.  If she had said "Jack Kennedy got where he did because he was Irish", the voters of Irish South Boston who first elected him to Congress would have said "Darn right, and a good man he was."  BHO is falling back on the tired old politics of victim hood, the central theme of Pastor Wright's toxic diatribes.  What Ferraro said was reasonable political analysis that BHO himself agreed with last summer.  Pastor Wright with his vitriolic attacks on America, endorsement of Farrakhan and Black Supremacy language is a whole different story.   Equating the two the way Obama did in his speech is inappropriate and insulting to Ferraro.  Obama should retract the statement and apologize.
truthbetold
Posted 03/23/2008 08:15:00 PM
Barrack Hussein Obama is a fraud. He talks of bringing people togeher, he talks of change. The only change I see will be a Black liberal democratinstead of the typical white liberal democrat raising taxes, spending on social programs like there is no tomorrow, destroying our military, etc... Amazing just like all democrats they talk about raising taxes on the wealthy and giving tax breaks to the middle class. Well two weeks ago both Obama and Hilary voted to increase taxes on all single people that make over $31,000/yr and all married couple that make over $65,000/yr.

Now maybe all of you socialists here agree that people making more than $31,000 are wealthy but IMHO that sounds more like the poverty level.

See the libs always talk about raising taxes on the rich but have any of you ever heard one of these candidates or any other democrat define wealthy?  I bet not.
reader
Posted 03/23/2008 10:36:07 PM
Can we handle the truth?

Obama Does not Walk the Change Talk.
He's almost 50 years old and has absolutely no record showing  he lives by his campaign rhetoric. He's left no mark in this world that sets him apart from the other politicians.
He is however masterful at manipulating people with his speeches. They sound wonderful and bring grown men to tears but he's all words and no action. 

Article from NY Times:
Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role

Excerpts: Mr. Obama took few bold stands and diverted little from the liberal orthodoxy he had embraced in the Illinois Senate. 

He worked with Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and one of the most conservative in the chamber, to establish a public database to examine government spending after Hurricane Katrina.

But for the most part, he stuck to party lines; there were few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his current campaign.

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war — he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006.
 
He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Julian
Posted 03/24/2008 01:28:52 AM
Despite your records defying false assertions,  Obama will be the president for all Americans, more! he will be the first American president for the world. Obama embodies everything that is good in America. He will bring out the best in us. Our unity will help us mature politically and advance materially. Many more will abandon GOP’s political and economic atrophy and decay.  With Obama at helm and a common purpose we become more productive, richer, elevating ourselves and advance the world in our wake.
Slim
Posted 03/24/2008 02:57:03 AM
Wow, it's amazing to me that this is even being suggested. How can someone that has personal demonstrated the highest level of integrity, opposed the war, worked tirelessly to reform Washington and to involve all of us less electable than Hillary, simply because of his race? Do you mean to say we cannot even work for our own self-interest. Hillary has not proven she can be an effective leader - one that will make us and the world better as a result of her leadership. She may have only confirmed, particularly in the course of this primary, that she is divisive and dishonest. Well at least this white woman, who happens to be over 45 years of age, is going to vote for the candidate that is the most consistent, honest, inspiring and the least divisive. I suspect there will be many more like me and perhaps we will continue to out  number those who are so hung up on race that they cannot see that a vote for Hillary or a vote for John is a vote for the status quo. Why would we want to continue the same old politics, when we have a real opportunity, with Senator Obama,  to reform the failing politics that have existed in Washington for too long?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBheLrsMh4E&feature=PlayList&p=5C4D1391E35DF825&index=15
Janice Hough
Posted 03/24/2008 03:23:48 AM
Give people time, this speech wasn't a sugary snack, it was a meal to be slowly digested.  

And the polls indicate that the more Americans think about the speech, and actually see it on youtube, the better Obama does. 
Beauty
Posted 03/24/2008 07:53:43 AM
People see what they want to see. The reverend has been making controversy for years. Way before Barak Obama began his campaign for president. To try and  blaim  Obama for comments made by the reverend is wrong. Obama did not make those comments so why should he have to defend himself against them? To have a woman and a man of color running for presidential office is such a wonderful change in itself. I believe in them both. But i am afraid McCain may win. Divide and conquer. People see what they want to see. people also get angry when see (or hear) from others what they are afraid to face in them selves. 



JDunn
Posted 03/24/2008 08:45:45 AM
I am a degreed GOP white lady. If the democrats put Obama up in November he will get my vote.  My primary vote went to McCain because Mitt and Mike are SCARY and in the race at the time.

#1 The more educated you are the more new ideas and change you are capable of embracing. Unfortunately the opposite is also true.  Obama leads with the college educated and the higher income brackets.

#2  Experience in Washington also means compromised.  She thinks that it means "alot of Democrats owe me".  If the Dem voting Nobility (Super Delegates) push her forward...McCain can eat her lunch on experience. 

#3  If Obama becomes president that speech will become mandatory reading for generations.  

#4 Those polls that are being used in leiu of fact.  McCain is doing better and better...why is that hmmm??

Vita
Posted 03/24/2008 08:57:02 AM
I am voting for Barack Obama, period. I am amazed at how many issues are being 'spun' and distorted--from the man's name to his heritage to his pastor, in an effort to keep him from becoming America's first black/mixed president. How can anyone dispute that racism still exists and is encouraged here in America? The writer of this article describes how a white woman, seeing a group of young blacks window-shopping, assumes that they are somehow dependent on her tax dollars? I am a young African-American woman with no children--so my tax dollars benefit people too--a great many of whom are not black. As the person who witnessed that, the writer missed an opportunity to dialogue with someone and educate them. The woman probably wouldn't have listened to anything he had to say anyway-but he said NOTHING. That's what makes Barack Obama different: he faced the issues of race and racism and instead of being praised for his honest, no-holds-barred speech, people are finding loopholes in it. As stated earlier, society at large--mostly white society, simply does not want to see a black president of these not-so-United States. They want to find an excuse that they think is plausible to explain why they're not voting for him, but with or without a b.s. reason they simply won't vote for him. If by some reason Obama does win--it will be the first time that I am proud of this country: a sentiment that I share with his well-educated and well-respected wife.
Vita
Posted 03/24/2008 09:33:28 AM
Abba, you can't even speak English--yet you think you know so much about blacks! All you know is what you see: so if you surround yourself with people who aren't educated, don't have goals or standards, who are you to assume that everyone is that way? You are not black, don't know ALL blacks, so don't assume to judge our work ethics. Because I don't live in the 'burbs or drive a volvo means nothing--that's what's wrong with you and most of white society. You see what a person has or doesn't have-in a material sense, and jump to conclusions. But like I said you can't even speak or spell so why am I wasting time on you...To the other Asian person who dislikes Obama--claiming he benefited from Affirmative Action...so what if he did? Let's ALL get clear on Affirmative Action: if employers and colleges and society at large had been giving everyone a fair chance at improving themselves through employment and education to begin with, there would never have been a NEED for Affirmative Action in the first place. I am a single black woman in my 30's: no kids, good job, earning $100K+ annually. I just went back to college to earn my degree a couple of years ago. I am intelligent-period. I've worked hard since I was 16 years old. I've overcome a great deal of adversity to get where I am today and I don't owe anyone ANYTHING. My family is comprised of people who work hard but don't live lavish lifestyles. So no, I didn't benefit from Affirmative Action--and if I had, SO WHAT? Isn't point of life to take advantage of every opportunity that you're given? Why can't a successful black person-or any succesful person of color just be smart and hard-working? Why does it always have to boil down to assuming they were a charity case? Mr. and Mrs. Obama are Ivy-League educated people with morals and they've set high standards for themselves, their children and their community. The very idea that this kind of black family brings out the anger and envy of all of you with racists minds--who never wanted to believe that black people could do anything more than shake our a$$e$, rap, or play sports. Well surprise surprise!! We want all of the things you want out of life and those of us who don't make the evening news are living well and doing the right things, making the right decisions. Mr. Obama has been on the political scene for many years: just because no one heard of him doesn't mean that he doesn't have the experience to run this country. Then again--who does? Who is EVER qualified to run an entire country? Look at that jerk that's in office now--who was born and bred in politics his entire life. Look at all the lives lost and money mis-managed by Bush. His V.P. shot a man and didn't spend one day in jail: if that had been you or I we would've never seen the light of day again. If that's your example of experience than we definitely need change--in the form of Barack Obama!
Wayne
Posted 03/24/2008 10:19:08 AM
Anyone who seeks truth and is really a true American with American ideals will seek the truth and vote for Obama. 
Bill Clinton had a significant if not all of the African American vote. Black people had no trouble voting for a white man. So, now we are saying that this country is so filled with White people who won't vote in the year 2008 for a Obama, a brilliant man,a constitutional scholar a Harvard law grad,a U.S. senator,— because of the color of his skin!!!. My god!!!

Shame!shame!shame! on those White Americans who think they are so morally high and mighty when we are no much more than a country of racists.
 
Sara
Posted 03/24/2008 12:06:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

We need a President with integrity. There are a few positive stereotypes of white females like the general belief that they are honest and compassionate. And, it certainly is a privilege when one doesn't have to earn that significant attribute or when an electorate doesn't question whether their first female front-runner for President has the integrity to repair relationships and be an effective leader --one that will make those around her better. As a white woman in America, I am deeply disappointed in Hillary's leadership. I don't trust her and she continues to demonstrate why we all shouldn't believe she represents a fundamental change in politics. She has taking the most money from the health care industry (only former PA Senator Santorum took more than her) and now it appears she lied about her earlier position on NAFTA and her visit to Bosnia. She may have duped some Ohio and Texas voters with her assertions that she took a different position than Bill did on NAFTA, but she shouldn't fool Philly. Yet, she is still withholding information that other candidates have long since disclosed i.e. her 2006 tax returns. I am for Obama; he'll bring effective leadership, intelligence and integrity to the White House!
Jeff
Posted 03/24/2008 12:58:08 PM
I "hope" in the "future" I can "change" jobs and make a lot more money, but that alone doesn't mean it will happen.  
c-note
Posted 03/24/2008 02:49:46 PM
Vita – for someone claiming to not want to be lumped into a category, you certainly have attempted to perfect the art of typical liberal arguing – when you disagree with someone, just throw a word ending in "ist" at the person and you’re good to go.  Not voting for Hillary?  Oh, you must be sexist.  In your case, if someone’s not voting for Obama, well then they have to be rascist!  Why, because why would someone not for him?  It must be because he is black.

So sad to claim to be a free thinker, criticize others, and then boil down a complex decision to nothing other than race.  Unfortunately there are whites that haven’t figured that out yet because I agree there are those that simply won’t vote for someone of color, but that type of small minded thinking gets repaid with interest over a lifetime so I don’t worry about them.  And let’s not forget that Marion Barry, William Jefferson, Ray Nagin, John Street, etc. proves that many blacks do not get beyond color when voting – so the pendulum swings both ways. 

So let’s put color aside because when voting, it doesn’t matter.  Why not vote for Obama, well…

The Economy

The government doesn’t owe me anything but protection and the opportunity for me to make it on my own.  They don’t owe me a place to live, a job, healthcare, a pension, nothing.  All I should get is the opportunity to acquire those things based on my desire and my abilities and to be safe while I do it.

Obama has stated that he wants to give all Americans healthcare, and that he wants to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.  That’s socialism and just look at Europe and their 8.5% to 15% unemployment rates, their pathetic GDP growth, and the lack of ownership that exists among the people to see that it’s a loser.  I’m for lower taxes across the board, and for personal responsibility for your own actions and well-being.  I am definitely for safety nets to help the less fortunate, but Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate…can anyone say "nanny-state"?

Foreign Policy

The senator is frighteningly naïve to the point where he as President would be downright dangerous. As a starter, review Jimmy Carter’s (who has a similar "we are the world so let’s sit down and talk to anyone even if they are a murderous dictator" approach that Obama is pedaling) handling of the Shah of Iran while president, and his recent cozying up to Kim Jong-nutjob in North Korea to see how that type of policy plays out.  You may not like what the "jerk in office" has done, but we are certainly not viewed as weak throughout the world.  And being seen as weak and without resolve, is worse than being seen as a "cowboy" or as not being liked by the French or the Spanish.  We were viewed as weak under Carter and we got gas lines and hostage taking, and we were viewed as weak under Clinton and we got hit four times by Bin-Laden and then lost 3,000 people on the fifth and final hit.

Obama is simply not qualified, and has the wrong plan for this great Nation.  The fact that he is black has nothing to do with it Vita.  The sooner you realize that the sooner you can participate in a fact-based debate on the issues, and not just sling the R word around at those you disagree with.

lj
Posted 03/24/2008 03:29:50 PM
The press and the Obama speech really gloss over the relationship of Wright to Obama and the content of Wright's crazy assertions. Meanwhile, Rubin is running the "what about the crazy white folk" interference using 2nd hand sources, aka hearsay. 

Let's focus on the content of what Wright said:

1. AIDS is created by the US as a racist conspiracy.

2. The CIA is selling crack to the urban inner city.

Here's the reason we need to be clear, with our votes, as to anyone who would call such a ignorance-monger a mentor:

1. AIDS is a disease that developed decades ago from primate contamination in a region where primates are a food source. Making racist hay out of anything else promotes a climate of ignorance and anti-intellectualism that makes treating those who follow such nonsense more difficult, contributing to racial disparities in health care.

2. The people selling crack in the urban setting are just who they appear to be, and those responsible for the drug trade in urban areas have tremendous overlap with the traditional black churches and mosques in Philly and elsewhere. 

The buck belongs in the hands of those who are desperately trying to pass it. That lesson is so hard to take in that people will make a religion and politics out of its denial.
Vita
Posted 03/24/2008 05:49:11 PM
C-note, since you don't know me and aren't me it would be best that you not use my name or my previous posts to assume otherwise. You have a right to your opinion just like I do. While I see that you, like alot of people who weigh in on political issues throw around terms like liberal or inexperience, I also notice that you pick-n-choose certain historical facts to make your point. But I won't dwell in that...the bottom line is this: I will stop mentioning race when everyone else does. But the fact remains that my race and my culture and my experiences in this country affect my decision-making, same as everyone else. Mainstream media keeps mentioning Obama's race: he doesn't because he knows what color he is and more importantly, he knows who he is. I'll also say that I don't expect you or anyone else to 'give' me anything or that I'm owed anything--a sentiment you eluded to in your post. I make my own way in the world which is why I feel comfortable sharing my views and stating why I cannot wait to vote for Barack Obama! I doubt you've ever held a political office, so I wonder how or why you and many others feel that YOU are qualified to say that Baravk Obama is inexperienced--look what 'experience' has gotten us so far. In closing, let me remind you, C-note, that my second post spoke directly to the comments of two previous posts: neither of which were written by you. So perhaps you can do what few republicans/one-track minded people do...and that is mind your own business! I expected a direct response from one or both of the people I responded too--yet you come out of left field in an effort to blast me. I'm not impressed nor afraid to reiterate my hard-core democratic point of view. Barack Obama for president!!!
econowoez
Posted 03/24/2008 06:20:07 PM
C-Note, I've taken the time to read most of the posts on this blog and I have to say that while I see your point, I don't think that Vita unfairly mentioned race on dwelled on it. The fact is, you are not a Barack Obama supporter and you took issue with her argument for his candidace, and the fact that she mentioned race while doing so. Let me first say that I am a republican but I believe that McCain is too old to become president. I considered supporting Hillary Clinton, but her negative rhetoric against Mr. Obama and her vast mood swings make me question her ability to lead. I must admit, after doing a great deal of research, that I plan to vswitch parties and vote for Barack Obama. I am a caucasian male, and I never thought I'd vote for a black man. Speaking honestly, I've been biased in my views of minorities and now that I've matured, I've learned that a person's race or a few bad decisions aren't always a true representation of that whole person. I just feel that despite his lack of political experience, Barack Obama has the ability to unite the country and get people talking about all of the issues that we try our best to avoid. The black politicans you mentioned in your post have done some bad things and have bought disgrace to their political offices: but the other question is, are they all guilty of something or are they just suspected of questionable behavior? There are just as many--if not more caucasian politicians who have participated in illegal activity as the people you mentioned. Also, you fail to realize that the people you mentioned have not run for the hardest job in this country: Commander-in-Chief. The scrutiny that all of the candidates has faced is reaching new lows and it's diverting our attention from the real issues: the war, jobs, money, healthcare, retirement...and where those issues are involved, Barack Obama has shown that he has clear, concise plans addressing each of these issues. That is why he will get my vote.
c-note
Posted 03/24/2008 08:58:52 PM
Vita – if you want to converse directly with someone, click on the blue link that is their name and e-mail them directly.  When you post your opinion on a Blog, it becomes my business as it is a public forum designed to spur intelligent (sometimes) debate.  So while I appreciate your desire for me to "mind my own business", if you don’t want unsolicited opinions regarding your opinions, I suggest you cease publicizing them via a Blog.  

Econowoez – I appreciate the productive way in which you expressed your disagreement as it makes for a debate that allows for education on both sides.  I appreciate your point of view.  Just so I am not mischaracterized, no one (especially me) says people do not have the right to mention race – this is America and you have the right to say anything you want as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.  My issue with the opinion expressed by Vita was specifically with the following statement:

"As stated earlier, society at large--mostly white society, simply does not want to see a black president of these not-so-United States. They want to find an excuse that they think is plausible to explain why they're not voting for him, but with or without a b.s. reason they simply won't vote for him."

In this statement she undeniably implies that most white people who choose not to vote for the senator, do so because of the color of his skin.  I was pointing out that I choose not to vote for him because of the content of his policies and his repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment.  I find him to be a fabulous orator, he seems to be a wonderful person, and I have enjoyed his involvement in the race as it has made for a more interesting debate.  But because his policies, both domestic and in foreign, are naïve at best, and socialistic and dangerous at worst, I cannot in good conscience support him to lead this country.  Overall I do not approve of our current president and I look forward to a change in many areas.  But those areas do not include military retreat and reduction, higher taxes, national healthcare, a foreign policy based solely on dialogue with those that cannot be reasoned with, and more governmental influence and control where it does not belong.

I would truly be interested in hearing what specifically people like about what they claim are "clear, concise plans addressing each of these issues".  But I am looking for more than the abstract and shallow "he’ll change things", or "he’s a uniter" or "he’s intelligent".  I have seen very little of that from Obama supporters.  Instead, those not presenting any specific policy facts to back up their support, call those who chose not to support a very superficial and abstract candidacy, racists.  No one HAS to back up with facts why they are supporting the senator…they have every right to simply say "I like him and I’m voting for him".  But they should not be offended when they put that on a Blog, and are then questioned about it.  And they certainly should not then resort to claiming that anyone who questions their lack of tangible reasons for their vote is doing so because Obama happens to be black. 

CatherineS
Posted 03/25/2008 12:11:51 AM
Barack was honest and ballsy and eloquent in his speech against racism. 
There is a good reason that Bill Richardson turned away from the Clintons in disgust to endorse Barack. I’m glad that someone can see through her exterior to the vampire heart beneath.
Today Clinton admitted that she didn’t run off the tarmac in Bosnia under gunfire. She switched her story only because she was caught in her lie due to the fact that news footage of her casual exit there to pose for photo opps proved that she was BSing. Is that what you want in a leader? I think not! She is not entitled to the presidency simply because she is a Clinton. I applauded Bill Richardson when he had the bravery to stand up to the Clintons and come out supporting Barack. Barack has vision, heart, vast intelligence, AND, in fact, more years in elected office than Hillary!

Here are questions Hillary should answer:

1) Why is she stalling on releasing her tax returns?

2) Why did she lie about her foreign policy experience in Bosnia. Even Sinbad the comedian was with her on this trip and claims she is full of BS. There were never in any danger.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com....._clin.html

3) Why did she lie about her experience in Ireland?

4) Why did 3 Arab countries and 3 other Arab Business men (with ties to wahabism) donated huge sums to the Clinton Library and why won’t the Clintons release the list of donors to the librarywww.clinscandals2008.com

5) Why did Denise Rich donate 70K to Hillary’s senate run after the Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. He also donated 450K to the Clinton Library.

6) How much money did both her brothers make for getting felons pardoned by the Clintons at midnight of his last night in office?

7) Why did Bill gut the intelligence service and refuse to hire Arabic translators?

8) Why did the Clintons allow Osama Bin Laden to get stronger and stronger during their 8 years in office?

9) Why won’t Hillary admit that the big drug companies funded her campaign?

10) If Hillary is so darn smart, then why can’t she win even one caucus?
CatherineS
Posted 03/25/2008 12:13:27 AM
Barack was honest and ballsy and eloquent in his speech against racism. 
There is a good reason that Bill Richardson turned away from the Clintons in disgust to endorse Barack. I’m glad that someone can see through her exterior to the vampire heart beneath.
Today Clinton admitted that she didn’t run off the tarmac in Bosnia under gunfire. She switched her story only because she was caught in her lie due to the fact that news footage of her casual exit there to pose for photo opps proved that she was BSing. Is that what you want in a leader? I think not! She is not entitled to the presidency simply because she is a Clinton. I applauded Bill Richardson when he had the bravery to stand up to the Clintons and come out supporting Barack. Barack has vision, heart, vast intelligence, AND, in fact, more years in elected office than Hillary!

Here are questions Hillary should answer:

1) Why is she stalling on releasing her tax returns?

2) Why did she lie about her foreign policy experience in Bosnia. Even Sinbad the comedian was with her on this trip and claims she is full of BS. There were never in any danger.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com....._clin.html

3) Why did she lie about her experience in Ireland?

4) Why did 3 Arab countries and 3 other Arab Business men (with ties to wahabism) donated huge sums to the Clinton Library and why won’t the Clintons release the list of donors to the librarywww.clinscandals2008.com

5) Why did Denise Rich donate 70K to Hillary’s senate run after the Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. He also donated 450K to the Clinton Library.

6) How much money did both her brothers make for getting felons pardoned by the Clintons at midnight of his last night in office?

7) Why did Bill gut the intelligence service and refuse to hire Arabic translators?

8) Why did the Clintons allow Osama Bin Laden to get stronger and stronger during their 8 years in office?

9) Why won’t Hillary admit that the big drug companies funded her campaign?

10) If Hillary is so darn smart, then why can’t she win even one caucus?
Tom J
Posted 03/25/2008 12:25:32 PM
A year ago someone asked me why I supported Obama. I said he was honest, straightforward, trustworthy and...normal.

I hadn't thought about how unusual this was for a politician until I met him. It's not that he has some sort of 'folksy' quality, it's that he talks to you the way your family or best friends would talk to you - someone who has your best interests at heart and isn't trying to rip you off.

I'm not surprised at what he said about race in that speech, as that's just the way he is. He says what he means and he means what he says. And he's ALSO aware of what people might hear (as opposed to what he's actually saying) and he addresses that too. He'll do that with Congress, and he'll do that in foreign relations.
ConcernedCitizen731
Posted 03/25/2008 12:30:09 PM
Barack Obama gave an excellent speech. He is a gifted orator. However, actions speak louder than words. I have concerns about his judgment. Rev. Jeremiah Wright taught Black Liberation Theology in his sermons. An Internet Search for Black Liberation Theology displays articles that explain the world view and anti-white sentiments of its proponents, most notably James Cone. Rev. Wright has given a lifetime achievement award to the anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan. Barack Obama listened to sermons for 20 years and gave significant amounts of money to support Rev. Wright's preaching. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. I believe he has a thorough understanding of the world view and doctrines of Black Liberation Theology.

Some people argue that Rev. Wright was instrumental in establishing numerous ministries for people with a variety of needs. Rev. Wright and his congregation should be commended for those ministries. However, nearly all churches have ministries that help people with a variety of needs. The good works Rev. Wright has done does not excuse his unpatriotic rhetoric and vulgar actions (Bill was ridin' dirty...) while he was preaching.

Barack Obama could have chosen a spiritual advisor and mentor who agrees with the teaching of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King warned against "drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Barack Obama has exposed his daughters to anti-American and anti-white preaching. I believe his actions have demonstrated that he does not have the judgment to be our President. I think he should work to change the anti-American and anti-white preaching in his own church before he has the audacity to hope for our votes.  
ConcernedCitizen731
Posted 03/25/2008 12:37:36 PM
Barack Obama gave an excellent speech. He is a gifted orator. However, actions speak louder than words. I have concerns about his judgment. Rev. Jeremiah Wright taught Black Liberation Theology in his sermons. An Internet Search for Black Liberation Theology displays articles that explain the world view and anti-white sentiments of its proponents, most notably James Cone. Rev. Wright has given a lifetime achievement award to the anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan. Barack Obama listened to sermons for 20 years and gave significant amounts of money to support Rev. Wright's preaching. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. I believe he has a thorough understanding of the world view and doctrines of Black Liberation Theology.

Some people argue that Rev. Wright was instrumental in establishing numerous ministries for people with a variety of needs. Rev. Wright and his congregation should be commended for those ministries. However, nearly all churches have ministries that help people with a variety of needs. The good works Rev. Wright has done does not excuse his unpatriotic rhetoric and vulgar actions (Bill was ridin' dirty...) while he was preaching.

Barack Obama could have chosen a spiritual advisor and mentor who agrees with the teaching of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King warned against "drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Barack Obama has exposed his daughters to anti-American and anti-white preaching. I believe his actions have demonstrated that he does not have the judgment to be our President. I think he should work to change the anti-American and anti-white preaching in his own church before he has the audacity to hope for our votes.  
ConcernedCitizen731
Posted 03/25/2008 01:00:31 PM
Barack Obama gave an excellent speech. He is a gifted orator. However, actions speak louder than words. Rev. Jeremiah Wright taught Black Liberation Theology in his sermons. An Internet Search for Black Liberation Theology displays articles that explain the world view and anti-white sentiments expressed by its proponents, most notably James Cone. Rev. Wright gave a lifetime achievement award to the anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan. Barack Obama listened to 20 years of sermons and gave significant amounts of money to support Rev. Wright's preaching. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. I believe he has a thorough understanding of the world view and doctrines of Black Liberation Theology.

Some people argue that Rev. Wright was instrumental in establishing numerous ministries that help people with a variety of needs. Rev. Wright and his congregation should be commended for those ministries. However, nearly all churches have ministries that help people with a variety of needs. The good works Rev. Wright has done does not excuse his unpatriotic rhetoric and vulgar actions (Bill was ridin' dirty...) while he was preaching.

Barack Obama could have chosen a spiritual advisor and mentor who agrees with the teaching of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King warned against "drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Barack Obama has exposed his daughters to anti-American and anti-white preaching. I believe his actions have demonstrated that he does not have the judgment to be our President. I think he should work to change the anti-American and anti-white preaching in his own church before he has the audacity to hope for our votes.
branqua
Posted 03/25/2008 03:29:05 PM
Why did Hillary lie about her trip to BOSNIA..You all better be careful about what you wish for, because this woman can really lie, stood before all those people and LIEd outright, anything to win, then have to audacity to say she misspoke..she lied and got caught...
branqua
Posted 03/25/2008 03:35:20 PM
If you are Catholic have you chosen a different church?.All Catholics have been, and is exposed to child molestation from their leaders..get over yourselves..what dumb comments blogs expose.if all had denounced the catholic church, it would be extent, as it should be.
ConcernedCitizen731
Posted 03/26/2008 03:35:53 AM
I am concerned about Barack Obama's judgment. It is important to understand the teaching that has influenced a candidate's world view. Any candidate aspiring to be our President should undergo that scrutiny. Until recently Barack Obama was a blank slate. We have learned that Barack Obama's spiritual advisor and mentor for the past 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, agrees with the teaching of James Cone. James Cone was the founder of Black Liberation Theology and influential in the Black Power movement. An Internet search for James Cone, Black Liberation Theology, Black Power movement, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright will help an honest inquirer understand the teaching that has helped to shape Barack Obama's world view. Barack Obama has listened to sermons for 20 years and gave significant amounts of money to support Rev. Wright's preaching. Rev. Wright gave a lifetime achievement award to the anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan. Margaret Talev has written an informative article concerning the relation between Black Liberation Theology, James Cone, Black Power movement, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The article can be found at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html

Barack Obama could have chosen a spiritual advisor and mentor who agrees with the teaching of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King epitomized treating people the way you want to be treated. He understood the injustices and persecution black people had experienced, but he did not adhere to James Cone's version of Black Liberation Theology and the Black Power movement. Rev. Jeremiah Wright agrees with the teaching of James Cone. There is video evidence of how the teaching of James Cone influenced Rev. Wright's preaching. In one video Rev. Wright  was preaching about blacks harming other blacks. He told his congregation they were fighting the wrong enemy. We have heard Rev. Wright tell his congregation not to say God Bless America. Rev. Wright told his congregation God Damn America...

Barack Obama chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be his spiritual advisor and mentor. Their relationship spanned 20 years. I was very disappointed when I learned that Barack Obama had made that choice. How does a Jewish person feel when he learns that Barack Obama's spiritual advisor and mentor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, gave a lifetime achievement award to to the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan? The Holocaust is a horrendous part of the history of Jewish people. The pain of that experience lingers.

Barack Obama was a blank slate until recently. Barack Obama, no free pass. Not this time.
rent a car
Posted 05/16/2009 06:14:37 AM
Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
Blinq is a news commentary blog featuring contributions from Inquirer Metro columnists Karen Heller, Kevin Riordan and Daniel Rubin.

Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
Also on Philly.com
Stay Connected